Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the Foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.

Behaviour on this page: This page is for engaging with and discussing the Wikimedia Foundation. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of the foundation are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be met with sanctions.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Official Wikipedia Roblox game and Generative AI use

[edit]

I considered whether to add this as a subsection to the above RFC on WMF AI development, but decided not to as I didn't want to further bloat that discussion. Regardless, just earlier today I came across a post on instagram from the official Wikipedia instagram account (facebook link for boomers who don't have instagram) showcasing a new Wikipedia Roblox game. The post was made almost two weeks ago so I'm not sure whether it has already been discussed before, but this is a continuation of the use of generative AI (the cover image for the game page, which is also included in the instagram and facebook posts is almost certainly AI) which has quite openly been discussed and decried by many users in the community. I also think that this is a different issue, though, as rather than this use of AI being even remotely justifiable as trying to improve the quality of the 'pedia, the use of generative AI images in what is basically marketing materials really only serves to costs while providing a worse product. I also echo users concerns about the WMF's environmentalism when they say things like The Wikimedia Foundation believes that a long-term commitment to sustainability is an essential component of our work towards the Wikimedia mission and vision here, but then use generative AI to create images for their Roblox game.

I'm aware that most folks on here are certainly not the demographic targeted by this sort of post, but in the end it still reflects on us, so I wonder what folks think. Weirdguyz (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added a link to the Roblox game as well, but roblox.com is on the blacklist, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Weirdguyz (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.roblox.com/games/99320538920886/Wikispeedia-the-Wikipedia-Speedrunning-Game * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the WMF, last week: Bringing generative AI into the Wikipedia reading experience is a serious set of decisions, with important implications, and we intend to treat it as such.
I guess the skibidi brainrot market technically is not the "Wikipedia reading experience" Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the skibidi brainrot market technically is not the "Wikipedia reading experience", exactly! I'm aware that most folks on here are certainly not the demographic targeted by this sort of post, I think is the most important part. We don't know what folks who are actually in that segment want/use. The Future Audiences team is creating short-lived experiments to understand what kind of content the younger generation want. It obviously will be considered borderline by folks who are not the target demographic (which will be a large portion of the community base). I don't support Roblox's exploitative marketplace nor am I supporter of AI image generation, but I do recognize that these explorations are necessary to understand and figure out what kind of media for consuming Wikipedia is popular among the younger crowd (damn, that makes me sound old). Whether or not the WMF invests significantly more resources into that direction and decides to rewrite MediaWiki in Roblox-lang (I believe it is a flavour of Lua?) is up for debate and something that we should (and rightfully does) have a say on. Sohom (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do my eyes deceive me, are you saying Roblox may be incubating a generation of Wikipedia coders? I might change my mind on that game. CMD (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The games on Roblox are written using a abridged version of Lua called Luau, so maybe yes :) Sohom (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gripe is certainly not with the fact that they've made a Roblox game, bringing in the younger generations is paramount to the continuation of our goal (I say this as one of the younger (relatively...) generations). My issue is solely with the generative AI used in said pursuit, because the only argument in favour of it is that it is cheaper than paying an actual artist. The quality of the work is worse than if you got an actual artist to make something, the environmental impact is a genuine measurable concern, and the number of people who will see the use of generative AI and be turned off the WMF and Wikipedia is not insubstantial. Weirdguyz (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If only we had a repository of free images they could have used instead, or a cohort of editors who might be willing to create and donate actual human work for this. Fram (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really have any Roblox characters on commons (for better or for worse) that could have been used. Sohom (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my stance as well. That, and the fact that it's terrible optics -- Wikimedia has already gotten a significant amount of negative PR for using generative AI in the "paused" summary feature. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta Oooo fascinating! Where is this ". The Future Audiences team" to be found please? very curious to know as have some ideas on Wikipedia audio archiving. Much thanks I&I22 (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@I&I22 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Future_Audiences Polygnotus (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus thank you so much!!! super! will check I&I22 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Future_Audiences#Monthly_conversations Polygnotus (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It there is a desire to productively engage on questions regarding the use of generative AI/llms/similar, it is probably not worth it in terms of both time and in terms of effective collaboration to respond to each individual use of gen AI. What is likely more effective is generating engagement with the processes behind them. In this case, the relevant initiative is meta:Future Audiences. You can see their stance on gen AI at meta:Future Audiences/FAQ: "The Wikimedia Foundation view of conversational/generative AI specifically is that we (Wikimedians, Mediawiki software developers, and WMF staff) have developed and used machine-assisted tools and processes on our projects for many years, and it is important to keep learning about how recent advances in AI technology might help our movement; however, it is equally important not to ignore the challenges and risks that commercial AI assistants may bring not just to our model of human-led knowledge creation and sharing, but to the entire ecosystem of digital knowledge." I stated somewhere during the discussion of meta:Future Audiences/Generated Video that there have been some flawed risk considerations, for example that "Experiment" (quoting to indicate this is the terminology they use, not a scare quote) page has a subsection on the risks of associating Wikipedia with TikTok, but nothing on associating Wikipedia with generative AI. (I might add that the first two bullet points at meta:Future Audiences seem to pose contradictory lessons, possibly worth digging into.) Now, what I haven't figured out and what perhaps we haven't worked out as a community is how to effectively channel feedback about broader themes rather than individual activities, and then perhaps more importantly how we remain continually engaged on that end. Say that the RfC on a statement on AI comes to a consensus, what happens next? It's quite a hard question as to how something as amorphous as en.wiki can be represented in these processes. The Future Audiences team has meetings every month, is an attendee there from en.wiki going to be representative? Should we be proactively trying to figure out statements here for such meetings in advance? How would that be most collegial/effective? A further complication is that the WMF is also not a monolith, the meta:Reading/Web team for example which is looking into the gen AI Simple Article Summaries is a different team with its own projects. Should we use this noticeboard to figure out statements that can be transferred to meta, or does that fall down as meta threads are also a discussion? We sometimes contribute to community wishlists, we have individual members who engage, but do we as a community have an overall approach? I'm rambling slightly, and I know some would prefer we did not have to engage, but we do have to and given the historical difficulties in communication maybe we could think of some ideas to create something a little more sustained. CMD (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think engaging is the only way forward for folks on the teams to know what the communities take on this matter is. Not engaging never was (and still is not) the answer especially if the expectation is for the WMF to reflect the views of the community.
I can/will try to be around during the next call for Future Audiences whenever that is but I don't think "proactively trying to figure out statements here for such meetings in advance" is the way to go in these kinds of situations, rather the idea would be for the enwiki representative to act as a steward/helpful member who is able to vouch for and provide context for the team's decisions while also guiding the team to not make major policy missteps and provide stewardship on where and when to ask feedback.
(Unrelatedly, is mw:Future Audiences/Generated Video about AI generated videos or just using generative text-to-speech software (which has been around for a while) ? My understanding was the latter, the former would be concerning) Sohom (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the short videos were mostly AI generated, in that the AI did the writing and the voicing (so to speak). I don't recall if the AI chose the images, or whether the final cut was done manually. CMD (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta & @Chipmunkdavis: to create these videos, we use AI to do an initial cut of selecting some images and text from a target article + "hook" (which either comes from DYK or we write ourselves) and summarize the text into a 30-secondish-length video. Members of our social media team then review and make changes to this first draft (ensuring that the summarization of facts from the article is correct and has the appropriate tone, selecting different images from the article or Commons if needed, etc.) before posting. The narration is indeed generative text-to-speech, though we've also gotten some of our staff to supply narration for a few of these. This use of AI helps us greatly reduce the time/cost to make these videos. We're also very happy to feature community-created content on these channels and have published several (example from the folks at Wikimedia Armenia). These take more time & effort, but in the longer term we'd love to get a bigger ratio of community faces to "fun fact" explainers on these channels, so if you or anyone you know is interested in creating some short video content, please get in touch! Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an AI generated image for social media doesn't bother me. As I said in another WMF related thread, enwiki only has so much political capital, and we should use it wisely, i.e. making a stink only about issues that are truly worth it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely true and we shouldn't be getting pissy everytime the WMF does anything outside of "make enwiki better". Is "AI" (read: chatgpt and LLMs) bad? 100% without a doubt. But if its used on a platform like Roblox, then I really don't care. Roblox is a cesspool anyway. Trying to connect with Gen Alpha and introduce them to Wikipedia (preferably as editors) is a good goal and is something that the WMF should be working on. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 04:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Weirdguyz, member of the Future Audiences team here! TBC, the cover image for the Roblox game was created by the lovely humans in our Brand Studio team, not AI. The game itself also doesn't involve any generative AI imagery. I can understand the confusion, though, given the (for lack of a better word) "robo-blocky" nature of the Roblox aesthetic. Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MPinchuk (WMF) any secrets you can let us in on, is the cover character one of the team? CMD (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Ha, I don't think it's meant to look like any specific person... just a cool Roblox guy Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MPinchuk (WMF): Forgive me for being cynical, but I have both seen too many AI-generated images, and played too much Roblox myself (I am quite familiar with the visual style of Roblox, going back over a decade...) to truly believe that generative AI didn't play even a small part in the creation of the cover image without any evidence. Just to illustrate what concerns me most, the design on the bottom of the shoe that can be seen exhibits many of the hallmarks of generative AI images, where it knows vaguely what it is meant to look like, but cant quite get the details correct, so it ends up with lines and structures that don't really go anywhere or don't match correctly. If any insight into the design process for the image could be shown that would be wonderful, but I completely understand that there are limitations to what can be made public. Weirdguyz (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Weirdguyz My apologies, I misunderstood your original question (I thought your concern was about whether we used AI in the design of the game itself, which we didn't) and I didn't address what the process looked like for making the Roblox marketing image specifically. For us, the team responsible for making the Roblox game, the process was: we needed a cover image to use in Roblox and in the social media posts about it that would convey the feel of the game and match the Roblox aesthetic, so we asked our Brand team (who are professional designers who make other marketing materials for our social channels) to help us. They provided a few different ideas, we workshopped which ones we liked and then chose the final design concept together, which Brand then refined and finalized. Honestly, I don't have insight into exactly what tools were used to create or refine the image, and the designer is currently out of office, but it met our needs of conveying gameplay, looking Roblox-y, and being the right size & resolution for social channels.

(Also: cool to hear that you're an avid Roblox player! Have you had a chance to play our game? Any thoughts/feedback? We're currently working on some refinements to help with stickiness and learning, i.e., adding some knowledge quizzes to the gameplay – would love to also get your feedback on those changes once those are out in a few weeks.) Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MPinchuk (WMF) Very confusing. Why does the WMF think the community wants it to develop Roblox stuff? If that isn't the case, why does the WMF think Roblox players, who are between 7 and 13 years old are a good demographic to target? Why in this way? How much money and time did this cost? How many billable hours? How will the return on investment be calculated? This seems like a massive waste of time for unclear (no) benefit. And Roblox is truly evil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXlauRB1EQ Polygnotus (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7-13 year kids today will one day become 16-17+ year old who might edit Wikipedia (or atleast have a positive association with Wikipedia from a early age). Even if the community did not explicitly ask for a Roblox game, there is implicit consensus on allowing the WMF to experiment and try to attract contributors to the project. I assume this is being thought of as a Gateway drug instead of a thing unto itself. Sohom (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is explicitly important thing to do since more and more companies keep summarizing our info and conveniently forget to link to us decreasing the ability to convert folks into editors. Sohom (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta: 7-13 year kids today will one day become 16-17+ year old who might edit Wikipedia Agreed. But then it would possibly be more efficient (and cheaper) to reach out to them when they are 16-17+? Even if the community did not explicitly ask for a Roblox game, there is implicit consensus on allowing the WMF to experiment Maybe. But when I experiment I don't just randomly smash rocks together to see what happens; I have a hypothesis that I want to prove or disprove to build on underlying knowledge I have acquired over the years. And since I don't start every experiment at zero it is reasonable to ask things like: "What were your assumptions? Why? How will you determine if this was a success?". I assume this is being thought of as a gateway drug A debunked theory is perhaps not the greatest comparison; but I get what you mean.
Also this is explicitly important thing to do since more and more companies keep summarizing our info and conveniently forget to link to us decreasing the ability to convert folks into editors. That genie is out of the bottle. It would be weird to suddenly start demanding attribution. And using an LLM effectively "whitewashes" the use of licensed and copyrighted material. Polygnotus (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you know of an effective way to reach 16-17yos, please suggest it as I'm pretty sure anything slightly likely to work will have a good chance of being tried out. I believe the team tracked retention after the first play and stickiness of repeat players as metrics for the initial deployment, although I can't find the report. CMD (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I think that the entire assumption that the kind of people we want are unaware of Wikipedia's existence by the time they have reached 18 is flawed (in the western world). Kinda difficult to keep a "compendium of all human knowledge" a secret from nerds; especially when Wikipedia is usually the top result for any search query on Google.
If you know of an effective way to reach 16-17yos, please suggest it Wikipedia contributors are a very specific kind of people. Marketing companies exist who specialize in this kinda thing.
I think the main problem is not brand recognition, but the fact that Wikipedia is shit at converting readers to editors and our tendency to bite even good-faith newbies. The whole set of uw- templates has depersonalized communication and has made human connection even more infrequent. Another problem is that we encourage children who are new to Wikipedia to do vandalfighting which results in them reverting a lot of goodfaith contributions. Polygnotus (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess the assumption is more that finding a way to better show the backend (in this case, the web between articles) might make people more interested. This is not a new discussion, and no-one has really figured out a 'solution'. New ideas are much more helpful that saying a current one might not be maximally effective. CMD (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis New ideas are much more helpful that saying a current one might not be maximally effective. That makes little sense. There are many situations in which an old well-known solution to a problem is superior to whatever new stuff you can come up with. Dismissing all ideas that aren't "new" is unhelpful at best.
Saying that a new bad idea is a bad idea is helpful because people can stop wasting time and money and ideally it would prevent us from making the same or similar mistakes over and over again. And if you read carefully you'll see I also explained why the idea is bad and provided both superior alternatives and advice that could be used to ensure that future plans would be better. Polygnotus (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find your explanations convincing, especially as part of it seemed to rely on there not being any hypothesis. The advice going forward was also quite generic. We don't have an "old well-known solution" here. Nobody has dismissed all ideas that aren't "new". If I was to start somewhere my thinking is that a good part of the issue may be "known", and that the WMF should be doing way more regarding monitoring and evaluating affiliate actions to figure out what is "known". CMD (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I did not find your explanations convincing I can explain stuff, but I can't understand it for you. We don't have an "old well-known solution" here. Yes we do, and I mentioned it already. Nobody has dismissed all ideas that aren't "new". See straw man. Polygnotus (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a strawman, it's a direct reply to your statement immediately above. CMD (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Compare Nobody has dismissed all ideas that aren't "new" with my comment. Polygnotus (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the underlying assumption here that I did not do that when actually writing the reply? "Dismissing all ideas that aren't "new" is unhelpful"->"Nobody has dismissed all ideas that aren't "new"" is almost as close as can be. If the discussion is going to be claims that a direct reply is a strawman coupled with swipes about understanding, then it is not going to be lead to any productive outcome. CMD (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I do not know what you do or don't do. I do not work at one of those 3 letter agencies and therefore all I know about you is what you have written on your userpage, which is not much. Perhaps we both like chipmunks? You seem to interpret the sentence Dismissing all ideas that aren't "new" is unhelpful at best. as "You are dismissing all ideas that aren't "new" which is unhelpful at best." but that was not the intended meaning. If it was I would've written that. In my experience most goodfaith people who disagree with me either misunderstand me or do not have (access to) the same information. Especially in cases like this, where it is unlikely that goodfaith people have wildly diverging opinions. Polygnotus (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted "Dismissing all ideas that aren't "new" is unhelpful at best" as being related to something written prior in the conversation, but not necessarily by me ("You"). My reply "Nobody" was a general reference to all participants of the conversation, not just my comments. I don't think the Roblox experiment will be successful either, but it is relatively small, and does not impede editing or the direct experience of Wikipedia. If I had a better idea that fits the mandate of the Future Audiences team, I would raise it with them. Alas, I do not and right now only have my critical comments about the inherent conflict in their core findings and my related former comment about how their risk assessments have a substantial gap. I don't think either of these would impact the Roblox experiment anyway, and am quite happy for WMF to run relatively safe experiments even if they fail. (My shameful secret is that I have no unique affinity for chipmunks, as inherently valuable as they are, I'm simply stuck in decades of path dependency.) CMD (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Are you familiar with Minecraft's redstone? The kinda kids who built computers out of them are the kind we want. But they'll probably already know of Wikipedia. I strongly believe that focusing on user retention makes more sense than focusing on user acquisition at this point.
Cheek pouch says: The cheek pouches of chipmunks can reach the size of their body when full. Polygnotus (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we can establish the casual redstoners who just built a door as well as the ones who run Pokemon in Minecraft. I find that cheek pouch statement hard to believe. CMD (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Same. Cheek_pouch#Chipmunks lists 3 refs. Polygnotus (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In marketing speak, there are brand awareness campaigns and remarketing campaigns. Its primary utility, which is to maintain the brand awareness, which to many people would seem inefficient as it is typically more spray (for awareness) than pray (for returns). As a brand awareness campaign, it is a long shot, but if a few years down the road and some new editors go 'yeah, Roblox! There was that Wikipedia game. I played that.' we know it had done it's work. For the efficiency that you sought, it would usually be remarketing campaigns where the marketers know that what audience to tap on, and what marketing message to design for (i.e. remember the Wikipedia game in Roblox? Here's how you can contribute to Wikipedia.). There is no guarantee that the older kids know Wikipedia in the same homogeneous manner(s) than that of the brand awareness campaigns. – robertsky (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't whitewash diddly squat. jp×g🗯️ 06:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG Not sure what you mean. If X commits copyright infringement of Y's book, by publishing the exact same text without permission, Y can go to a court and get X convicted of copyright infringement.
If X trains an AI model on 100.000 books, including the book written by Y, Y cannot go to a court and get X convicted of copyright infringement. So the copyright infringement has been whitewashed (made untraceable). Hope that helps. Polygnotus (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it didn't occur? jp×g🗯️ 18:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG It was in response to Sohom. Sohom wrote: Also this is explicitly important thing to do since more and more companies keep summarizing our info and conveniently forget to link to us decreasing the ability to convert folks into editors.. So my reaction is in response to that, and not about this WMF/Roblox thing. Polygnotus (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's so sad to see the reputation of Wikipedia, built over so many years by volunteers working every day, squandered by the WMF's bad decisions without even consulting the community Ita140188 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
citation needed Donald Albury 13:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah its not like Wikipedia has a great reputation. Polygnotus (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to see proof of our reputation being tarnished in any way by this. This roblox game has literally nothing to do with the editing process over here yet people are treating it like a thermonuclear bomb. Its a silly kids game. Thats it. Its not that deep. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 04:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MPinchuk (WMF): Great job! Any chance the game will be open-source?
Roblox has a lot of young people who also enjoy learning to code. Since the WMF isn't making the game for profit, you might end up with a competitive advantage by allowing the same people who like the game to contribute to it.
For the record, I do not care if generative AI is used to create cover art for the game. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chess: Thanks for asking! Everything we produce is open source. Please see this GitLab repo. Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am on Roblox, and I'm currently on a 17 day edit streak and well on my way to EC. I think, yeah, we should have this game, and it should be about building things, and others can edit your builds, like here! Starfall2015 let's talk profile 08:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Starfall2015, if you have ideas for how the game could be built further, I'm sure they would welcome your thoughts at meta:Talk:Future Audiences/Roblox game. CMD (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot the comments here are quite negative and insistent, so I think I ought to say that I don't really care if you guys slop an image for some Roblox game. Who cares? Has anyone in this thread actually volunteered to make a replacement image? Wikipedia has disproportionate representation of post-retirement college professors and stern librarians and elite programming wizards, which is great for basically every encyclopedic pursuit, but I don't think we are really subject matter experts on skibidi ohio sigma mewmaxxing to rizz quirked up aoomer shawties, or whatever the hell it is teens do on roblox. jp×g🗯️ 06:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because Wikipedia shouldn't do Roblox in the first place. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a bad imitation of Reddit or Tiktok Ita140188 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Roblox is not part of Wikipedia. It is a separate website -- hope this helps. jp×g🗯️ 18:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My question is why the WMF is using resources to develop Roblox games instead of using those developer resources to improve Wikipedia? We are always told there are not enough resources to fix charts, work on wishes, or fix the endless bugs and issues with the current software, but apparently resources are available for developing unrelated games for a for-profit corporation without even asking the community first? Ita140188 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the amount of time spent was limited, and the person who developed it wouldn't otherwise have spent time on other things.
    So perhaps criticizing this specific Roblox thing is not the best approach, when you can criticize the WMF for hoarding gold like a dragon and not doing the things they are supposed to be doing. Polygnotus (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has disproportionate representation of post-retirement college professors and stern librarians and elite programming wizards, which is great for basically every encyclopedic pursuit – Maybe. And maybe you are also true about us not being experts on Generation Alpha. But I think there is a significant bias on Wikipedia towards popular-culture content, as opposed to science content, at least amongst articles that reach DYK level. To paraphrase: Wikipedia's coverage of scientific topics (at least ones that are not so widely known) is very far from ideal. Janhrach (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

