Wikipedia:ANI vs. WMF Delhi court
Court updates
editNext Delhi High Court hearing on 11 November
editAccording to this, the next hearing on the case is now scheduled for 11 November.--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- [1] – Released by court. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Keeping in view the above submissions, defendant no.1 is directed to disclose the subscriber details of defendant nos.2 to 4 to the plaintiff, through its counsel, within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of the said information, the plaintiff shall take steps for ensuring service of summons and notice on the application on the said defendants.
— CS(OS) 524/2024 para 12I read that is no more talk of "sealed cover" and releasing directly to ANI.fiveby(zero) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)- That document is from August, no? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, clicked on the wrong order, sorry. fiveby(zero) 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- That document is from August, no? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
11 Nov
editDelhi High Court allows Wikipedia to serve summons on users in ANI's defamation suit.
The court allows Wikimedia Foundation to serve the summons to the editors as an intermediary, thereby avoiding the scenario which the foundation has to reveal the editors' identity. As of this juncture, the editors' privacy remains protected still. However, the editors may still have to appear in the court within a week. As to whether they can take the case remotely or still have their IRL identities remained shielded, it is crystal ball territory. ANI is aware of the open letter and raised it in the court (and possibly misstating what's in the letter with the comments here) but the judge dismissed ANI's new points, acknowledging that different people can have different perspectives.
– robertsky (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's a similar report here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)ANI claimed that one of the signatory of the letter is an editor of Wikipedia who is going to be summoned in the suit.
- Ok, so now we need to think about next steps and the open letter should probably be closed to further signatures. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: What kind of "next steps" are you talking about? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think that following the latest developments, it is important to allow signatures to the open letter for at least a few more days. As far as I can see, ?names to the court is no guarantee of identity protection. It would be useful to hear from WMF's lawyers on this. And when exactly is the follow-up and what could the consequences be?--Ipigott (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: What kind of "next steps" are you talking about? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Jimbo's commented the letter's talk page. Sincerely, Dilettante Sincerely, Dilettante 19:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Jimbo's comment is largely in line with my views here. – robertsky (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- WMF argues itself to be an intermediary, therefore the burden to prove that the content is not defamatory now falls on the editors.[2] - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- AFAIK it doesn't work that way. The accusation should prove that the article is defamatory, not the opposite. Yann (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- It does work that way in India, Yann. This case was admitted by Delhi High Court, on original jurisdiction, not appellate i.e, it was considered important enough in pre-admission stage for a prima facia case. In India, merit is decided at the pre-admission stage. @Valereee:, read the medianama report that Ratnahastin shared above. ANI's lawyer made the case for collusion with, and protection of, its editors, based on the updates that the editor shared with you. Editors here know zilch about Indian laws. I say, keep the private correspondence with the editor private. It does more harm than good. — hako9 (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Hako9, sorry, do you mean this? It doesn't say anything about the updates the editor has shared that I can find...it mentions comments made at VP about the court not being neutral, it mentions one of the editors in question signing the open letter. Which part do you think is referring to that shared info?
- This was info I was asked to share on this editor's behalf in order to allow them to describe what was happening but still protect their privacy. I don't really see how I can refuse to do that for someone. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- The editor shared that wmf will pay for their legal defense here. — hako9 (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but the mediamama article says "Kumar pointed to a post made by Wikipedia’s legal team on Village Pump, a forum used by the platform’s community. The post stated that Wikipedia had in fact informed the editors of the case and offered them legal aid." It doesn't say anything at all about collusion based on the updates I shared. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- JSutherland's post here gives a plausible deniability. He posted that wmf has a Legal Fees Assistance Program, unlike the editor's communication that they asked to share with us here, which confirmed they are covering the fees. I am really not blaming you for anything. I am sure that the lawyer representing the editor has asked the editor to stop sharing further info. But if they do want to share, just run it by wmf first. — hako9 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I strenuously disagree that Valereee did anything inadvisable here, or indeed that she had any real choice in the situation to which you allude. She's hardly behaved in a cavalier fashion throughout this affair: indeed, she's been one of the strongest voices for showing faith and patience in the WMF and urging hesitation on bold community response, even where it has been arguably the right call. But once she was put in the position that the user's request created, her only realistic alternative was to force that user to dox themselves in order to communicate their concerns to the community, triggering the very outcome they were, through reasonable means given their circumstances, seeking to avoid through those communications. I have a hard time seeing how that would benefit anyone here--other than, frankly, ANI. SnowRise let's rap 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- How would one know that the user had doxed themselves when it seems that ANI had conflated the open letter with the discussions here and on the open letter's talk page (nothing on the open letter claimed that the court was biased, but there were plenty here 😂)? For all we may know, they may be referring to the proxy updates that Valereee made. – robertsky (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Running it by WMF first is up to the editor in question. If WMF prefers they stop updating us, I'm sure WMF will tell them that, and they can make that decision. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I strenuously disagree that Valereee did anything inadvisable here, or indeed that she had any real choice in the situation to which you allude. She's hardly behaved in a cavalier fashion throughout this affair: indeed, she's been one of the strongest voices for showing faith and patience in the WMF and urging hesitation on bold community response, even where it has been arguably the right call. But once she was put in the position that the user's request created, her only realistic alternative was to force that user to dox themselves in order to communicate their concerns to the community, triggering the very outcome they were, through reasonable means given their circumstances, seeking to avoid through those communications. I have a hard time seeing how that would benefit anyone here--other than, frankly, ANI. SnowRise let's rap 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- JSutherland's post here gives a plausible deniability. He posted that wmf has a Legal Fees Assistance Program, unlike the editor's communication that they asked to share with us here, which confirmed they are covering the fees. I am really not blaming you for anything. I am sure that the lawyer representing the editor has asked the editor to stop sharing further info. But if they do want to share, just run it by wmf first. — hako9 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but the mediamama article says "Kumar pointed to a post made by Wikipedia’s legal team on Village Pump, a forum used by the platform’s community. The post stated that Wikipedia had in fact informed the editors of the case and offered them legal aid." It doesn't say anything at all about collusion based on the updates I shared. