I am referred here from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_copy_of_WMF-office_protected_page.

Hello, I am a journalist with The Signpost.

Is anyone here able to give me the last good version of Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation? WMF legal just put a WP:BLACKLOCK on the page.

Here is how I plan to use the text:

1. To develop journalism for The Signpost
2. To share privately with a few high-level, off-wiki commentators from whom Signpost is asking for journalistic comment

The Signpost is not under any journalistic restriction by WMF Legal or otherwise. If that situation changes then there would be notice at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom.

Please email to lanerasberrygmail.com. Alternatively, getting a clear response that no, Wikipedia Oversighters will not do this, will be helpful. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an answer elsewhere that no one here is allowed to share. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_copy_of_WMF-office_protected_page. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that The Signpost is still subject to the same rules and guidelines as the rest of the project - please do not repost content from the deleted page on Wikipedia or it will be deleted and suppressed as well. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody chooses to "repost" parts of the deleted page — including by summarizing it — at pages concerning articles on defamation in India, internet censorship in India, etc., will you oversight it? If so, do you speak for yourself or is that the view of a majority of the oversighters? As far as I see, Legal has nowhere asked you to go about scrubbing all mentions of the litigation; neither has the community. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighting is often backed with blocks, which is a good thing. SerialNumber54129 13:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware that you are an oversighter. Congratulations on the appointment. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the OS blocks will be taken over by the Arbitration Committee, thus limiting the options to appeal. SerialNumber54129 14:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about summarising, for what it's worth. The Signpost has (for better or worse) a history of toeing the line when it comes to posting things they shouldn't (i.e. suppressible information). The WMF deleted the page for a reason, and suppressed the content, and until they say something otherwise we should probably go along with them (they have lawyers who are paid to make these calls). Primefac (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: please excuse my ignorance in this rarified air but no better way to learn other than to ask... What are the relevant policies and guidelines you are referring to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the situation might be a little unclear with oversight talked of here, but a "Do not discuss per Primefac" elsewhere, a better way to learn might be to simply add:

Wikipedia contributors. Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |author= has generic name (help); Invalid |url-status=fucked (help)

and see what happens. Oversight? Block? Remove everywhere. Remove from some places? What does "do not discuss per Primefac" mean?fiveby(zero) 18:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe premature, but Bluerasberry it looks like may include a URL to the content, which i'm pretty sure is under some kind of Copyleft license within the article at your discretion. fiveby(zero) 19:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not pretending the page never existed, nor are we pretending that we cannot talk about it, so the hyperbole is a little much. My comment was primarily because of past issues that the Signpost has had regarding deleted/suppressed information. Primefac (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, neglected to include a diff. Serial Number 54129, why muddy the waters this way? Just say: "I don't think it should be discussed". fiveby(zero) 11:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Office actions and the ArbCom case about them from 2019. Please also desist from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. SerialNumber54129 12:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What aspersion? I thought the situation was pretty clear, don't repost content and don't do stupid WP:BEANS stuff, but don't walk on eggshells either. You said something completely different, invoking someone else's name to do it. When i tried to figure out what "Do not discuss per Primefac" means i saw this and talk of blocks an arbcom. Hence, "muddying the waters". Primefac, I do think posting fair use size quotes from the article is a fair question, if there is a reason to do it. But maybe you can't answer without knowing the reason first. fiveby(zero) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Office actions and the ArbCom case about them from 2019. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only imagine that, by suppressing the content even from administrators' view, the WMF intended to limit the readership as far as possible. Reproducing it without their agreement would be somewhere between unwise and foolhardy. And, contrary to popular opinion, the Signpost is not exempt from the policies that govern the rest of Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost 100% certain that the WMF and fellow travel's intent is to expand readership. fiveby(zero) 17:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the WMF suppressing the page was explicitly to comply with a court order on the basis that this was the optimum long-term legal strategy. You seem to be arguing that their goal was actually malicious compliance via a Streisand effect, if so that's an extraordinary claim that absolutely requires evidence before acting upon it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but i'm saying "widely accessible" and Copyleft should be remembered and "limit the readership" is a pretty strange thing to say. No one can revoke the license on the content. There are some good reasons for editors to read that content. And if anyone has a problem with a URL and has some stake here—they are probably perfectly capable of telling me. Not those imagining things. fiveby(zero) 17:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, think about this, the purpose of the project, the people you are talking about with 'WMF', and the "fellow travelers" who were probably involved in advising. Do you think any of these people would try or even think it is their business to decide what other people read? Primefac obviously saw the link and didn't have a problem with it. WP:OFFICE hasn't said anything or done anything. What are your imaginings which make it a "very bad idea" and who am i flouting exactly? fiveby(zero) 17:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about thinking of the very real potential for the world's most populous country to block Wikimedia projects, or the potential harm to the thousands of editors in that country? There is no deadline: this article can easily be written once the case is over. There is a long history of discretion when the potential for harm to individuals or the project is clear. Don't kid yourself. The Signpost can write an article without giving a link to any hypothetical archived copy. Risker (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely as Risker says. The WMF has taken an extraordinary, interim, action to de-escalate the situation. I'm almost certain the article will be back sooner or later but the WMF needs to show willing so that the court case doesn't get caught up on whether there should be an article about the court case and can move on to the underlying issue. In the meantime, fanning the flames just because we can is unlikely to accomplish much. I suspect editors' attitudes would be different if this dispute were taking place in the United States and not India. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't kid yourself. What Bluerasberry wants to write is up to him and JPxG. If someone who matters here wanted to say shut the fuck up, publicly or i've got email enabled, even without a reason that's fine. If anyone else gave a good reason to say shut the fuck up i'm waiting to hear it. Haven't done any WP:BEANS crap. Someone requested the content i provided a link. Someone tried to muddy the waters i tried to clarify. Are WP:URLs reasonable? I had reasons to post them and sure as shit haven't heard reasons against. fiveby(zero) 18:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, since you have not been listening. Perhaps doing so is an abhorence, I don't know, but I assure you you it pays dividends. You may also desist from colourful language. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 18:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

someone who matters here I'm not sure who you are thinking of by using that term given that multiple oversighters and arbitrators have repeatedly answered your question. Other people can indeed write what they want, but their choices are not free of consequences. In the best case scenario the consequences will be minor and limited to them only, in a worst case scenario the physical safety of editors in India and/or the ability of every person in India to access Wikipedia may be affected. It is that serious. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You should submit your request to: legalwikimedia.org — xaosflux ^Talk 13:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]