End-of-year donation banner in July

[edit]

Why did I start getting the end-of-year donation banner when it's still July? 174.138.212.166 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread above. You were presumably part of a test group. Sdkb talk 20:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCite is back – Save the Date

[edit]

August 29–31, 2025 Bern, Switzerland & Online

After several years of silence, WikiCite is coming back — and it’s doing so with a fresh, hybrid format and a clear goal: to reconnect communities, institutions, and individuals working with open citations, bibliographic data, and the Wikidata/Wikibase ecosystem.

Whether you're a Wikimedian, a librarian, a developer, or simply passionate about the future of open knowledge, this is your chance to participate in shaping the next chapter of WikiCite.

Event Overview

Day 1 – Friday, August 29

In-person in Bern, Switzerland

Institutional sessions and showcases with invited speakers. All talks will be recorded and shared online.

Day 2 – Saturday, August 30

Fully online via live video conferencing

Technical discussions, community talks, and cross-timezone engagement.

Day 3 – Sunday, August 31

Online and community-driven

Interactive workshops, do-a-thons, and “Ideas for Tomorrow” closing sessions.

Key Topics

The event will explore major developments and shared challenges in the WikiCite ecosystem, including:

  • Federated Ontologies and Wikibase Federation – Coordination across decentralized Wikibase instances and aligning schemas across platforms
  • Wikidata and Library Catalog Integration – Case studies from ETH Zürich and Swiss institutions on using Wikidata for authority data and bibliographic infrastructure
  • Open Citations and Structured Bibliographic Metadata – Linking scientific publications, cultural heritage, and research outputs using Wikidata
  • Tooling and Technical Infrastructure – New tools for querying, editing, and visualizing WikiCite data (e.g. LOTUS, Scholia, SPARQL evolution)
  • Scalability and the Graph Split – Discussions on the Blazegraph replacement, SPARQL federation, and long-term architecture of Wikidata
  • Data Quality and Disambiguation – Examples like the “Swiss homonyms cleanup” and strategies for maintaining data integrity
  • Collaborative Models and Governance – How libraries, Wikimedia chapters, and research institutions are collaborating to co-maintain the bibliographic graph
  • Community and Innovation – Lightning talks, interactive do-a-thons, Wikidata games, and open proposal slots for emerging ideas

Who should attend?

  • Wikidata contributors and WikiCite supporters
  • Librarians, archivists, researchers, digital humanists
  • Developers and data engineers
  • Institutions interested in structured, open bibliographic metadata
  • Anyone curious about Wikidata and open citations

Want to join? Let us know

Register (non-binding, helps us plan): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2025/Participants

Program: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2025/Programme

Event info: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2025

Ilario (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 14

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on July 11. Please help translate. The bulletin will be back after Wikimania with a special issue on the 19th August.
Matatu bus illustration.png
Get Ready for Wikimania 2025!

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

  • Wikimania 2025: Register to join virtually the 20th Wikimania taking place from August 6-9. The programme has highlights from across Wikimedia projects and communities including the reveal of who will be this year's Wikimedians of the year.
  • Strengthening a neutral point of view: An overview of NPOV policies across Wikipedia projects, shows that 153 Wikipedias out of 342 (45%) don’t have easily accessible guidance on neutrality. The research was conducted to help understand how neutrality is ensured in our projects. and to provide an opportunity for peer learning across project communities. Read the full research and join the conversation.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: Progress on the annual plan

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

Foundation statements

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 21:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço

[edit]

Dear all,

I’m writing to let you know about recent office actions the Foundation has taken in English- and Portuguese-language Wikipedias, related to the articles about Cesar DePaço. The Foundation was sued by DePaço to remove information in 2021 and was issued an order to delete content from Wikipedia and provide user data. Unfortunately, after several years of appeals, we have fully exhausted the options available to us in the Portuguese legal system and were only able to partially limit rather than fully overturn the order. We were therefore obligated to comply with the order based on the applicability of Portuguese law to this case.  

We consider this a regrettable outcome. The decision undermines the right to privacy and free expression of volunteers who contribute edits and share information on Wikipedia. Further, it removes access to knowledge for the millions of people who read Wikipedia in Portuguese and English.

We remain committed to defending the right of everyone to freely access and share knowledge, and we have asked the European Court of Human Rights to rule on whether this outcome violates the European Convention on Human Rights. More information is available below.

What actions will be taken

Parts of the articles about DePaço were ruled by the Portuguese courts to infringe DePaço’s rights to honour or privacy, relating to accusations of past crimes, an organization he was alleged to have founded, and his resignation (or dismissal) from a civil service post. Not all the material that was the subject of the original lawsuit, such as DePaço's political donations, was deemed to be illegal by the courts, so our office action has been limited to oversighting only the sections deemed illegal by the courts.

In addition, as noted, the original court order required identification of users. Because the courts subsequently reduced what content was illegal, we were also able to very considerably reduce the total user disclosure requirements alongside this change. Nevertheless, this order has required the disclosure of a small amount of user data for eight users who added the material that the courts deemed illegal.

We plan to support the affected users, and we will continue to pursue our multi-year international legal and advocacy strategy to enhance protections for Wikimedians and the Wikimedia projects.

Filing with the European Court of Human Rights

We remain committed to defending the right of everyone to freely access and share knowledge, and we have submitted the case before the European Court of Human Rights. In our filing, we argue that the decision violates the right to freedom of expression and would improperly chill users who were working to report on a public matter using available public sources. In addition, we argue that the Foundation did not receive the opportunity to properly defend the users or get important questions of EU law to the European Court of Justice that were critical to protecting the freedom of expression of Wikipedia users.

About Biographies of Living People (BLP) on Wikipedia

We think it is regrettable that a notable person was able to so carefully control information about them. The Foundation remains concerned that this is a case of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) designed to suppress well-sourced public information. We believe that attacking Wikipedia is the wrong approach for navigating complaints with biographical content; rather, people should engage with Wikipedia about the sources referenced and seek to have corrections made to sources for allegedly inaccurate reporting. We believe that the law in Portugal and many other places should offer better protections to editors doing their best to research and write about living people. In the meantime, we encourage editors to take particular care in line with BLP policies in each language when writing and sourcing biographical articles: the courts here made clear that they were willing grant both content removal and user identification where they ruled that content was inaccurate and harmed a person’s reputation. Please also see the Digital Security Resource Center to better protect your digital security as a volunteer. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly BLARed the article, since I think it's better we have no article at all then one that the subject can control. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could have a template to be used on articles where content has been removed by court order, like how Google search links to copyright removal action requests when search results have been removed? Jahaza (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, I think adding a template telling folks that a article was removed is going to a effective way of letting folks know that the content was/is being controlled. (Also would show that we are being transparent about it). Sohom (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created {{Legal order}} and boldly restored the article. While for some articles I think our readers may be better served with nothing, in this case, and perhaps others, I think our readers are better served knowing the content issue the same way we let them know other content issues and having the remainder of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a good idea to add a field to the template where we can link directly to the legal judgement? Or an article about the legal judgement? That could be helpful for maintaining context, without linking to any information deemed "illegal" by a court. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The judgment itself is quite long[1], I'm not sure that would be helpful. An article describing in detail the content that a court ruled defamatory might be a challenge to find. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is surely more helpful than not providing any information or context at all, no? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pray someone cleverer than I comes up with a better solution. In the meantime, I have added a link to the judgment. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Barkeep49: (and others): If the content deemed illegal in Portugal has been deleted, how are future editors to know what material not to include? I presume the missing content was sourced according to Wikipedia policies like reliable sources and neutral point of view, otherwise it could've been removed without legal action, which makes it likely editors will stumble upon this material in the future and try to add it. Ironically, the only way to keep it out is to, well, include a pretty clear description of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This question, more so than many that will be posted here, very much requires an answer. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I don’t see how users can be preemptively kept from adding certain types of referenced content to articles, and I don’t think we should go beyond the court order to make sure that happens. If new content happens to displease the plaintiff, he’s welcome to start a new lawsuit. It would be ironic (although actually kind of clever, in a Streisand Effect way) to clearly state in the article the specific claims that cannot be included in the article. Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about keeping users from adding the content but about informing users so that they aren't sued over material that's already been ruled illegal. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have some thoughts about this but I think it would be best for Joe to answer the question Very Polite offered below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: seems to me like the simplest solution is to cite the judgement itself, which states:
"a) The respondent is ordered to remove the content from the pages (as described in proven facts 6 and 7) solely in the following sections: facts of a criminal nature allegedly committed by the applicant in 1989 and the subsequent procedural developments; the existence of the AB Foundation; the applicant’s dismissal from the position of honorary consul of VC; and the claim that the applicant was barred from obtaining any Portuguese document;
b) The respondent is further ordered to identify in the case records all editors who added the content of the pages in the sections mentioned in item (a);"
Note that "AB" and "VC" are anonymized identifiers. As you can see, the restricted content is very specific; the fact that this is an open and official part of the ruling certainly means it can safely be quoted. And quoting it in the article should be sufficient warning to any other editors about the nature of this content (althugh, to be sure, the ruling doesn't bind Wikipedia regarding future edits; AFAIK this would require a new lawsuit and sentence). Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites AFAIK nothing was deemed "illegal" on Portugal, far from that. The court sentence is only and strictly related to Wikipedia. The sources of that content continue to be online in Portugal, namely a broadcast report by SIC by renowned and vastly prized Portuguese journalist Pedro Coelho and others. They are online and publicly available, at least in Portugal, at SIC streaming platform OPTO. Look for "A Grande Ilusão", specially T1E5, and the previous episode for the rest. Paço also sued Pedro Coelho and other journalists and SIC persons (and other news sources), without any apparent consequences, as the report not only continues online but has actually been updated with further information about the activities the court doesn't want to be shown on Wikipedia. Darwin Ahoy! 15:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a good idea. There should be a specific template that states that the article used to contain content whose inclusion was justified under Wikipedia rules, but got removed anyway. Cortador (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why users can't put the info back in at a later date. The court case mentions 7 Wikipedia editors, that leaves about 8 billion other people who could put the content back into the article, doesn't it? Smiling0toad (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a right to know what type of personal information the WMF chose to compromise. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Chose to compromise" is a really ugly and dishonest way of saying "complied with a court order after exhausting all appeals." Do you believe in the rule of law or not? Don't throw crap like this, tbua. It doesn't help anything and just creates a toxic atmosphere. We (the volunteers) need to be able to communicate with each other and with the WMF without dishonest finger pointing. Levivich (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the "rule of law" means that any government can unilaterally impose its will on a foreign entity, then we have different ideas of the rule of law. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also calling a spade a spade. The WMF does not operate in Portugal. They could have told the Portuguese here to pound sand. That would have resulted, most likely, in Portugal blocking Wikipedia, but that was still an option as opposed to following a court order that they have no actual obligation to follow. They chose not to - and in so doing, both enforced a POV version of an article, and yes, they did, in fact, choose to compromise user information. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Portugal would be surprised to hear that the WMF doesn't operate in Portugal. You're welcome to your opinion about whether following court orders is optional or not, but I want the WMF and everyone else to know that at least some members of this community want the WMF to follow laws and court orders, support their multi-year, no doubt million-dollar efforts to legally push back and pursue all appeal options, and would not rather have the WMF pull out of an entire country and leave millions of readers without access rather than turning over something as banal as web server logs. Considering I give my IP address and user agent metadata to literally every website I visit and so do you and everyone else, I don't think it's a big deal that web server logs are subject to court orders. The notion of pulling out of Portugal rather than following Portuguese court orders is no something I support. Or respect, frankly. Levivich (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking, I agree with you. I think the big worry is precedent. As soon as bad actors understand a SLAPP in one country can have global effect, it will ... be hard for us to maintain this project. Rules about e.g. defamation and privacy vary considerably from country to country, the independence of legal systems from individual leaders or parties varies considerably from country to country, and the regard for speech that is critical of power varies dramatically from country to country. If instead of [partially/fully] blocking Wikipedia courts in places like China or Saudi Arabia simply began churning out court orders to remove content globally, that, too, would just be following the rule of law. Point is, censoring content added in alignment with our policies (i.e. neutrally summarizing existing sources) is dangerous beyond the article it affects. Flippancy and kneejerk demands to pull out aren't helpful, but there's a real concern here that "just follow the rule of law" doesn't adequately address, either. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree, "always follow the law" is no more a solution than "pull out," and this is becoming a bigger issue each year it seems, and I think enwiki needs to formulate some sort of policy/guideline proposal, and ask the BoT to adopt it as a WMF policy. I'm not sure what the proposed policy should say exactly, but we (enwiki) need to figure something out here, at least so all editors will know what to expect when it comes to these situations and when their data may be disclosed. Levivich (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich We want the WMF to hire the best lawyers they can find and then we want the WMF to do whatever their lawyers tell them to. That may include following court orders. The best legal strategy should be decided by lawyers, not our kneejerk reaction against censorship. Polygnotus (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. If their lawyers say "the only way to keep your website online in Portugal is to comply with this court order that is mandating censorship of truthful well sourced information about someone just because they don't like it being on Wikipedia", we want the WMF to say thanks, and then let Wikipedia get blocked in that country. That country can figure out where their laws and judicial system went wrong, then correct it and remove the court order, following which the WMF can work with them to unblock WMF websites. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez If the lawyers say: "you can either allow the article to be censored or you can leave that country", and the WMF leaves that country, then the WMF is doing what the lawyers tell them to, right? I am unsure why you think you are disagreeing with me. Polygnotus (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my concern is that perhaps the reason they went this route is because the lawyers didn't give them any other option. For example, in the ANI v WMF case, the WMF claimed that one of the reasons they had to comply was to keep appeals open. But in that case, the entire article was removed - not sanitized/scrubbed like this. If the lawyers said "three options: remove the article pending appeals, remove just the information but leave the article up pending appeals, or leave the country", then I find it shocking that the WMF would choose option 2 and cause an article to be up that is not NPOV. I guess it's just because I find it that shocking that they would choose this if they were given options that I'm assuming (with the risks that come with that) that they were not given an alternative option. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez I am not sure they will give you insight in their legal strategy during an ongoing case, which could be problematic for various reasons, but I am pretty sure they can answer questions once the dust has settled, like in the case of Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station and the Abraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy. You could ask Quiddity at some point. Personally, I would assume that they've explained our philosophy somewhat and have asked what the options are and what the consequences of those options might be. Polygnotus (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question then becomes - if I'm right in my assumption that the majority of the English Wikipedia will not tolerate sanitized articles like this - will the WMF remove the whole article if it becomes necessary to remove some information in the future, pending appeals/further action? The big problem I (and from my reading others) have with this action is that it wasn't removing copyrighted material, or trade secrets - it was removing negative information only about someone. In other words, sanitizing it. And there is zero reason that should be an acceptable outcome. If the options are only between sanitize or be blocked, then be blocked is the only proper answer. To do anything else throws our decades long reputation as a neutral source into a blender.
So I hope you can understand why I doubt that they have adequately explained our philosophy. Because if they did, "sanitize it temporarily" would never have been an option. Either the WMF does not understand our philosophy (where NPOV, a pillar is more important than covering every topic possible), or they sucked at explaining it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez You can ask Quiddity. They will know or can forward your question to someone who can answer it. Polygnotus (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich What operates in Portugal is Wikimedia Portugal, not the WMF. Wikimedia Portugal is an entirely local organization, with a mere relation of affiliation with the WMF. Darwin Ahoy! 10:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn These days there are dozens of countries with internet access. GDPR applies to all kinds of non-EU businesses. Polygnotus (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus I swear I've not the least idea what are you referring to. I just wanted to emphasize that Wikimedia Portugal is not WMF in any way, nor there is any legal binding between these two different organizations. In fact, the first action that Paço took in this case was exactly to sue Wikimedia Portugal over it. This initial case was dismissed by the court for being made against an organization which had nothing to do with it, with the Wikimedia Foundation being presented as the correct one. Darwin Ahoy! 10:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the judgment would be enforceable in the EU generally, not just Portugal. If that is the case, that would cause major issues until the ECHR came. Techie3 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, not a legal expert but doubt there will be an ECHR caae if the WMF ignored the court order. Generally speaking engaging with the courts requires you to obey their orders. This probably applies even with ECHR - national courts. And it's not hard to imagine why. If you go to the ECHR and say the Portuguese courts told you to do something super bad but you're just going to ignore them the ECHR will just say why are you bothering us if you’re not going to comply anyway? Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain what information you provided about the users who edited the article? It also seems contradictory to give out their personal information and then to make the claim, "We plan to support the affected users" - how can you help the people that you are actively harming? Privacy and anonymity for your users need to be taken seriously. Ternera (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can Wikipedia stop (redacted) and stop bending backwards to every censorship request? (redacted). Yilku1 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yilku1: It's no longer a mere censorship request (from the person of the article subject), it's a court decision. (See the response in the other discussion.
Would you try directly defying the order of the highest court? 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highest court... in Portugal. WMF servers are not hosted in Portugal, and the vast majority of enwiki contributors don't live in Portugal. TurboSuperA+[talk] 04:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the other discussion as to why there are options (e.g. if some content is removed then remove the whole article altogether) but people do not want to just ignore the order, for the sake of protecting the Portuguese editors. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, as a member of the EU, Portugal's judgment may be recognized across the EU according to the Brussels Regime. That would cause major issue with partners in the EU. Techie3 (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent in the EU. Does that mean every EU citizen can sue the WMF under libel laws? In some countries libel carries a fine, but in some countries, like Denmark, it carries a prison sentence. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is why the WMF might be advised to implement it, because it does run servers in France and Netherlands, for the purpose of caching. Techie3 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How do you comply with legal court orders of what not to add, if you can't list what you can't add on Wikipedia for people to know what not to add to be legally compliant? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who says we can't list what we can't add? Toadspike [Talk] 05:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF) I want to reiterate in the strongest possible terms that it was not required for the WMF to comply with this court order or to take this office action. I am disappointed that the WMF has done so, despite its good-faith efforts over the past few years to fight this court case. I would rather see Wikipedia banned in Portugal than allow subjects to censor their own articles. I would like the WMF to respond to this point as soon as possible. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be problematic if other EU members also recognised and enforced the judgement. That would cause Wikipedia to risk legal action in way more than Portugal. Techie3 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is very regrettable indeed. Basically it means that if you (an editor) are targeted by the government of a "democratic" country, the Foundation will disclose whatever the court tells it to disclose. I would be especially worried if I lived in the US and ever added any "defamation" to an article like Donald Trump.
Shame. Le Loy (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is true regardless of which company you use. They have disclose things if a court orders them to. Techie3 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that WMF won't disclose editor personal data to the court of Russia or Turkey. Which I think is the right course of action. Le Loy (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the appeal is this:
  • Lower court dismissed the charges against Wikipedia.
  • Appeal court overruled part of the lower decision, and reinstated the injunction, based on the right to be forgotten in EU law.
  • Consituional court refused the appeal.
Techie3 (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions, JSutherland (WMF), some of which I know came up in discussions of the ANI case:

  1. Is this the first instance of a successful lawsuit to remove critical information about a subject that nonetheless satisfied Wikipedia's content policies (assuming the latter is true)?
  2. Can you talk more about the implications for affected users who do not live in Portugal?
  3. The overwhelming majority of people who access the English Wikipedia (and a majority of users accessing the Portuguese Wikipedia) do not live in Portugal. A ruling in Portugal would not have binding authority in the US, and there's a lot of precedent in the US for local law taking precedent when it comes to speech issues. Why, then, has the material been removed for everyone?
  4. Does the WMF have geoblocking abilities? (putting to the side whether it should, which I know is a messy ethical question)
  5. As with the ANI case, it seems worth discussing the implications for refusal of the order (and the timing of such a refusal, if applicable). It's one thing for a country's court systems to try to enforce a strategic lawsuit locally, but allowing one court system global censorship capacity seems like ... a big subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also, in pt:César do Paço WMF office actions suppressed A LOT of edits, in the point that the attribution required by the according project licenses (CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL) may be actually compromised. Augustresende (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since usernames aren't suppressed WP:Attribution does not require blame applies. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rhododendrites that I'd rather just block all of Portugal from Wikipedia than have to comply with something like this. SilverserenC 23:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The WMF is not subject to Portuguese law. They suppressed this content because they chose to, not because they were legally required to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JSutherland (WMF), this is important. Don't bend over to laws that you don't have to follow, otherwise anyone in a foreign country could choose to censor anything and everything they want. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not from Portugal and can't speak for people there, I would prefer having Wikipedia be blocked in my country rather than having everyone see an enforced POV version of an article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to all of this. I have committed below that if the WMF does not promptly reverse this piss-poor bending over to the bum-fucking the Portuguese courts have tried to enforce on them, I will scramble my password and never edit another WMF project again. Why should I, when the organization that purports to be there to defend us and support our mission is willing to throw it all away for an obvious SLAPP lawsuit? Let enwp get blocked. Hell, let ptwp get blocked in Portugal. Maybe then the population will rise up inside Portugal against this obvious BS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Augustresende (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I think blocking a country from Wikipedia or blocking Wikipedia from a country should be considered a horrible outcome. My question #4 is about the WMF's ability to deny certain pages based on user IP. That may be one way to satisfy a court order locally without affecting the rest of the world. If that doesn't exist, though, since most countries don't have a Great Firewall blocking on the nation side is kind of all-or-nothing since we went https. The question is whether it would escalate all the way up to that point, and what public opinion would be on the matter. Those are hypotheticals that I'd like to hear more about from people better versed in international (and Portuguese) law than me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a government is willing to side with someone who wants censorship, then we should give them that, and then some. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the best part is, people already use VPNs to circumvent streaming media restrictions, it'd be funny if citizens of Portugal did the same thing to see uncensored knowledge. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 16:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking pages based on IP is not a valid solution. That's akin to saying that someone in the US deserves all the information, but someone in Portugal deserves only some of the information. That's a disservice to people in Portugal. If they cannot accept all the information, they should get none of the information. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.
If such a drastic action causes the Portuguese citizens to get in an uproar protesting the fact their courts are allowing obvious SLAPP lawsuits? Good. If the opinion of the public is negative over this? Good. Because that's the only way anything's going to change - since the WMF has made clear they aren't going to be a force against it by bending over and taking it up the bum like this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking Portugal would be an extreme step, although it would also raise the visibility of the issue. I can't speak to how well known this figure is in Portugal, or whether his various legal challenges are reported on. Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be nice to just block Portugal, but this is the EU. The applicant, having a copy of the appealled out judgment, may be able to convince the court of, say France, to recognise the judgment by right, and now we have the cascade issue of having to follow the judgment there. Techie3 (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The judgment in question, for anyone wondering. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion. Let's post this case on the In the News panel on the main page, on account of the fact that it would be really funny. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:POINTY. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: No more pointy than the sitewide blackouts protesting SOPA/PIPA were. And those were approved with massive support. This is equally as urgent of an issue - and the "solution" proposed of one statement on ITN is nowhere near as disruptive as those blackouts were. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They may have been approved with massive support. They shouldn't have been. All a blackout does is make people who would be "neutral" on an issue hate us. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"They may have been approved with massive support. They shouldn't have been" I would raise the point that, if it got approved "with massive support", maybe it should have been?
"All a blackout does is make people who would be [']neutral['] on an issue hate us" Respectfully, [citation needed]. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is how POINTY should be applied. That policy is good advice to editors acting as individuals not for the community coming to consensus to make a point. Czarking0 (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to include a message about this on the main page, I suggest using Template:Main Page banner, not ITN. Some1 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't surprised by this after seeing how the T&S team works and how they responded to my emails about users' security with generic, pre-made texts. Their so-called "commitment to user protection" fails when there is a real issue. It is just a myth. Let's see where else we'll witness their failures from now on. Nemoralis (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does the foundation have to comply with foreign laws on the English language Wikipedia? I can somewhat understand that they may have to comply for ptwiki, but what the actual fuck? The WMF is based in San Francisco. They do not have servers based in Portugal as far as I know. So there is zero legal basis for them to have to comply with this ruling. Thus, the only viable understanding is that they are choosing to comply with it.
Who gives a crap if Wikipedia gets blocked in Portugal for failure to comply with the order? Who cares if the WMF has to shut down some local organizations/groups temporarily to fight this crap order? This is actually absurd, and I'm honestly shocked that the WMF is agreeing to perform these office actions on enwp based on this BS court ruling. If the Portuguese citizens want to maintain their ability to access Wikipedia, then they'll fight this sort of ruling politically, through electing officials who will not stand for this BS.
If this was China, or North Korea, or any other government widely considered to make illegitimate rulings, the WMF would not pander to them and comply. So why the actual hell are they complying here? It's not the WMF's fault that the Portuguese judicial system is choosing to be more like China than they are the EU. If Portugal wants to be like China, then the WMF should let them block Wikipedia. Period. End of discussion.
I'm also personally shocked that the WMF sees no way to pause on any action until they appeal this higher - such as to the ECHR - since this is clearly against multiple sections of the European Convention on Human Rights - namely, 10 (expression) and 13 (effective remedy). 10 because they cannot prevent expression of people's legitimate opinions just because someone doesn't like them. 13 because the effective remedy is for the complainant to be told "go get the sources used in the articles to correct themselves, then you can force Wikipedia to do so itself". This clearly was a case where someone chose to go after Wikipedia for information that is remaining online at other places just because Wikipedia is as big as it is. And that makes the foundation's bending over and taking the butt-fuck from the courts even more shocking. If an appeal is pending at the ECHR, then the WMF should not be taking office actions while it is pending. To do so is validating this BS court opinion. If Wikipedia or other WMF wikis get blocked in Portugal pending the conclusion of that case, so be it.
If the WMF did really find this regrettable, they wouldn't be allowing it to take action on Wikipedia. Period. (Personal attack removed)
I don't know what else I can say here other than to continue flaming the WMF for bending over and letting Wikipedia and it's mission get literally screwed in the ass by such a horrible court ruling. So I'll stop talking now. But I am strongly considering scrambling my password based on this bending over. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity - I will be making zero edits to any WMF project that are unrelated to responding to this issue until the WMF reverses their compliance with this obvious SLAPP suit. And if the WMF does not do so in a reasonable time frame, then they should expect editors to quit over it. We trust the WMF to defend us. If they're unwilling to do so, why should we continue putting our effort into their business? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): Pinging you directly, as this requires a direct response from you. Please know that to myself and others there is virtually no response other than "we are reversing this office action, WP being blocked in Portugal be damned" that will satisfy many users. You purport to be paid to support the projects - bending over and getting bum-fucked by an obvious SLAPP suit in a country that you are not subject to their jurisdiction is about as far opposite of supporting the projects as you can get. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to abuse like this, I would like to remind JSutherland and the rest of the WMF staff that not all of us would be happy to throw millions of people under the bus in a self-righteous tantrum. Toadspike [Talk] 05:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a self-righteous tantrum. We cannot provide information to countries who do not want it. The alternative to what you call "throwing millions of people under the bus" is allowing ourselves to become a propaganda machine for anyone who sues in Portuguese courts. Which is throwing them under the bus for real - because they will continue to trust Wikipedia while being presented incomplete/whitewashed accounts of the full story. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does China have to do with this? TurboSuperA+[talk] 04:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Others have expanded below but the WMF has never cared if part/all of the site is blocked in China. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the EU, the judgment can be recognised in France/the Netherlands, where caching servers exist, so there is a legal basis for them to have to comply with this ruling. Otherwise, the servers could be shutdown. Techie3 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is good information... but I would think that an appeal before the ECHR would stop enforcement of this obvious SLAPP ruling until the appeal is finished. Though, to be fair, I also would've thought before today that no court in the EU would make such a laughably stupid ruling. Regardless, Wikipedia can survive without the French servers temporarily. The WMF has more than enough money in its coffers to fund a coordinated/planned shut down of them and if need be open a new set of servers in, for example, the UK or another country to serve Europe. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has more than enough money in its coffers to fund a coordinated/planned shut down of them
That is not how people who control a lot of money think. Having money != willingness to use that money. I don't think the WMF is going to spend hundreds of thousands (potentially millions) of dollars to shut down data centers in Europe and move them somewhere else because of a little snag that won't actually cost them money in the long run. TurboSuperA+[talk] 06:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, theoretically they wouldn't really have to spend a ton of money at all. They could simply let the authorities take the sites back, and then operate off the other (iirc) 4 datacenters. Eventually Portugal will fix themselves and the WMF can reopen the datacenter. But the only money that would really have to be spent in the short term is a coordinated shut down to protect the equipment/infrastructure from damage while it's not in use. Regardless, you really think even if it costs them, say, $10 million to move the datacenter that their donations aren't going to take significantly over a $10 million hit when people find out "your donation is going towards funding WMF-condoned censorship of content people don't like"? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
their donations aren't going to take significantly over a $10 million hit when people find out "your donation is going towards funding WMF-condoned censorship of content people don't like"
I mean, how many Wikipedia donors know or care about this case? The begging banner at the top of the page never says "Here's what we did wrong", but I bet it will say "Freedom of knowledge is in danger! Donate now to help us defend against censorship and keep the internet free!" TurboSuperA+[talk] 06:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The begging banner won't say it, but the NYT will. Not to mention Trump is looking for any reason to go after Wikipedia's nonprofit status right now - and this would be a "bigly" reason for him to claim that the WMF is non-neutral by agreeing to a foreign court's requirement that we remove only negative information about someone even though it meets our content policies. So when Trump gets word of this you better bet anyone following him on Xitter will hear about it.
How many donors know about this case right this second? Probably only those of us who watch this page as editors. Because until a few hours ago, there was no reason that this case was relevant. However, the way the WMF responded to it - by sanitizing the page - not removing it entirely but by sanitizing it - is certainly relevant to whether people choose to donate in the future. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

an appeal before the ECHR would stop enforcement of this obvious SLAPP ruling until the appeal is finished