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- The editor shared that wmf will pay for their legal defense here. — hako9 (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- hmm... it suddenly struck me that this case may turn bigger than just the three editors in question, if there are interested third-parties (on both side of the argument) wanting to make use of this case to advance their own interests. – robertsky (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- We have heard about Republic TV and Hindu News are looking for some legal actions as well. I think they are looking to see the outcome of the ANI case before they make their move. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- @SunDawn: By Hindu News do you mean the right leaning media networks or The Hindu. If the prior, then it is better you use that term, as it sounds calling Fox News as 'Christian news' or CNN as 'Atheist news'. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 12:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- The name is literally Hindu News. Here is the discussion where the legal threat is somewhat made. And look at their first page: That designated Nodal officers of MHA, Survey of India, MEA (IBD) have all issued official notices, separately, under the Information Technology Act calling for prosecution of M/s WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, USA for sedition and acts affecting the Defence of India, sovereignity, unity and integrity of India and for causing disaffetion in the people. These notices under section 79(3)(b) of IT Act were based inter-alia on complaints of members of HINDU Samaj. Here is the link to their website. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weird random website, joining the trend of suing, possibly for publicity. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 15:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- We don't currently have an article titled Hindu News, so I'm not sure what kind of defamation they are suing us for. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently, it is for considering them to not be a reliable source at WP:RSN. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- The name is literally Hindu News. Here is the discussion where the legal threat is somewhat made. And look at their first page: That designated Nodal officers of MHA, Survey of India, MEA (IBD) have all issued official notices, separately, under the Information Technology Act calling for prosecution of M/s WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, USA for sedition and acts affecting the Defence of India, sovereignity, unity and integrity of India and for causing disaffetion in the people. These notices under section 79(3)(b) of IT Act were based inter-alia on complaints of members of HINDU Samaj. Here is the link to their website. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- @SunDawn: By Hindu News do you mean the right leaning media networks or The Hindu. If the prior, then it is better you use that term, as it sounds calling Fox News as 'Christian news' or CNN as 'Atheist news'. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 12:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hindu News. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- We have heard about Republic TV and Hindu News are looking for some legal actions as well. I think they are looking to see the outcome of the ANI case before they make their move. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- It does work that way in India, Yann. This case was admitted by Delhi High Court, on original jurisdiction, not appellate i.e, it was considered important enough in pre-admission stage for a prima facia case. In India, merit is decided at the pre-admission stage. @Valereee:, read the medianama report that Ratnahastin shared above. ANI's lawyer made the case for collusion with, and protection of, its editors, based on the updates that the editor shared with you. Editors here know zilch about Indian laws. I say, keep the private correspondence with the editor private. It does more harm than good. — hako9 (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- AFAIK it doesn't work that way. The accusation should prove that the article is defamatory, not the opposite. Yann (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/12/26/indias-proposed-intermediary-liability-rules-could-limit-everyones-access-to-information-online/ - Found this letter by WMF to Ravi Shankar Prasad (MeitY). - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- no idea what MeitY is supposed to be. Here's the full name for acronym: Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. – robertsky (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- From that letter:
The proposed changes may have serious impact on Wikipedia’s open editing model
. I believe that comment should have been appended with "in India." It would be terrible to have WP blocked in India, but it would be far worse if the WMF abandons its mission due to defamation laws in India. Or anywhere else, for that matter. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Yesterday's court order [3] :
(a) Respondent No. 1 shall promptly ensure that fresh summons be issued to Respondent Nos. 2-4 in the Suit bearing number CS. (O.S.) 524 of 2024 and made available to the Appellant for dasti service upon Respondent Nos. 2-4. The Appellant shall serve Respondent Nos. 2-4 with the summons along with a copy of this order in fulfillment of all applicable legal requirements for service of summons by email, within 4 days of the summons being made available.
(b) The Appellant shall file an affidavit of service in accordance with Chapter VI, Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 in sealed cover disclosing all the basic subscriber details of Respondent No. 2-4 available with it, along with the proof of service of summons by email within 7 days of service of summons and shall simultaneously provide the counsel for Respondent No. 1 with a redacted copy of the affidavit of service, after redacting the basic subscriber details of Respondent Nos. 2-4, as disclosed in the sealed cover.
(e) Respondent No. I shall be at liberty to approach the Ld. Single Judge for disclosure of the information and documents filed in sealed cover, if required, which shall be considered in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are left open.
- Ratnahastin (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- So based on my reading on these, it seems like WMF still have to provide the "basic subscriber details" to the court? Thankfully we have confirmed that ANI won't receive the full detail. The question then became what kind of "basic subscriber details" is being provided? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Read the last paragraph. Respondent 1 (ANI) can approach the single judge bench for disclosure of the information and documents filed in sealed cover. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is fine.
Lunar-akaunto／talk 14:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is fine.
- Read the last paragraph. Respondent 1 (ANI) can approach the single judge bench for disclosure of the information and documents filed in sealed cover. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)