IIRC That's not how it works anywhere. In the places I've been, to be allowed to not abide by the order, you'd need a court with the (higher) authority to issue a stay on the order. Often, how this works is a request for appeal is filed along with one for an emergency stay. The higher court can then issue the stay before the deadline of the initial court order. Usually this happens alongside the acceptance of the appeals case. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Injunctions generally require imminent harm to be found, uncertain in this case. Techie3 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every second the WMF lets this office action stand, imminent, irreparable harm is being done to its reputation. While the WMF has taken legal action before based on court orders, it's almost always been an all or nothing - removing all content or leaving it all up. Example - blanking the ANI v WMF court case page. Alternatively, in some cases it's removed information that is legitimately being claimed as a trade secret - which we never should've published in the first place. It's never before, to my knowledge, taken an office action to sanitize an article of otherwise well sourced information. It's only a matter of time before this hits the news - and at that point, the harm has been done. How can anyone - reader, donator, or editor - trust the WMF if they're willing to do this once? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
irreparable harm is being done to its reputation
You don't need a good reputation when you're the top result on search engines. TurboSuperA+[talk] 06:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have redacted a personal attack in this comment. I get people are angry, but that does not excuse violating NPA. Giraffer (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a personal attack to point out when someone is blatantly not being truthful about their actions/feelings. Especially not when that person is a WMF staff member making an untrue claim. I won’t revert, but I do not agree with this one bit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think he isn't telling the truth then so be it, but there are ways to express that which do not include using offensive language. Giraffer (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Who gives a crap if Wikipedia gets blocked in Portugal" All of our readers in Portugal, and all of our readers elsewhere who benefit from the contributions of editors there. HTH.
Now try to imagine someone saying "Who gives a crap if Wikipedia gets blocked in [your country of residence]". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing I don't think the idea of Wikipedia being blocked in Portugal, specially over an issue with a character like DePaço, is totally unrealistic. I guess only people that do not known this country are suggesting that, but that's not anything near realistic, at all. Darwin Ahoy! 13:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC) copyedited Darwin Ahoy! 14:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say the idea was unrealistic? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing Sorry, I wrote it incorrectly. I mean that I (not you) find it totally unrealistic. My opinion, of course. Darwin Ahoy! 14:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have edited the comment to which I replied, reversing its meaning. Don't do that; use strike-through. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing Fixed. Darwin Ahoy! 15:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not a dumb question: has WMF scanned the other pages that mention Caesar DePaço to see what information from those pages would be affected? For example Alina Habba seems to mention content specifically that the court order says to remove. Obviously what do to at DePaco's page is one thing, but I think we need WMF to fully review all other pages, and we also likely need to have a community action to make sure such pages don't gain that information. (This also speaks to the difficulty of trying to meet that court order short of blocking Portugal from the affected wikis.) Masem (t) 03:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we need to do is make clear to the WMF that enwp is not going to tolerate this. Blocking enwp/ptwp in Portugal is preferable to bending over to a SLAPP lawsuit in a western country. The WMF has already done so in China, for example. Why is it somehow different just because it's Portugal? The WMF should never have taken any action on this one page based on this obvious BS legal ruling - blocking of WP in Portugal be damned. And we certainly should not be encouraging them to continue taking more similar actions at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the WMF use to simply tell the non-US courts to eff off? How has this been better? It seems like it's been worse and we are just ending up with a censored Wikipedia, which I thought was the one thing Wikipedia was never supposed to be. Was that not the whole point?

Nevertheless, this order has required the disclosure of a small amount of user data for eight users who added the material that the courts deemed illegal. Of information that a user is forced to share for the privilege of editing Wikipedia, is that just the IP and user agent from within the past three months, or is there more and going back the whole way (2021? in this case). I want better guidance on how I am exposed if the WMF is going to make a habit of exposing me to litigants for simply volunteering in my free time. Perhaps WMF should publish a list of countries they will be complying with. Complying with India was dangerous for the users in the way it was not with Portugal. Complying with Nepal would be even more dangerous than with India, and I'd rather quit if that's on the cards. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the judgment was recognized in other EU countries, that would cause major issues with partners in the EU. Techie3 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Complying with India was dangerous for the users in the way it was not with Portugal.
You mean the Portugal where the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) found that "ill-treatment of apprehended persons by officers of the PSP and GNR is still a frequent practice. The alleged ill-treatment concerned primarily slaps, punches, strikes with a baton and kicks to the body after the person had been brought under control." That Portugal? TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because in India, the risk is someone uses a court case as a ploy to find out who you are and send a $5/hit assissin after you or your family, and if you piss off someone really powerful, you may be picked up by the police or even the military and mysteriously die trying to escape custody with guns pointed to your back. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that doesn't happen in Europe? People get assassinated/disappeared there too. Someone has to spend more than $5, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility. TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Complying with any countries are dangerous. We assume and hope that the Western court systems would rule more favorably towards the freedom of speech, but who can guarantee that it will stay that way for decades to come? Concerning India and Nepal, it is pretty trivial to avoid India and Nepal. But avoiding all countries of EU might be more difficult for many. And since EU-UK-US might be sharing their criminal data, the editor in question would be in too much database. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 06:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it is pretty trivial to avoid India and Nepal"— not for the >1,459 million people who live there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a criminal action, it is a civil lawsuit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Co-Founder Jimmy Wales said he would rather have no Wikipedia in China than comply with any form of censorship. (2013) Does this case mean that WMF is applying double standards on Internet censorships, or that WMF would yield to China (including, say, send user data of Chinese Wikipedians to the Chinese government) as well?  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 03:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

China bad, EU good. Simple as that. TurboSuperA+[talk] 04:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Double standards between an authoritarian, heavily censored place vs a generally open and democratic society? Sure.
Standards can be proportionate as fair and appropriate, instead of being blanket same across uneven terrain. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the "generally open and democratic society" that has ordered the WMF to remove sourced content and made them de-anonymise the users who added that content and turn that information over to Portuguese courts/police. Maybe they want to send them flowers and chocolates, as free and democratic societies are wont to do. TurboSuperA+[talk] 04:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "generally open and democratic societ[ies]" can have judicial orders that Wikipedia and its components legally abide by (such as removal of copyrighted content), because Wikipedia does not operate in a total anarchy. The question is how to abide by the legal orders while preserving what Wikipedia does - you need to incorporate in your content the abiding by the requirements, but you're not required to have the content exactly dictated for you. This is why the relevant discussion has many favoring removing all content if certain content cannot be kept.
But you don't see Wikipedia take orders from North Korean KCNA or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or the like. Wikipedia simply chooses to disengage from them rather than that take the above approach of "if some are to be removed, remove all" from the article.
I fully stand by my statement. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but you're not required to have the content exactly dictated for you.
Which is exactly what has happened here and why people are so unhappy with it. TurboSuperA+[talk] 04:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you see the said discussion you agreed with me regarding the specific article in question. Why are you arguing about this? 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above: This is Internet censorship. It is bad no matter which country demonstrates it. I don't think a "generally open and democratic" country have the right to censor anything on Wikipedia.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 04:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not in a lawless wild west environment. It abides by legally binding court decisions but can do so in a way that just churning out articles censored by those holding said interests. Again, that's why we're discussing the option of removing all of the content.
Some places are so heavily censored and autocratic that the endeavor is not worth it. Others, like this example, can remove the whole for the individual article without leaving the entire jurisdiction.
So yes, proportionate as fair and appropriate instead of blanket same standards. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the rest of the world have to be served an incomplete Wikipedia because of the actions of a Portuguese court? Alternatively, why should someone in Portugal have to be served an incomplete Wikipedia because of a bullshit ruling? We should not condone this "it's okay to remove some things" when it comes to content. There is a massive difference between content that violates copyright and legitimate, well sourced information about someone. It is absolutely not appropriate to say "well we remove copyright violations upon legal request so we have to remove legitimate content too". Because in that case, where does it stop? Could a court in the UK order the WMF to remove negative information about Boris Johnson's massive Partygate scandal during COVID lockdowns because he thinks it violates his "right to honour or privacy"? They were events that happened in private dwellings that were not open to the public, and they certainly impact his honour. But it would be absurd to say that we should remove that article just because he thinks so.
The only valid response to someone saying that they should be able to control content because they don't like it is to say that they can't have any of our content at all. We should not allow countries who dictate what our content can say to partake in our content. Period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have time to read all of this discussion and certainly not to argue with anyone, but let me state here that, in contrast to the majority of commenters, I believe that the WMF in this case has taken a good, reasonable, decision, and I am looking forward to the outcome of the case in the EU court (which can very well take a few years).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is pretty much my current impression too. Apparently this came after years of legal action, and IMO the "if a court says so, we have to do it, though we might appeal first" is a very reasonable position for the WMF to take. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this position baffling. If the court was Russian and said we had to remove information about authoritarianism from Putin's page, would you still agree? How about an American court ordering us to remove information on Elon Musk and hand over user data so he can sue those individuals? What about a British court ordering us to remove mention of Epstein from Prince Andrew's page? This case sets a precedent for future action, both within the EU and without. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ganesha811 Are you a lawyer with experience in this field and deep knowledge of (non-public) information related to this situation? Polygnotus (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I need to be? An even more baffling question. As the WMF itself clearly laid about above, it had a choice - either censor the page per the court's direction (while appealing) or ignore the court and suffer the consequences. It chose the former. I think it should have chosen the latter. That is a choice based on principle, not purported secret knowledge about the case. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ganesha811 I am not saying you need to be. I am asking if you are. Sounds like the answer is 'no'. I am also not a lawyer, and I only have access to the publicly available information linked on this page. Which is why I find it difficult to judge if the WMF is doing the right thing. And since they have a legal department, and hire external lawyers, it seems reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt, right? Polygnotus (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. I find this kind of appeal to authority bizarre. You probably have to be a lawyer (or spend a lot of time) to understand the intricacies of the Portuguese and EU law that led us to this point and resulted in the WMF losing its appeals. But you don't have to be a lawyer to understand the outcome, or have an opinion on the WMF's choices as a result of that outcome. The WMF is not perfect and sometimes it makes mistake, no matter how much legal advice they pay for. This is about the principle of free knowledge and how to strategically support the global movement, not about the details of Portuguese defamation law. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ganesha811 You do have to be a lawyer, and know details we do not know, to accurately judge if the WMF is following the best legal strategy it can. That is not an appeal to authority, that is just the simple fact that most humans are not legal experts.
    I have experience dealing with computers, so I can judge the WMF if they fuck up something computer-related.
    How the "justice" system works is often counterintuitive and the idea that people who do not know the facts and have no (or very little) relevant experience can assume that they know better than trained lawyers who know all the details is, you know, weird.
    I also wouldn't trust those lawyers' uneducated opinions on computer related topics. Polygnotus (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that this is not just about this case's specific legal strategy. Look beyond the minutiae! This is about bigger principles; free knowledge, censorship, and Wikipedia's reputation. Agreeing to censor an article and hand over user data because its subject sued us, even for a minute, is a very dangerous precedent. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ganesha811 While the WMF sometimes makes baffling decisions, and has made serious mistakes in the past, I strongly believe they are trying to do the right thing and also care about the things we care about. So I believe that decisions like that have not been taken lightly, and that they have consulted the legal department and external lawyers, and that they have reason to believe that their choice of strategy is the best one. I am no fanboi, and I will criticize them when they fuck up, but they are still on the same team as you and me and everyone else. And I have also seen the community make baffling fuckups. Polygnotus (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of that is correct, and none of it is relevant to the fact that I think their choice of strategy is wrong and I am saying so. Why is that an issue for you? We're here to discuss their action as a community, not act as a choir singing their praises. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ganesha811 Looks like we are going in circles. You have an opinion about their choice of strategy. I say that such opinions from people who do not have the expertise and knowledge required to judge the situation accurately are kinda irrelevant since the WMF has access to the opinions of people who do have the expertise and knowledge required to judge the situation. And if I have to bet on a legal department vs. some dude (even if they are really cool) I'll bet on the legal department in this context. My lawyer knows more about law than I do. I know more about computers than my lawyer does. Polygnotus (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that further discussion on this between us is pointless. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are countries where court is an independent and respected institution. Examples are the US and Portugal. There are countries where courts are not independent and are corrupt and/or directly influenced as governments. Examples are Russia and China. (I do not know how to classify India). For the first group of countries, yes, I think we should respect the decisions of the courts (and appeal them where available). For the second group of countries, no, we should understand that the court decisions are in fact the government orders, we should not respect them and not give any personal data to these countries. Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are countries where court is an independent and respected institution. Examples are the US Something something Supreme Court. Insert joke here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter Fwiw, per [2] the WMF office action may not have been that bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ganesha811 You may think that Portugal would the only thing that would be blocked, but with an appealed out judgment, the appellant could get other countries in the EU to recognise and enforce that action, and then the WMF would be in trouble with many partners. Techie3 (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah at this point all we can say is "keep up the good work, WMF". I hope the judge will make a good decision. Even if I had access to all the information, which I do not, I do not have the legal expertise required to form an opinion on what they are doing. WMF legal does, so all I can do is support them and hope for the best. Polygnotus (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of responding directly to the several tantrums above pinging WMF staff and calling for extreme measures, I'd like to say I agree with the WMF's action here and thank them for their transparency. Calls for banning Wikimedia project access from Portugal or noncompliance with the order should not be taken as community consensus. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for saying this. I'm having trouble composing further comments that will not stir things up, so I will just also say that I think the Foundation is proceeding correctly in this matter. Donald Albury 22:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to endorse this statement. The wailing, accusations of bad faith, and predictions of almighty doom do not represent my views. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Usually I'm among the wailers but this discussion has gotten too silly. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. I've been somewhat disappointed by (IMHO) the overreactions to the situation in this discussion, and I'd like to thank those at the WMF for being as transparent as they have been. I think there's definitely valid concerns that have been raised (especially around the future of the article in question), and I'm disappointed in the outcome that the courts have come to. However, this doesn't detract from how much effort the Foundation has put in to minimising the impact of this as much as possible and for that I'm truly grateful. stwalkerster (talk) stwalkerster (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article to be maintained going forward?

[edit]

@JSutherland (WMF): ... how are current and future editors supposed to do anything with this article, if years of content are removed per court order, but they also won't know what content is now deemed illegal in Portugal...? Isn't this basically now a de facto legal honeypot for any hapless editor?

It feels mandatory the WMF provide guidance on Talk:Caesar DePaço as a new rule or persistent requirement, unless "Office" intends to review all edits before they go live? What is protocol here? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on as the article has been nominated to deletion. Augustresende (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF):, please see the suggestions from editors that allow both abiding by the legal court decision and keeping the necessities of Wikipedia, instead of simply dropping this announcement and leaving. This initial announcement only talks about the basics of what not to do, and doesn't cover the whole solution of what to do. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be possible to get more detailed information from where the article text was specifically removed? Like, if only a single paragraph in the main body was affected, then it could make sense to highlight the affected paragraph with a notice along the lines "information has been removed from the following paragraph per court order" or something.--Staberinde (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since WMF legal has removed content, they should really be explaining what we can and can't add to the article. They've made the decision to remove content, but want us to "police" the article from this point forward, which I don't think is appropriate action (for the simple fact that there should be ZERO involvement from the WMF over what goes into ANY article). I feel like our hands are tied and like it or not, editors are at risk now.Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And frankly, I'm not sure I'm willing to accept that risk. As a 20 yr veteran here, I've felt like WMF "has had our backs", now, I'm not sure sure... I like Wikipedia, but risking personal legal issues over it seems like a bit much. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think this kind of court-ordered censorship is just the beginning and will become increasingly common if it is successful. The WMF has to be willing to accept bans in certain countries in order to protect the principles of the Wikimedia movement and free knowledge. What can we do to encourage them to stand firmly? A targeted protest. The goal would be to generate media coverage and thereby push the WMF to adopt a stronger stance; i.e. convince the WMF to ignore the Portuguese court's order.

I propose the English Wikipedia temporarily blank all Portugal-related articles and content, replacing them with a message about this court case in order to draw attention to this issue. I would also recommend making the same suggestion to the Portuguese Wikipedia, though they would make the final decision in their case, of course. The protest could last a day, a week, or even a month. This kind of targeted action has a higher likelihood of success than a global protest, which could have a hard time gaining consensus or being implemented. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The point isn't to protest but to protect - to preserve Wikipedia's goal while also safeguarding Portuguese editors from legal liabilities. (User:The_Bushranger has pointed out WP:POINTY in regards to this.)
If we're going to blank things then we should blank one specific article at a time - the one actually affected by the lawsuit/court decision. See the other discussion as to the specifics: there is a suggestion to replace the article with a banner that states that Wikipedia cannot host either the full content or the censored content at this time. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
while also safeguarding Portuguese editors from legal liabilities
Too late, the involved editors' information has been shared with Portuguese authorities. I wonder if WMF will pay the editors' (eventual) legal costs? TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still acting like I'm on the side favoring keeping a censored version of the article? Please stop the misunderstanding. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "acting" in any way, I am discussing this matter. Not every interaction has to be adversarial. I haven't suggested that you are in favour of keeping a censored version of the article. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck it. May as well go drastic if we want to make noise about this. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of statement needs to be made, but I don't know if targeting random articles that happen to be about Portuguese history is the right one. I jokingly suggested above that we put this on WP:ITN, but Some1 reminded me of Template:Main Page banner, and that actually sounds like a possible approach if we wanted to consider it. That would bring a lot of attention to the fact that court-ordered censorship has arrived to Wikipedia. We might also consider displaying a message above or over every article for anyone visiting the site from Portugal, but I don't know what the technical aspects of that are or whether it's feasible. I'd support much more drastic action on the Portuguese Wikipedia if I were a member of that community, but I suppose we'll have to wait and see what they want to do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEONOTICE would work for logged in editors from Portugal and could be set up locally. Alternatively, meta:CentralNotice could be requested that would display on all wikis, but that would require consensus beyond the English/Portuguese Wikipedias to be implemented. I agree, however, that a main page banner would both be a form of protest against the ruling - and a good form of protest against the WMF for even considering complying with this order in the first place. May I suggest Recently, a Portuguese court ordered the removal of well-sourced and truthful information about a person because the person did not like it. The WMF has chosen to comply with this court order and has thus forced the page in question to be sanitized of this truthful information. The English Wikipedia strongly opposes this form of censorship being allowed on our project and calls on the WMF to immediately reverse their compliance with the court's order while continuing to fight it in higher courts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about reusing whatever they use to display the donation banners? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how those are set up, but it would likely require going through either the WMF or meta. I don't know how strongly other projects will feel about this, and going through meta takes time - so a solution we can implement locally with just local consensus would be preferable at least in the short term while a larger solution (such as a centralnotice banner) is worked on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could support that wording. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is way too much effort on our part, and is way too expansive. There is no reason that someone in Brazil shouldn't be able to read our article on the Portuguese language - for example - because of this dispute. For one, while it's related to Portugal, it's obviously relevant to the Brazilian. For two, the Brazilian can't do anything about this - they have no sway over the political and judicial situation in Portugal. Block all WMF domains in Portugal effective immediately and let the Portuguese public express their outrage over this. Don't make the rest of the world suffer when they can't do anything about it at all in the first place. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unlikely that this will help us. It might annoy some people, but probably not the people we want to annoy. Polygnotus (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Portuguese-speaking world, Portuguese is more widely-spoken as a first language in both Brazil and Angola than in Portugal. I don't see what good blanking articles on important world history figures like António de Oliveira Salazar and Prince Henry the Navigator would accomplish. Curbon7 (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what actions to take, but I agreed with editor LilianaUwU, despite our opposing political views, that an action from the community is warranted. Imagine a Wikipedia where the Donald Trump article didn't mention his legal cases with Stormy Daniels. Imagine the Nancy Pelosi article didn't mention her investments and huge returns. Imagine the article about Putin didn't mention his invasion of Ukraine. Imagine the article about Khamenei didn't talk about the Mahsa Amini protests. The list is endless. If politicians/rich businesspeople knew that they could get their history clean in Wikipedia by engaging in lawfare, they would do it. Relying on the justice system, wherever they are, to always side with "justice", "truth" and "democracy" is vain and too naive. Actions should be taken to ensure that any similar attempts can result in Streissand effect. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 06:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. We're literally steps away from a Trump or Trump-esque figure suing us to remove anything they don't like here. We're either about free-knowledge, or we're not. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED has been repeated over and over in AfD discussons. You either stand by the project, or you slowly chip away at it until it's no longer free knowledge, only what they want you to see. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I wouldn't rule out the possibility of that happening right in this very case, behind the curtains, as the WMF decision of throwing editors under the bus out of the blue, apparently in the name of the possibility of higher political gains at an EU court, strikes me as quite bizarre and lacking proper explanation. Look for the connections to the incumbent, you may find something interesting. Darwin Ahoy! 15:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
throwing editors under the bus out of the blue is neither fair nor accurate. The WMF have been fighting to avoid removal of content and sharing of user data in this case since 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf It is fair and accurate indeed, as it is factually and exactly what has happened in this case now. The court requested private data on the editors that had added to the article the content now contested so that they could be individually sued by Paço, at his request. The WMF selected 8 of these Wikipedia editors, and sent the court their IP addresses and email when available. This information is often enough to trace back a person and sue them, with the appropriate court authorizations. That they were not doing that for years and then suddenly changed their mind and actually did it sounds quite immaterial to me, as the result is the same. Darwin Ahoy! 15:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't suddenly changed their mind they fought all the way to the highest court in the land and then complied only when that court ordered them to. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese courts have not any jurisdiction over WMF, so if they are throwing editors under the bus, as they are, it's either out of WMF free will or due to undisclosed pressure behind the curtains, and not by pressure of any Portuguese court. Darwin Ahoy! 16:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From a legal standpoint, I understand about the position of WMF. But as WMF is supposed to stand for "free speech", I feel that a greater action, greater than just another legal wrangling on EU court, should be taken. While ANI case may not create a chilling factor to many European/American editors, Portugal might as it is part of the EU and being sued in the Portugal might have complications for some people. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 16:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wouldn't convince "them" of anything, and it would do nothing for "us" except making us feel like we're Doing Something. As I said elsewhere, the only thing this sort of action does is take the people who would be "on the fence" and make them annoyed at us. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. That's why I commented on the AfD that the article should be deleted and a new article written on the controversy and have the guy's name be a redirect to it. No banners, no announcements, just move on with business as usual, per WP:DENY. TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 While the WP:DENY essay speaks on vandalism and perpetually online trolls, it applies equally in this case. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, this sort of knee jerk overreaction is exactly what actors like DePaco want... It would make us look petty, capricious, and politically motivated which is exactly what we have been charged with in the court of public opinion (even if the legal claims always seem to be much smaller). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also strongly oppose this for the same reason. As with the previous proposal to black out WP for several days in response to the ANI court case in India, this would just make readers mad at us, not at the plaintiff in this lawsuit, or at the court ruling. The lawsuit sought to limit access to the free flow of information on a single article, but this would be giving what the plaintiff wants, and much more, to the point of violating WP:POINT. Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global ban for Caesar DePaço

[edit]

Oh, I did half-jokingly suggest in the other discussion that Wikipedia and the WMF organization can formally (not rudely, but officially) send a reply to Caesar DePaço declaring that he, in turn, is currently prohibited from editing Wikipedia due to WP:No Legal Threats - you cannot participate and simultaneously sue or threaten to sue the website. If he wants WMF to not do something he should also understand when WMF wants him to not touch something, and besides, it's only fair that he doesn't get to unilaterally control the article in a website that doesn't belong to him (given COI, let alone the current situation). 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. JSutherland (WMF), if a regular editor systematically attempts to reveal the identities of multiple users over the span of four years, they would be rightfully handed out a WMF Global Ban by Trust and Safety. Why should this individual be an exception? After all, this situation meets all three criteria specified by the global ban policy, and it is possible for individuals who have never made contributions to the projects to be prohibited from accessing or participating in any websites or activities supported, sponsored or funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. Caesar DePaço has maliciously used litigation to undermine the core pillars our encyclopedia stands upon, and wasted the Foundation thousands of dollars and many more hours of time. But most importantly, the editors whose identities were revealed because of this may very well lose their money, their jobs, and potentially their freedom. Your Trust and Safety team promises a safe editing environment for everyone, and this individual has and is actively jeopardizing it. Therefore, I propose that Caesar DePaço and all his associates be prohibited from interacting with any Wikimedia Foundation project indefinitely. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is he editing Wikipedia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Not as far as we know. Polygnotus (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd say it's premature to ban him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to send a strong statement, and while we are divided over what to do with the article now, we can all agree that Caesar DePaço has jeopardized the integrity of the project and the safety of our editors. Our global banning policy bans individuals, not user accounts, and they do not need to make even a single edit in order to be banned. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't have to edit Wikipedia to be globally banned by the WMF. It also means the person cannot attend in-person events or workshops hosted by the WMF. Judging by the person's actions, something tells me they don't like being told what they can and can't do, so there's also the possibility for mild annoyance. TurboSuperA+[talk] 06:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some lawyers of his in the past have edited, per the discussion over at AfD about his article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several of his lawyers have, yes. Ruimbarreira1411 is one of them, along with several IP editors. See also an ANI report. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ruimbarreira1411/Archive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. There is a "Jake Christie of Southern California" item on the Foundation global ban list.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 09:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! And one "Anatoly Shariy" I see. The question then becomes if WMF should globally ban him. I don't know the process here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be far smarter to invite him, and show him how things work. Polygnotus (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If he cared about how things work, he wouldn't have jumped straight to having lawyers edit and then suing. He doesn't care how things work, he just wants his online presence scrubbed of negative information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez Exactly. And that makes politely inviting him to explain how things work here so strong! Polygnotus (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has been suing every single Portuguese media outlet that dared to criticize him over the span of decades.[1] He clearly doesn't care about building a neutral encyclopedia, he only cares about his public image. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering he's getting his way, to the detriment of Wikipedia and the capitulation of the WMF, I think he's showing us how things work. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see this as a symbolic ban which like an honorary PhD does not hold much value but I think is still worth doing. He can always appeal.
Czarking0 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://lusoamericano.com/businessman-caesar-depaco-is-suing-portuguese-media
It would be far smarter to invite him, and show him how things work.
When WP:AGF goes too far. TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TurboSuperA+ That has nothing to do with AGF. It has everything to do with ensuring the courtcase goes the way we want it to. Politely offering to explain how free speech works, how encyclopedia writing works and how the Streisand effect works is an excellent strategy. Being rude to rude people is playing their game. Polygnotus (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I mean, has the WMF even asked the guy politely not to sue them? This whole thing could have been avoided with a "please"... TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TurboSuperA+ You still don't understand. What matters is what the judge sees. Polygnotus (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could gather, the case has been going on for a while, and this recent development was the WMF losing the appeal against the decision. I imagine that at some point in the process Wikipedia's policies and ways of doing things were explained to the judges. If not, the WMF needs better lawyers. TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about politely offering to explain those things to DePaço. Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're doing a bit to make a point, or if you're actually suggesting that we should sit down with a guy who has a history of vexatious litigation and hope we can lead him to rethink his whole life. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 07:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien The idea is not to convince him of anything. What I am saying is that it would be smarter to invite him to explain stuff to him than it would be to ban him from a website he has never used as far as we know. Looks good for the judge. Polygnotus (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which judge? The one who presided over the case that's closed, ending 4 years of legal proceedings? I think it might be a bit late for that. Omo Spotnick (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Omo Spotnick See We plan to support the affected users here. Polygnotus (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see - you mean in any possible future legal action against them. Omo Spotnick (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Polygnotus (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously think he would care about free speech or the Streisand effect? Would Elon Musk? Would Asian News International? Would you be allowing [insert LTA here] to create an account and converse about why harassment is bad and we should all get along? There are limits to good faith, and this individual has clearly crossed the line. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously think he would care about free speech or the Streisand effect? Would Elon Musk? Would Asian News International? No, but that is the point. Polygnotus (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is pretending to be nice towards the people litigating against you proven to influence court cases in the context of a community-driven website? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChildrenWillListen Yes. If we are reasonable, pleasant and easy to get along with, and they are shouty, angry and weird then we have already won. Reacting emotionally is a terrible strategy. Polygnotus (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they get what they want, it doesn't matter that we are pleasant and easygoing. It's them who've actually won. Deinocheirus (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deinocheirus First of all, excellent taste in dinosaurs. Secondly, it is not over yet. See here. Polygnotus (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly he'd care about the Streisand effect, but WP-talkpages don't add much to it. Judging by [3], he's got nothing to worry about in that regard, and I'm told this has been in the courts for years. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Global ban might be warranted instead for @Cristiano Tomás, considering the last version of this article before suppression essentially looks like a very visible WP:PAID violation, detailing every single thing he has done and doing an extensive deep-dive on his philanthropy efforts while using sources from his own company. Cristiano first created the article in English Wikipedia and then waited for 2 years to create it in Portuguese Wikipedia, where he has significantly less edits, most of which about DePaco. In 2021 Portuguese Wikipedia discussed deleting the page, and it is mentioned there that he edited the pages for DePaco, his company, (deleted) page about the Florida consulate (Honorary Consulate of Portugal, Florida), and his own father, who is apparently a friend of DePaco. From how this looks from the outside, it seems like this is a case where a businessman wanted a Wikipedia page he could control, and then turned to courts when that no longer was the case.
Since @Cristiano Tomás has 39,000 edits in English Wikipedia, last of which was yesterday, and, funnily enough, gave a presentation on the topic of Censorship of Wikipedia: Why it's Important and How We Fight It, it would be nice to hear his comment on the case in general and on his involvement with DePaco. stjn 12:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more and more dismayed/disgusted by the Wiki office team, the more I read about this. We should at least be given fair and honest answers, we don't have to agree with them, but that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
m:WMF Global Ban Policy lists Jake Christie of Southern California, the Norbert IP, and Anatoly Shariy as people who have gotten a WMF ban without a related account, so there is precedent for it happening. Thus, the WMF should seriously consider banning Caesar DePaço. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU The question, as always in this capitalist world, is "how would that benefit us"? Polygnotus (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of a small amount of user data for eight users

[edit]

What data exactly?
Perhaps, this is the most important question in the entire discussion. It’s unfair to the community not to clearly articulate this information. Rampion (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that unfair to the community? Polygnotus (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because among Wikipedia contributors, there is a significant number of people who are citizens of countries with a rather peculiar approach to justice.
If the Foundation is willing to hand over user data based on court orders from outside the U.S., then these contributors are exposed to increased personal risk simply by participating in the project.
For example, Russian contributors editing articles about the war or current politics significantly raise their chances of facing prosecution or imprisonment if IP address data of registered users ends up in the hands of Russian authorities.
That’s exactly why the question of what specific data was shared is incredibly important.
  • If it’s just the username — not a big deal, it’s already visible in the article history.
  • If it’s the email — that’s painful, but at least contributors can be advised to switch to a safer address.
  • But if it’s the IP — then the consequences could be severe.
The emergence of a precedent for disclosing personal data to courts increases the risk of imprisonment or other forms of persecution for contributors from such countries.
That’s why it is absolutely crucial to have full and transparent information — so that individuals can make informed decisions about how to mitigate personal risks. Rampion (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Le Loy (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This came up during the ANI vs WMF discussions, and iirc, it's documented that WMF has a few times over the years given user data per Policy:Privacy_policy#For_Legal_Reasons. Apparently they gave the DHC something in the ANI case, for example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I am trying to figure out: what information they actually disclosed. Rampion (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best case scenario: "That edit was made by this username, we have no IP-adress because it was more than 90 days ago and thus deleted." Of course, with username follows the edithistory. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"with username follows the edithistory" ..and often the full personal identity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's often, but in your case it would be. However, the non-WMF side in a court case don't need WMF to tell them you made a specific edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the user has ever had an email associated with the account or can be identified by combining other date points (see: mosaic effect) there's a multitude of ways a Wikipedia editor can be exposed. All it takes is one key piece of data to start. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A guess: IP address, browser agent, operating system, time and date of edits. TurboSuperA+[talk] 03:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to the Russian government I guess, and I hope they are not considering doing so. Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it was mostly American courts. I think there was a list somewhere, perhaps someone can find it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why we consider the US courts safer than the Russian courts, given how weird that USA has got - how long before an American court orders Wikipedia to hand over the IP of anyone who makes a positive comment about vaccines? Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid if you are saying this you just really have no idea how the Russian courts currently operate. Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Rampion (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you way too confident that the US courts won't go downhill quickly with the rise of fascism there. Nfitz (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rampion If people assume that the WMF can protect them in all cases then they should probably not assume that... especially citizens of countries with a rather peculiar approach to justice like the USA. these contributors are exposed to increased personal risk simply by participating in the project. Of course they are. Polygnotus (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be responding more to your own thoughts on the topic rather than to what I actually wrote.
I’m not expecting protection from the court or WMF.
What I am expecting is transparency — especially when the rules of the game change in ways that impact my personal safety.
And right now, they have changed — there’s been a precedent where the Foundation handed over editor data to a court in some random country. To me, that’s a deeply concerning signal. I want to understand exactly what data was disclosed, so I can take appropriate steps to protect myself.
If that’s not a concern for you — that’s totally fine. But the question wasn’t addressed to you, it was for the WMF representatives
So no pressure to reply to every comment I make. Sometimes it’s okay to just let people express their concerns or expectations — especially when they’re not directed at you. Rampion (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe you could make life easier by pinging me when you direct comments to me, like you partially did above, and not pinging me when you don't. Pretty weird comment in the context that I asked you a question and you answered it. And I doubt that WMF representatives are lurking here 24/7. Polygnotus (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated elsewhere, if I'm at personal risk/legal risk for simply participating in Wikipedia, I'm ready to walk away after 20 years. Keeping my family fed/safe/housed is more important than an online wiki. I'm not putting my financial future at stake for a free-speech project, I'm sorry. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that WMF have clearly stated that the editor is the one legally responsible for their own edits, and Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible for the edits or contributions of the editors. WMF's assistance is on their own discretion, they may give it or they may not. While this Paco guy is not someone really important to world affairs, imagine if someone who are infamous like Putin, Khamanei, any US/Europe politicians, and so on found that if they persisted enough in their lawfare they will be able to change their article in Wikipedia. Putin, Khamanei, and other infamous actors will wield significantly more resources and influence than this Paco guy. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 16:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jrogers (WMF) responded below saying IP address and whatever email is registered with the account, if any. [4] Some1 (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involved users

[edit]

Have those eight users been notified by WMF? Are they all in Portugal?

There are far more than eight users whose edits are no longer individually viewable due to this oversighting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrogers (WMF): Can you enlighten us, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, but what's your point regarding far more than eight users whose edits are no longer individually viewable? Individual diffs aren't required for attribution, just a list of people who contributed to an article. I would expect that the eight users in question are likely the ones who have added or edited the removed material, and everyone else who made edits elsewhere in that article isn't impacted.
I would also expect that the people whose information has been disclosed would probably appreciate some privacy as they're probably rather upset right now, so I don't think we should be asking about or even speculating on who they are or their location. I would hope the WMF has already notified them though, and I agree it'd be good to get a yes/no confirmation on that specific point. stwalkerster (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"we should be asking about or even speculating on who they are"—I wasn't.
"or their location"—That's very germane. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't intending to accuse you specifically, but rather head off speculation more generally. I honestly don't see why it matters what country the 8 editors are from or how it has any impact on what we as the wider community would do going forward, and thus why you feel a need to know.
I am still curious to know what your point is about the visibility of individual edits though. stwalkerster (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because as it stands, any one of the people making those edits could be the ones named to the Portuguese authorities, and we ought to know whether or not we are among them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great reason to know whether or not the WMF has notified the affected people (which I support). It doesn't have any relevance as to the visibility of the individual edits IMHO.
Given the link below posted by Augustresende, it seems clear to me that the WMF has notified at least one affected person so I'd be stunned at this point if they haven't notified the other seven. stwalkerster (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the relevant legal policy requires the Foundation to contact affected users in all but two circumstances:
  1. They have no way of doing so. e.g. if you have no email set, have no other contact details listed, cannot be reliably connected to accounts elsewhere that do contain contact information, etc. They'll make reasonable efforts to contact you, but if they can't they can't.
  2. They are legally prohibited from doing so. e.g. a super injunction type court order that prohibits informing the affected people that the order exists and/or that it affects them. I don't believe this is relevant to this case.
All the information I've seen points to them following their own processes in this regard, nor can I think of a reason why it would benefit them to do otherwise. Note that they explicitly state that they will work to support the affected editors in regards any legal actions that result, making contact with those editors as soon as possible will likely make that a lot easier so they (the WMF) actually benefit from following their policy. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF): Pinging you again in case you missed this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified

[edit]

I was notified. I am from Brazil. Skyshiftertalk 02:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May we ask how what date you were notified, and do you know how long it was between the WMF knowing you were being targeted and you were informed? Did you only find out after it was too late? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified by email on July 23. I was only then made aware. Skyshiftertalk 03:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know what date the WMF knew this was inevitable?
Were you given any opportunity to do anything legally about this, or were you just told something, like, "it's done"? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to the first question. Regarding the second one, I was told I could ask them questions about the disclosure, though they could not give legal advice, and I could instead consult my own lawyer if I wish. They told me about their Legal Fees Assistance and Defense of Contributors programs. Skyshiftertalk 03:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Very Polite Person "Do we know what date the WMF knew this was inevitable?" - For what it's worth, the Portuguese press reported what seems to be the result of this last appeal by WMF, in early last April: "In Ruling no. 282/2025, with Justice Rui Guerra da Fonseca as the reporting judge, it is considered clear that the issue of constitutionality was not raised in a procedurally appropriate manner by the Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore, the Constitutional Court decides to dismiss the complaint, not to take cognizance of the subject matter of the appeal, and to order the claimant to pay the legal costs of the proceedings." Darwin Ahoy! 09:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your transparency? Is there anything you can tell us about the context of your edit, without violating the order (which I confess I don't understand)? Not the content, but was what you added sourced? Did it express opinion? Perhaps this is an unanswerable question. Nfitz (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't remember what edit I made specifically that they considered negative. I don't remember adding content related "to accusations of past crimes, an organization he was alleged to have founded, and his resignation (or dismissal) from a civil service post" (as WMF states). I never researched the subject to add these kinds of contents. Maybe it was me undoing an edit that removed these contents. I do remember an AFD there was at the time, that I think I participated in, that was quite contentious. I also recall adding content related to the Wikimedia proceedings itself, though that is not part of the order. I'd never add opinions or unsorced content to an article though. Skyshiftertalk 14:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter You should probably ask the WMF. Polygnotus (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I saw your name at all in the entire history of his article, including suppressed edits. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should've clarified it was in the Portuguese Wikipedia, where I do appear a few times [5]. Skyshiftertalk 14:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what data was disclosed? IP address, email, etc? That would answer a question a few sections up and provide some insight into the kinds of risks editors in this situation face. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF) has already answered this Data we have as website host is listed at the data retention guidelines. It generally boils down to IP address and whatever email is registered with the account, if any. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: were you notified? Do you live in Portugal? RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Consul

[edit]

What should be done with Honorary Consulate of Portugal, Florida, which is effectively also a biography of DePaço ("The first and only honorary consul was Caesar DePaço..."); and which DePaço links to from his own social media accounts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would treat it like any other article. If you think it needs improving, improve it. If you think it fails to meet WP:N, propose it for deletion. But, make those judgements based on the content of the article, not the off-wiki activities of its subject. RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs improving by the addition of the reason the HC resigned (the resignation is currently uncited). Do you think it is safe for me to do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ruimbarreira1411/Archive is related. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually a good idea, if we get 10.000 people to edit that article it would make the court case a lot more fun. Polygnotus (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If he was the only one, my knee-jerk reaction is merge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this IP edit removed content and a source, with a misleading edit summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated it for deletion for us to have an effective holistic review of this entire scenario: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorary Consulate of Portugal, Florida -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are also other articles that mention his name and appear to discuss the content at issue Alina Habba for example. How to deal with those also needs to be determined. Masem (t) 19:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the court to actually order anything related to pages other than en:DePaço and pt:Caesar DePaço? Anomie⚔ 21:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on DePaco to object, it would be unwise to go beyond removing exactly what the court has ordered and no more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did check the decision and does appear only Depaco's BLP page on en and pt.wiki were the target, but I could see a whole can of worms if someone one created "Accusations towards Depaco" or similar page with all the same content as to technically work around the court order. However, we should presume wholesale inclusion of the content identify as a problem by the court will be targeted. There needs to be at least a duty to warn editors of what the situation is and that if the court demands it, WMF may have to release their id's to them. Masem (t) 13:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did actually anyone check the sources which describe the issues we are not allowed to write about? Do they conform with WP:RS and WP:BLP? If not, then we should not be writing about the issues anyway, and if anyone does, this can be dealt with using our own policies, not the court decision. Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter The sources are of prime quality, namely a broadcast report by SIC by renowned Portuguese journalist Pedro Coelho and others. They are online and publicly available, at least in Portugal, at SIC streaming platform OPTO. Look for "A Grande Ilusão", specially T1E5, and the previous episode for the rest. Paço also sued Pedro Coelho and other journalists and SIC persons (and other news sources), without any apparent consequences, as the report not only continues online but has actually been updated with further information about the activities the court doesn't want to be shown on Wikipedia. Darwin Ahoy! 15:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why were 136 edits and all comments posted for 5 hours removed from this discussion here?

[edit]

See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)&action=history&offset=&limit=5000

Why were 136 edits and all comments posted for 5 hours removed from this discussion here? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing, not being a WP:OVERSIGHTer, but I think most of those comments are still here, what was removed was probably some link or comment deemed legally problematic or whatever. Edit history looking like that doesn't mean all the comments disappeared, there's some technical reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way RevDel works, you first have to select the edits that need to redacted. Then you select whether to delete the edit contents, the edit summary, and/or the user name. Each of those selections applies to all of the edits that have been selected. To delete only some of the edit summaries, the admin performing the RevDel would have to perform a separate operation for each of the selected edits, 136 in this case. Donald Albury 16:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight works identically to RevDel in this respect. It is literally just a radio button to choose whether to suppress or just revision delete all the choices made. If you want to suppress some aspects and revision delete other aspects you have to do that in separate actions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the page history (and 5000 items is ridiculous, as I already told you on another matter, elsewhere) shows.
The reason for the change is given in an edit summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=171585910. Somebody posted an offensive comment which needed to be removed via WP:REVDEL. Unfortunately, the way REVDEL works, that means you have to first edit the page to remove the offending material and then delete all of the revisions between when the offensive material was added and when it was removed, so that's what I did. RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS, they were just revdelled, which is a step short of oversight. RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the older set of revdeletes, I'm not sure we need to hide >100 edits just to hide one incivil comment. Isn't that a lot of collateral damage? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate, but there's no other way due to how revdel works, and the comment was offensive enough to justify the cost. The edit notice says Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against others, including employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be met with sanctions. I implemented the first part. I was tempted to implement the second as well but stayed my hand.
There really isn't a lot of collateral; while the individual diffs are hidden, the content (absent the specific text I deleted) is still visible, and for the most part still connected to who wrote what and when, via the in-line signatures. RoySmith (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a lot of revisions un-diff-able, and runs a bit afoul of Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use. We can agree to disagree though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Novem Linguae here; it's not worth hiding so many edits to hide minor incivility from view. And times like this are when I wish we could rebase edits. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1, I find it annoying when so many diffs are revdel'd, since I can't look at or refer to or link to individual diffs, including my own. Was the "offensive comment" really so bad that no editor shall be permitted to see it? If it was PII I could understand it, but then it'd be oversighted. I can see the need for large scale oversight sometimes but I struggle to see the use of large scale revdel. Frankly, I struggle to see the use of RD2 at all. If it's not oversightable, why bother deleting it? What are we protecting? Levivich (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was the "offensive comment" really so bad that no editor shall be permitted to see it? In my opinion, yes. The alternative is that we normalize this kind of behavior. Please see WP:AN#Review my revdel. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion no, it's just mundane incivility that there's no reason we need to move heaven and earth to censor from view. Sure, removing or redacting the comment was fine, but people aren't going to dig deep into the page history looking for stuff to be offended by, and your action has Streisanded wildly. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi everyone,

We saw that there was an active discussion and several questions about this, so I’d like to provide an overall response. A couple caveats first though. One, this is still an active case in both the European Court of Human Rights and has the possibility of further proceedings in Portugal if DePaço brings a subsequent lawsuit, so I cannot talk about legal strategy or give a blow by blow analysis of the risks in this case because they remain active in the courts. Two, I (and all Foundation lawyers) are not allowed under legal ethics to give you all legal advice, so I have to stop short of anything that’s telling users what to do or the nature of their personal risks. With those notes, I can say a few things in general on this topic and hopefully answer some questions.

How can the community deal with the article going forward? This is a good question, and it’s a point we’ve raised in legal arguments unsuccessfully in the past as well. For example, if a court demands that all information about a certain topic be gone, but it’s still floating around in sources, that makes it really difficult to prevent someone popping up six months later who researches the topic and just adds it back in. In this case, we were able to provide some detail about the topics that were covered that could be used as a talk page warning. To copy that here, it’s anything 1) relating to accusations of past crimes, 2) an organization DePaço was alleged to have founded, and 3) his resignation (or dismissal) from a civil service post. Different communities may take different approaches to how they handle this, aligned with their content governance and editorial practices. Some language versions might have different views on the question between balancing access to information about a notable subject vs. the risk of confusion and repeat additions of material deemed illegal. Some languages may prefer a policy of deleting the entire article if something like this happens and others might prefer editor warnings or a case by case analysis. My view is that it’s good if each language makes that determination for themselves.

Has this happened before? Yes, but rarely. We did have to remove material in two French cases from the French language Wikipedia a couple years ago, and have previously had to remove German material. I will also note that we’ve had different responses from oversighters and VRT in different languages and so there have been a number of cases (including in English) where we worked with VRT or oversighters to remove material based on a legal claim and the preferences of that particular language; it just didn’t get as far as this case.

Is this unfair and inappropriate censorship? In my view, the decision is not so out of bounds legally as to cross this line because the Portuguese courts fully considered the case across multiple judges and levels of appeals, disagreed with each other, but ultimately came down on appeals that they found some content that infringed the rights to honour or privacy. The Portuguese judgment here is final and we have to follow it in order to bring the claim we’ve brought before the ECHR or for any other new proceedings to occur in Portugal. We characterized the original DePaço claim as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) case and still stand by that: a lawsuit can be a SLAPP because it’s overbroad or designed to chill speech even if some of the content it covers is found to violate the law. Thus, the result of fighting it (and after review and appeals from multiple Portuguese judges) was that it was substantially narrowed rather than completely overturned. While that’s disappointing, and we hope that either our filing in the European Court of Human Rights or potential new proceedings in Portugal can ultimately create a broader ruling protecting Wikipedians, it is important to understand that neither the ECHR nor a new Portuguese case would be a normal appeal and so neither would prevent us having to follow the judgment right now, which is why I don’t think it’s unfair at this point.

Why do we have to follow it, there aren’t any servers in Portugal? I’m going to take this moment to try to dispel a popular misconception on this. The location of servers or corporate offices is not the primary factor in determining legal jurisdiction in legal claims of defamation, honor, or privacy and never has been. Instead, these claims tend to be based on where the harm is experienced by the subject. DePaço’s claim is somewhat unusual in that regard because it explicitly identifies both language articles in English and Portuguese (typically people sue about only a single language) and his personal life is closely tied to both Portugal and the United States. Servers and corporate offices are important for determining something called general jurisdiction, which is the authority of a court to hear any type of case. Courts outside of the US do NOT have general jurisdiction over the Wikimedia Foundation. But they often do have specific jurisdiction in a single case about a single article. Lastly, many larger regions such as the whole EU, have begun adjusting their jurisdictional expectations beyond the traditional general/specific distinction. I wrote about this briefly in a 2024 essay on wikilegal, discussing the way that several EU laws have extended broad jurisdiction beyond the traditional principles. Even then, the Foundation does have a policy on making a determination about applicable law. At this point, it gets into the limits of my ability to talk about confidential legal strategy and legal advice, but we determined that this case at this point met the requirements of that policy as part of our decision to comply with this order.

Why is this global? I am going to take my cue from the way Rhododendrites phrased the question and leave you all to discuss the ethics of geoblocking, which I will read carefully. But the answer to the technical question is that we cannot geoblock using existing technology. There is one Wikipedia per language and everybody who reads that language anywhere in the world gets the same material and that’s currently how the tech works. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrogers (WMF) Question on a specific "must-not-be-mentioned", you said "his resignation (or dismissal) from a civil service post."
However, in the version as edited by WMF office [6], his resignation is still mentioned, 4th paragraph under Career. Are you saying they missed it, or is it because of something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's his own public statement about it, it is not covered by the court order, whereas reporting about the issue of resignation vs. dismissal is what the court order covered. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF): Thanks for providing these explanations. A question: why does the WMF respond to or participate in litigation outside the US, at all? Why isn't the policy "sue us in the US, or we're just going to ignore it"? What harms would befall Wikipedia if that were the policy? Levivich (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF) I'm curious about the summary you provided here versus the document at https://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/892334302433a4d680258a2700541702?OpenDocument. Is that the right document to look at for the actual court order? If so, does (1) cover all crimes, or only ones from 1989 and subsequent processes? Does (3) cover resignation too, or only dismissal ("exoneração")? Should there be a (4) regarding the "que o requerente ficou impedido de obter qualquer documento português" bit? Anomie⚔ 21:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF): do you have an English translation of the court's judgment that you can make available? Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try and address a few more of these questions; I’m sorry I can’t address all of them, not least due to space constraints in addition to the legal and strategic ones - in particular, I’ll try for a partial answer to the big question @Levivich asked. @Anomie, I can’t offer public legal advice, but I can explain our understanding of the order’s requirements for us more after checking with colleagues on this. Starting with the case specifics: first, we understand the order to cover only facts of a criminal nature allegedly committed by Mr. DePaço which occurred in 1989, and their subsequent procedural progress. Allegations that are unrelated to that particular matter would not be covered. Second, regarding resignation/dismissal - the provisional order accepts DePaço's assertion that he resigned of his own initiative, rather than being dismissed. The point is that since the court accepted this in its order, it considers the description as a dismissal unlawful and may have at least provisionally accepted that it’s false. As a side note, I want to emphasize that this is an order in a preliminary proceeding and we continue to argue on behalf of the previous description on Wikipedia; it's possible that this preliminary order will be overruled at some point if these arguments are successful. Regarding "que o requerente ficou impedido de obter qualquer documento português" (“that the applicant was prevented from obtaining any Portuguese (ID) document”), our understanding is that allegations around this relate specifically to the other matters, so we hadn’t set this out separately. @Voorts, we do not have an official translation. We can link you to this Google Translation of it, but evidently we cannot vouch for this translation's complete accuracy.
On the broader point of why we litigate: our overall goal is to protect the Wikimedia projects and the people who contribute to them and advance the free knowledge mission. Individual cases can do that in different ways. For example, when we lost the freedom of panorama case in Sweden years ago, that was a sad moment, but it still helped editors understand what was and wasn’t within the public domain so they could do a better job contributing images from Sweden and other countries that might share those principles.
In more defensive cases, if we are litigating rather than resolving the demands before litigation starts, it means we think that we have a legal argument (hopefully a good one!) to get a result that at minimum clarifies the law and ideally clarifies it in a way that expands the knowledge commons and protects good faith editors. On the negative side, I don’t want to publicly lay out a playbook of every way that someone could try to enforce a court judgment to hurt the Wikimedia Foundation, affiliates, or editors in different countries. What I will say is that compared to the state of the law 10-15 years ago, I think that the legal claims have changed to be more complex and countries around the world have become more willing to try and enforce a range of consequences against websites and their users than they used to be. At the same time, more legal rules apply extra territorially (i.e., in other countries). So this tends to make it more important for us to litigate around the world and try to win in the countries where cases arise. That also means that occasionally where we don’t get the result we are arguing for, like in this case, we still need to operate lawfully where applicable law extends beyond the United States (even if we still pursue additional appeals to challenge an order). Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, those specifics are what I was looking for with my questions. 🙂 Anomie⚔ 17:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jrogers (WMF), do you know if the court order also covered the removal of certain sources that mentioned the foundation with the right to be forgotten, such as specifically this Visão article? I'm wondering at the deletion discussion whether it's possible to add information on ties to leaders of Chega while not mentioning the foundation and thus not violating the court order. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Follow up

[edit]
Thanks! Yeah there are lists of IP ranges per country (maxmind geoip and the like) and they all suck and are unreliable, even the paid version. For example Vodafone hands out ips from the same range to customers from several different countries, so geoIP as a concept is doomed. Polygnotus (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fully satisfied by this, but I'm willing to reserve judgement while an appeal is still ongoing. My main concern is precedent. If some inconsequential rando can legally enforce censorship of Wikipedia through a SLAPP, then people with significantly more resources are going to try and do the same thing. How we respond to this will decide whether we have to face countless lawsuits of this nature in the future. I assume this is something already being discussed behind the scenes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a long-time member of the Wikimedia Movement, I am deeply concerned about a recurring issue. This is already the second high-profile incident within a year, and such actions risk becoming a precedent.
The Wikimedia Movement is built on the principles of consensus-building. Almost all decisions are made by the community based on well-established rules and practices. We are the ones who create content, develop technical tools, and maintain the infrastructure and functionality of the encyclopedia.
Yet suddenly, without any prior discussion, certain content is removed from an article, and its revision history is hidden — all without consulting the community. In my home wiki, the standard response to such an action would be to revert the Foundation staff member's edits and restore the content, pending an open discussion and consensus.
Therefore, I would like to understand the following:
  • What sanctions, if any, will be applied to community members who restore the article and revert to standard, consensus-based practices?
  • What will happen if a significant portion of the community decides to restore the content and uphold our shared principles?
Iniquity (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your first question can be found at WP:OFFICE. For the second, see WP:FRAM. RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the second, see WP:FRAM.
Thank you, I think this is exactly what I was looking for, as a basic behavior. But I would like to understand if there are new guidelines for interaction with communities after this incident. Iniquity (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iniquity What sanctions, if any, will be applied to community members who restore the article ... Well that one dude might sue you, you know? Polygnotus (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that one dude might sue you, you know?
It will be sad, yes :) Iniquity (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before the inevitable influx of discussion, I'd just like to say thanks for your timely and detailed response. It is really appreciated. Giraffer (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) relating to accusations of past crimes, 2) an organization DePaço was alleged to have founded, and 3) his resignation (or dismissal) from a civil service post Can someone put this in an editnotice so people avoid getting accidentally sued by this individual? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I still see how much the WMF's responses lack transparency with the community. I understand that there is ongoing litigation, but community trust seems to be declining. The principles of freedom and free knowledge that the foundation believes it defends seem to be less and less been considered, in both actions and official communications. Augustresende (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, if Legal isn't more open about this, I have issues with Wikipedia entirely at this point. We've had similar court cased in India over at Commons over a map and in France when someone posted info about a government listening post that was removed, then added again... We allowed the information there to stand, not sure why this case is different. Oaktree b (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I'm at as well. I understand that some discretion is needed if they're going to continue appealing this, but if this is intended to be a permanent change and we're going to incentivize more lawsuits of this type, then I'm ready to support halting Wikipedia's processes entirely until that changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was the India map thing ever a court case and not just some government department noise? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Government passed a law about a map in Kashmir I think, I'd have to dig around in Commons a bit. Wikemedia Commons ended up putting a banner on the category saying they didn't agree with the decision, and it only applied in India. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I just remembered: Wikipedia_in_India#Indian_government,_courts,_and_Wikipedia mentions it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think the WMF is hiding something? Why do you think they'd spend tons of money prosecuting an appeal to defend editors' rights just so that they can then lie to us about things or withhold information that they don't have to? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the community trust declining. Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, and the follow up was quick too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, for all the belly-aching, I don't see the expected edit-warring to keep the grieved content if this truly was a community-polarizing issue. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems [7] that the en-WP office action didn't remove that much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I feel slighted by the decision for one, I'm willing to explain it to others at this point. I can't recommend Wikipedia, after doing so for 20 years, if I'm at personal legal/financial risk for doing so. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled about this. Could we simply point the offending page to something like https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o and lock it? Nfitz (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, what would be the idea behind doing so? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm thinking about comparing to other alternatives being discussed. Blanking, deleting, etc. I'm not sure if it's legally acceptable - is the WMF required to censor those pages as well? Nfitz (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having the material in the revision history was problematic enough for it to be oversighted from the view of even administrators. We have a policy explicitly rejecting the proposed approach, with legal details about the prohibition, for knowingly linking to copyright violations, so I'd be surprised if this is suddenly okay for material a court has ordered to be removed. The idea has been voiced multiple times now, though, and I'm not a lawyer. Jrogers (WMF), am I being overcautious here or is it correct to reject this proposal for legal reasons? What are your thoughts on suppressing links to exact copies of the suppressed material when they're added to the article in question? Would you feel obligated do so if oversighters didn't? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that for it to be oversighted from the view of even administrators appears to have been undone along with the restoration of visibility of the edit summaries. Although it's not clear if that was intentional or was accidentally done, as oversight logs are not visible to non-oversighters and it wasn't mentioned one way or the other below. Anomie⚔ 01:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, good catch. Assuming it was intentional, suppression is then revision deletion and oversighters are then administrators in my question. Discussing all this directly under a publicly visible link to the deleted material feels weird to me but apparently the court order is really limited to the article. The deletion discussion is prominently linked from the article, though, and contains such a link at its top. I had removed one without noticing there's another, and then I stopped trying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree The court decision was not about the content per se, which AFAIK is perfectly fine in Portugal and elsewhere. It was about its exposure to the world in a platform of great visibility and reputation as an Wikipedia article. IANAL, but on that context, I don't think there is any problem in discussing it or mentioning in other Wikimedia venues, such as this page or the edit summaries, since its visibility to the general reader usually is very low. Darwin Ahoy! 08:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing a notice to readers when censorship occurs

[edit]

This isn't the last time we're going to see this. One way forward is to ensure that readers are informed any time an act of government censorship occurs on Wikipedia. I propose that we protect the article and then issue a notice, either at the top of the main page or above every article. In about two sentences, it should explain the what happened, identify where the censorship occurred, and state the community's objection.

These are a few examples with different wordings for what I have in mind, but I expect we'd mix-and-match them or come up with new wording:

  • On 4 August 2025, information was censored from the Wikipedia article about Portuguese businessman Caesar DePaço by order of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice. The Wikipedia community strongly opposes this as a violation of freedom of information, and we believe it is the right of the public to be informed when information on Wikipedia is censored by a governmental body.
  • As of August 4, 2025, a lawsuit brought by Portuguese businessman Caesar DePaço has resulted in the removal of information from his article. Wikipedia and its editors condemn this attack on the right to freedom of speech, and this will not deter our commitment to providing free information to the world.
  • As of 4 August 2025, legal pressure from businessman Caesar DePaço, upheld by Portugal's highest court, has led to the censorship of his Wikipedia article. Wikipedia encourages all readers to recognise the importance of the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of information in an era where global attacks are launched on your right to be informed.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support this, maybe one week? This is not a really frequent event, and I absolutely believe that this kind of occurrence needs to be properly known to whole community Augustresende (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that the community objects as singularly as you believe that it does. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Informing readers when a government orders censorship of Wikipedia
 – Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did we need to lose all the edit summaries as well?

[edit]

I get that the WMF says that the text changes have to be suppressed because of lawyers. But why were all the edit summaries also suppressed? If you happen to edit uncontentiously on a completely different section your edit could be suppressed because the article contained something that we can't mention. But in every case the edit summary was also suppressed. Normally we only suppress an edit summary if it contains something that merits suppression, so it is usually a bit of a black mark to have had one of your edit summaries suppressed. In this case such normally trusted members of the community as Citation bot, WikiCleanerBot and even the saintly MusikBot II and Pigsonthewing have had an edit summary suppressed. Is the WMF sure that all of those edit summaries truly needed suppression? ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the edit summaries were suppressed because some of them contained problematic section headers. I agree that suppressing all of them was probably overzealous. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the section heading might contain something that the lawyers wanted gone, lets call that "X" and I assume some of those edit summaries will have been along the lines of "adding info about X". Suppressing a few edit summaries along with that large number of edits would accord with the WMF version of things. But MusicBot II's favourite edit summary is "Removing protection templates from unprotected page". Other very common edit summaries in the community are "typo" and "copy edit" or "c/e". Maybe you're right and this was just someone being overzealous, but given the number of edit summaries suppressed and the number of different editors who made them, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these suppressed edit summaries were actually blank. That's overzealousness, overkill or overreach and I would hope that the WMF would either fix this and unsuppress those edit summaries that don't actually mention X, or explain why they needed to suppress every edit summary however blank or inconsequential. ϢereSpielChequers 07:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While User:WereSpielChequers has very kindly over-promoted me (I'm currently only beatified ), I otherwise agree; the current impression is that I and other editors have done something wrong. Leastways, if I have, no-one has told em what. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to the extent possible. It is extremely unlikely that every single edit summary in the article history from 22:29, 12 January 2021 to 01:48, 10 April 2025 needed to be removed to comply with the court order. Suppression should be used as little as possible to minimize the impact of the court order on editors and readers. I ask the Wikimedia Foundation to review all of the suppressed edit summaries in the article history and restore every edit summary that does not need to be removed to comply with the court order. — Newslinger talk 09:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @WereSpielChequers for flagging this! @JSutherland (WMF) helped us pull the edit summaries together for review, and we've had a couple attorneys look over them and determined that we can restore the edit summaries in this case based on them being outside the scope of the court order (they should be back up as of my posting this). Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jrogers, much obliged. Good luck with the appeal to the ECHR, and I hope the WMF stands by those volunteers whose details it has disclosed. ϢereSpielChequers 18:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jrogers (WMF), I did not expect such a quick response and I certainly appreciate it. Thank you for having the edit summaries restored. — Newslinger talk 21:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 questions directly for the WMF staff here

[edit]
  1. If these litigious parties go after seeking data on editors here on this page or in the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço or for other/ongoing edits at Caesar DePaço, how quickly and transparently will the editor and the community be informed?
  2. How long after the WMF knew of the identities of the eight (8) users that would have their data revealed did you inform those users?
  3. What was the lag and delay, in days?
  4. Were those users not provided any opportunity to take informed legal action of their own to possibly block exposure?
  5. Were they informed to be given the option?
  6. What is the formal, written, policy documention on this for WMF legal/officials?
  7. If not public, why not?
  8. If not public, will you now make it public as users here can be legally in danger from this precedent in other countries for seemingly inoccuous edits?
  9. Does the WMF agree that users should be transparently and promptly or immediately informed of legal jeopardy in their actions; if not, why not?
  10. Will the WMF commit to publishing and maintaining something akin to allowing users to exercise informed consent of risks to them in subjects tied to venues (cf Portugal) where they can be sued into exposure seemingly so easily?

Thank you for your prompt attention. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting prompt in bold is not going to make them answer your questions any faster. In any event, WMF's legal and legal assistance policies are available and have been linked to in this discussion. I would presume that the WMF can't tell you about their communications with the editors involved since they were probably confidentual. Also, what makes you think the WMF wouldn't warn an editor that their information is being sought in litigation? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bold was to highlight specific words. We know they notified the users. The questions are how long after the WFM knew the identities of the eight users did they inform the users, and are around policies and actions of the WMF. Nothing I asked gets into privacy concerns of the eight users, but absolutely applies to and can impact every other user, including you and I. If the WMF knew your own data was being sought in a lawsuit filed today, August 6, 2025, what is the policy for how promptly the WMF is supposed to notify you? Things like this we don't just have a desire to know, but a mnadatory requirement to know. The needs of the WMF do not exceed or supersede the safety of editors, never have, and never will. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think the WMF doesn't promptly notify editors who may be targetted in litigation? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying they are not. I am saying there is no justifiable reason for us to, at this juncture, not know transparently the policies around this, and to know the timelines (which risks no privacy) of how engaged the WMF was in protecting these users and giving them sufficient warning to engage whatever, for example, may be the equivalent of the EFF in EU jurisdictions.
If you see this as adversarial in framing to the WMF, that's fine--it may be. But they answer to us, as much as we are expected to answer to them. The WMF owes the user base; they exist because of us. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to leave a public note here saying that the sense of entitlement displayed by this editor is not shared by other editors. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say sense of entitlement, but this is now a matter of self-preservation and self-protection given the WMF--required or not--has now given over user data for eight people to Portugal authorities. The community knowing the protocols, standards, timelines and binding protocols the WMF operates under for matters involving our personal identifying data is neither entitled nor unreasonable going forward. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on "Privacy Policy" and read that, particularly the section called When May We Share Your Information?. If you think this is "now a matter of self-preservation" because the WMF "has now given over user data for eight people to Portugal authorities," you must be unaware of the privacy policy, or the fact that this has happened a number of times before, including last year in the relatively high-profile Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation case. You want transparency, try reading their Transparency Reports. (BTW, putting the word "prompt" in bold will never cause anyone to answer your questions faster, ever; all it does is make you look bad.) Levivich (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One could say it's not very polite... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony in their behavior as compared to their username is incredibly striking, yes. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, if the small handful of people defending this some day find themselves in a courtroom because of a seemingly innocuous edit on Wikipedia, I will feel more than a little schadenfreude. Outrage, yes, but the "I told you so" would be hard to resist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This" being WMF doing what a court says? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps people are still uncertain why a US-based entity had to go along with the localized courts of a single EU country. I think the implication is they had to, in order to bring this up to the proper "EU" level of appeals. As someone who (hopefully) knows more about law at least in the US context than the average person, I'm admittedly baffled myself as to the specifics of the why a US-based entity had to do this. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because foreign judgments can be enforced in the US. Also, to preserve EU appeal rights. Also, to avoid daily fines of 2,000+ Euro per day. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the WMF could handle those fines on top of the millions of rubles it's been fined. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your ideal world, you'd have the WMF do what here, exactly? Ignore the judgment, incur the fines, forgo the EU appeal rights, and wait for the US-based enforcement action? That's what you think was the right move here? Cuz if you have another idea, I'd love to hear it. Levivich (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich People read anakata's reponse to DreamWorks and think that that should be the WMF's approach. Very bad idea. Polygnotus (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I always liked Mike Godwin's response to the FBI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad they're ignoring the Russian court and can understand why they are respecting the decision of the Portuguese court. These are not the same countries, judicial systems, or rule of law and I think the WMF is showing reasonable discrestion in its differeing response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of putting together a list of questions we're interested in the WMF addressing as a community. I think about half of these would be in my top 10 that I'd want the WMF to answer at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrogers (WMF): and @JSutherland (WMF): -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This time, let's do something small instead of yelling and then doing nothing.

[edit]

This Village Pump discussion has, like most of our WMF-related discussions, devolved into an unholy mess due to a small minority of users shouting angrily at the top of their lungs and proposing various radical courses of action that won't happen. And then nothing gets done, because we can't come to a consensus. This time, can we come to a consensus to make a small but important action of protest? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks from me. It's still being appealed to the ECHR so I don't want to mess with the appeal, and I find proposals for reader-facing "protests" to be silly and unproductive. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dan Leonard that for now the appeal is the relevant important action of protest. Unlike most other WMF-related discussions its hard to say that the WMF has actually done anything objectionable here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm on the fence as to whether the WMF is in the wrong here. The point is if we want to protest, we should be more organized and serious about it. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider the tag that is currently on the page or something like that to be a form of protest? That seems to be what we have consensus for at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that's more of a statement of fact in my opinion. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I trust our readers to interpret statements of fact. That's how we write encyclopedia articles, a plain NPOV that lets readers interpret. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a statement of fact what a protest would be in such a situation? We don't want to tell lies, disrupt wikipedia to make a point or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the afd-closer goes with the banner and blank option, that would also be a mark of protest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a protest, but it would also violate Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point so be unlikely to survive appeal if such a close was made (an irony I'm sure is lost on no one). I would be less sure of that outcome if heads weren't cooling, but the initial flash of white hot anger that tends to follow anything the WMF does which "infringes" on our perceived sovereignty seems to have passed (which is also why I doubt it will close as delete). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the banner at Caesar DePaço a small but important action of protest. It's other things too, but a protest just the same. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to those who added and improved the banner. It neatly summarises the details we cannot add, allowing the reader to form an informed and balanced opinion of the subject, and explains clearly whose fault it is that the article is incomplete. Certes (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to some sort of compromise. I tried to propose one higher up at #Issuing a notice to readers when censorship occurs. I think a simple statement of objection to DePaço's actions and the court's ruling without implicating the WMF would be a fair approach, and should be our response the next time this happens. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A statement from who where? You can submit something to the Signpost if you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to propose one higher up at #Issuing a notice to readers when censorship occurs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"either at the top of the main page or above every article", so, like a wiki-loves-monuments banner or similar. Well, suggest it at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly a "This page was censored by order of XYZ court[link to court ruling] on DATE, the case cost the WMF XXX,XXX to fight which it did to the highest available court. Please consider donating to the foundation's legal defense fund." would be the best advertising banner ever... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks from me, because I don't know what we'd be protesting. The WMF's actions here are without fault. Nobody has even proposed an alternative to the WMF defending the lawsuit and complying with court orders. I don't think there is any alternative. So we're not protesting the WMF.
Do we protest the Portuguese courts? What are we protesting? Defamation laws? The right of democracies to make their own laws? The right of courts to enforce those laws? The laws themselves? Do we know enough about (1) Portuguese defamation or freedom of spech law, and (2) the facts of this case (e.g., what the claims were, whether they were true, whether they were defamatory or not, etc.) in order to say that we think the applicable Portuguese law should be changed? I don't know enough to say the law should be changed, I doubt any other editors know enough to say the law should be changed.
Do we protest the right of a person to sue for defamation? I mean, are we saying Wikipedia is above the law? I don't agree with that. People should have a right to sue for defamation, and if editors add defamatory content, they should be sued. That's a big "if" of course, but courts are the right venue to decide if defamation has occurred.
So what are we protesting? Levivich (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're protesting a SLAPP suit from someone who has a history of filing SLAPP suits. Most people consider SLAPP suits to be bad things that are an abuse of the legal system. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this is a SLAPP suit, please explain why. Explain how SLAPP applies in Portugal (what are Portuguese SLAPP laws?) and then explain what the claims in this case were (what content was allegedly illegal), and why that content was not actually illegal, making this into a SLAPP suit. If you can't do that, then you don't know whether it was a SLAPP suit or a proper defamation suit. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask Joe Sutherland and the WMF. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...so the only reason you think it's a SLAPP suit is because the WMF said so? That's rich, that you would rely on the WMF's legal conclusions after characterizing the WMF's legal compliance as "personal information the WMF chose to compromise". So which is it: do you, as I do, support the WMF in determining what is and what is not a SLAPP and spending money to defend against SLAPPs (which requires that they submit themselves to the court's jurisdiction and thus follow the court's orders), or not? Because wanting to protest what WMF Legal says are SLAPPs, while simultaneously criticizing WMF Legal for fighting against SLAPPs (e.g., "The WMF is not subject to Portuguese law. They suppressed this content because they chose to, not because they were legally required to"), seems hypocritical to me. Levivich (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about choosing sides, and you need to realize that at some point. It is a SLAPP suit, we should object to that, and you're so determined to stop those pesky anti-WMF people that you've lost the plot. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't even articulate what makes it a SLAPP suit, and objecting to the SLAPP suit is what the WMF did. Don't give them crap for doing the thing you want them to do, because if they listen to editors like you who give them crap for doing this stuff, instead of listening to editors like me who support it, they might actually stop doing this -- stop fighting SLAPP suits and such. And that would be bad for all of us, and in particular for me, because there is a non-zero chance I'm going to someday get in legal trouble in a foreign country because of my editing, and if that happens, I want the WMF to be there to help defend me. So please, don't give them crap for doing what we want them to do, like hiring lawyers to fight back (which we means accepting the consequences of court orders, which means you should not describe their doing so as "choosing" to suppress content). Levivich (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of SLAPP is to impose legal costs on the other party until they're forced to settle pre-judgement... Unless I'm missing something Wikipedia is the entity with the massive war chest... Not DePaco... And DePaco has won the case (at least pre-appeals) on its merits which wouldn't generally be possible if it was a SLAPP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back I am pretty sure César DePaço is not poor. It is not unlikely that he has more money than the WMF (although those "net worth" websites are not to be trusted). The good news is that the WMF helps the individual Wikipedia editors. Polygnotus (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No way DePaco has net assets of a quarter billion or more... DePaco has a few tens of millions at most but probably high single digit millions. Unless he's a drug barron on the side his business has never made that sort of money. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few tens of millions of US dollars is a massive war chest. Both sides have plenty of money to continue fighting for a long while, and its not like you can spend a quarter billion dollar on this stuff (or that the WMF would be willing to). Polygnotus (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SLAPP still wouldn't apply, I would also note that if it was an attempted SLAPP it was a *failed* SLAPP as the case went to decision. The whole point of a SLAPP is to make your opponent tap out before the court gives its verdict. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back Well if the goal is to sue those individual Wikipedia editors, and those do not have tens of millions of dollars on their bank accounts... People who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia may be surprised to see that the WMF is helping the editors, while users on other websites don't receive such help. Jrogers wrote: We characterized the original DePaço claim as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) case and still stand by that: a lawsuit can be a SLAPP because it’s overbroad or designed to chill speech even if some of the content it covers is found to violate the law.[9] Polygnotus (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the lawsuit at hand, the court has granted the relief. If he chooses to sue those individual Wikipedia editors then you can call that a SLAPP, well as long as the Foundation doesn't foot the bill. I disagree with the foundation on that point and their quibbling says that they regret their choice of words, I wish they had not originally called it a SLAPP but simply called it abusive... A lawsuit after all does not need to be a SLAPP to be overbroad or designed to chill speech and just because the Foundation is the 600lb Big American Tech Company Gorilla and DePaco is the little guy doesn't make him right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think SLAPP suits are less about money and more about speech. For one, did John Oliver and his team really not have enough money that they would have been forced to settle? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference of course is that the case brought against Oliver was without merit... Until another court overturns this ruling DePaco's case had merit and won on its merits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A substantial amount of things to possibly reply with, but to make it short: I specifically argued against what you said that "The whole point of SLAPP is to impose legal costs on the other party until they're forced to settle pre-judgement". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 03:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now get that paper published and you can use it alongside the experts we're already using at Strategic lawsuit against public participation who say something much closer to what I've said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Fuck it, you win. Arguing with you consists of defending points I never made, having arguments ignored, seeing the conversation being moved from one point to another that is currently not being addressed, having your arguments read very uncharitably, all with an aggressive and condescending tone of "I know better than you." Sure, whatever. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that has happened in this thread, please do not take my light mockery of your instant law degree as condescension... I'm simply pointing out that the published experts in the field have historically seen things a different way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was only in this thread, and I would say the opposite with my 9 comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço, which are all replies to you. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen/Gentleladies/Gentlepeople and others, I fear we are going off-topic. Polygnotus (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that happened in the other thread either, this is indeed off topic. Perhaps you should stop following me around and replying to my comments if you don't like the results? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich Part of the reasoning on the court sentence is not exactly that the information provided by wikipedia is false or defamatory (e.g. the 1989 court case, which is quite well documented), but that Wikipedia has such a good reputation and so many readers that providing that information in our platform causes significant and undue damage to Paço reputation, on a situation that he wanted to be forgotten - and the new European law about the right to vanish seem to support his demands on that. Darwin Ahoy! 21:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but it goes to my point; what are we protesting? Are we protesting the right to vanish, or the right to be forgotten, or honor rights, or personality rights (which are, if I'm reading the court opinions correctly, implicated in this case)? In other words, are we protesting the laws themselves? Or are we protesting the application of the laws in this case? Levivich (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich I'm not protesting anything here, as I don't consider myself to be an active member of this community. But If I was, way more than about any censorship of Wikipedia content, it would be about the WMF giving away editor's data to the court with the stated objectives of Paço individually suing these editors. I'm also concerned that the last appeal by the WMF lawyers to the Portuguese constitutional court being so badly written that it was promptly dismissed without even being evaluated by the court, which is something I wouldn't expect from an organization with the resources that WMF has. Darwin Ahoy! 22:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"WMF giving away editor's data to the court" = compliance with court orders. As above, it's really not honest to describe this as "giving away" data. They are legally required to give the data, it's not a voluntary act. When the police come to your house with a search warrant to take your computer, you did not "give away" your computer to the police. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich What is the source for your claim that a Portuguese court has jurisdiction over an US based organization like the WMF, to the point of forcing it to give editors data to a third agent so that this agent can individually sue the wikipedians? Darwin Ahoy! 00:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a fair question, is it? You expect somebody has written an article or a book or something about whether a Portuguese court has jurisdiction over a US based organization like the WMF to the point of forcing it to give editors' data to a third party for the purpose of suing the editors? You know such a source doesn't exist, that's way too narrow of a question.
So a better question is, why does the WMF have to comply with the Portuguese order? The answer is: because it appeared in the Portuguese court and thereby submitted itself to Portuguese jurisdiction, which is a requirement in order to defend against the Portuguese lawsuit.
If you want to ask: why did the WMF do that? I asked that question up above, and here is the answer.
If you want to know, generally, what jurisdiction Portuguese courts have over US organizations, see enforcement of foreign judgments, or Google it or ask any AI to explain it. Levivich (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
§ Why do we have to follow it, there aren’t any servers in Portugal? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making and posting that link. And though these links were posted above already, to have them all in one place, here are: the WMF's policy about which international law it is subject to and when, the privacy policy about sharing personal information, the FAQ about the WMF responding to subpoenas, and the transparency reports where they disclose how many times personal information or changes to content was requested and by whom, and how many times those requests were honored (in the 2nd half of 2024, 2 out of 23 requests for user information were granted, and 3 out of 314 requests for content changes were granted). Levivich (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced in the least that these reasons would "force" WMF to provide private data of wikipedia editors to ostentatiously allow third parts to sue them, though that's just my opinion. Darwin Ahoy! 02:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DePaco has a genuine legal right to bring those people into court. The WMF operates in Portugal. Do you understand that if Coca-Cola operates in Portugual that they're subject to Portuguese law even if they're headquartered in the USA? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely disappointing and disheartening to see a fellow Wikipedian defend the intention of a third agent to sue other Wikipedians over the use of content reported by excellent quality sources, which not only continue to be online but have even been updated with additional details, as was the case here, as a "genuine right".
And the WMF does not operate in Portugal, at all. If someone told you that, they were lying. Darwin Ahoy! 09:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Portugal? I'd be surprised if everything complained about in court was "content reported by excellent quality sources", but I haven't actually tried to check, so maybe it was. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång AFAIK all the court demanded to be removed from Wikipedia is in that broadcast report. Paço also sued the main journalist who coauthored that report, renowned and awarded Pedro Coelho, without any visible consequence, as not only the report continues to be broadcasted by SIC but it has even been updated with further details. The problem with Wikipedia is that the court considered it gives excessive visibility to that information, and apparently agrees that the Wikipedia editors who added the information to the article actually wanted to damage Paço reputation in a malicious and unfair way - a blatant case of "in doubt, always assume bad faith". Darwin Ahoy! 10:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a democratic society, everybody has the right to sue anybody else for anything. With appropriate sanity checks by the court to dismiss claims with absolutely no merit this is a Good Thing (given this got to the highest court, it obviously had some merit, regardless of your views on which side is "right").
WMF websites are available in Portugal, they fundraise in Portugal and have an official relationship with Wikimedia Portugal, so for the purposes of laws like the one relevant here they do operate in Portugal. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf I don't think keeping all that was worth the decision of providing the details of Wikipedia editors in order for them to be sued by well known SLAPP third agents, over some AGF editions using excellent sources they have made. To the hell the crumbles they collect here in Portugal and the "official relationship with Wikimedia Portugal", and about the possibility of the Portuguese Government blocking Wikipedia as if it was some 3rd world dictatorship, bring it on - chances of it happening are below zero. Darwin Ahoy! 10:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I shall refrain from stating what I think of that comment (beyond my opinion not being of the favourable variety) because I can't think how to do so while remaining within the bounds of the civility policy. I encourage you to speak to a legal professional, ideally one familiar with the interaction of internet content organisations based in the United States and Portuguese and European law, before commenting again.
If there was an LTA editor/sock farm/spammer/UPE farm/or similar source of serious disruption originating from Portugal, the majority of the community (including I hope you) would want the WMF to use the full-force of the law to try and stop that disruption. That necessitates the WMF engaging with the Portuguese courts in good faith, which is incompatible with showing the same courts contempt when the verdict doesn't go the way you want it to. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of law is essential to wikipedia, we can't function without it so spurning it when it goes against us is not pro-wikipedia. Our use of that content wasn't amazing... For example we called two people "several" which cast aspersions against other named individuals. Ironically this was not one of the complaints the lawyer made here, that would have been addressed. Most of the content was also not removed. As you've been told but have not acknowledged the foundation does operate in Portugal, given "If someone told you that, they were lying." you should acknowledge that it was you who was lying/telling an untruth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back Please stop spreading false, unsourced information, as you have been doing here. The WMF does not operate in Portugal, at all. What exists here is a local affiliate with no legal binding to the WMF. Darwin Ahoy! 18:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The chapter agreement is legally binding. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich Except that it's not written anywhere there, and your opinion that it legally binds Wikimedia Portugal to the WMF not only is not supported by anything but has actually been dismissed on court. Darwin Ahoy! 21:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's my opinion that the chapter agreement is legally binding. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich It is indeed, and it's wrong. And continuing to repeat it without any source to back it up is an exercise of futility that is not worth giving any attention, so keep your (wrong, false, misleading) opinion and be happy with it. Darwin Ahoy! 21:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, it must be one of those "non-binding contracts," lots of those have governing law, limitations of liability, survivability, and integration clauses. I'm sure if you asked either the WMF of Wikimedia Portugal, they'd say their chapter agreement is not binding. After all, it wouldn't at all be unusual for the WMF to enter into a non-binding chapter agreement with its chapters. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn When has it been dismissed by a court as not legally binding. It certainly looks like a legal document, or to be precise, a webpage facsimile of a legal document. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra DePaço initially sued Wikimedia Portugal over this. I know that because I was in one of the WMPT boards at the time. The case was quickly dismissed since the judge recognized Wikimedia Portugal had nothing to do with that case, and the correct party to sue was the Wikimedia Foundation.
@Levivich It's written there very clearly: "The parties are independent organizations. Neither party is the partner or legal agent of the other party, and neither party may represent itself as such or speak or act on behalf of the other party. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, WMF has no right under this Agreement to supervise or control Chapter in its operations or decisions." Capisce? Darwin Ahoy! 21:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Capisce, that you don't know what "legally binding" means in the context of a contract. What you're trying to say is that the chapter is not liable for the WMF's actions, or that the chapter doesn't share liability with the WMF. That's true. That doesn't mean the chapter agreement isn't legally binding. (It also doesn't mean the WMF doesn't "operate" in Portugal.) FYI: "legally binding" means the agreement is legally enforceable, in other words, either party (the WMF or Wikimedia Portugal) can sue the other party for breaching the contract. The chapter agreement is legally enforceable, or in other words, legally binding. But the chapter agreement doesn't mean WP is liable for WMF's actions. That's why DePaco can't sue WP and instead had to sue WMF. It has nothing to do with the chapter agreement being legally binding. (BTW, you noticed the words you quoted include "Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement," which means that the WMF has the right to supervise or control the Chapter in its operations or decisions as provided in the Agreement.) Levivich (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How could the judge have realized that if the Foundation doesn't operate in Portugal? If the correct party to sue was the Wikimedia Foundation then the Wikimedia Foundation operates in Portugal. Note that this is pretty much a settled issue because the other big American tech companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple, etc) tried making the argument you're making now and got slapped down by the courts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back The plaintiff wanted to sue who was ultimately responsible for the contents published in Wikipedia. It was clear from the start that such entity was US based WMF, though the plaintiff alleged that Wikimedia Portugal was legally responsible in Portugal for WMF, that's why they sued the affiliate. The judge dismissed it, and directed it instead to the US based WMF.
"If the correct party to sue was the Wikimedia Foundation then the Wikimedia Foundation operates in Portugal" - This is plain ignorance of how the system works, as an entity doesn't need to operate or have any form of existence in Portugal in order to be sued. All is needed is a relevant nexus to the country in a context where the Portuguese law could apply, such as owning the Wikimedia platforms which are accessible from Portugal. Darwin Ahoy! 09:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, brother. "Having a sufficient nexus to the country to be sued" is what "operates in the country" means in this context. All this time, everyone saying the WMF "operates" in Portugal was saying that the WMF has sufficient nexus to the country to be sued. And you're saying they're ignorant... Levivich (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich The eventual risks for that kind of "operation" are pretty much irrelevant, when compared to the damage that releasing private data on editors to allow a SLAPP agent to sue them does, not only to these editors, but to all the others in this country and elsewhere, who would have great difficulty on trusting WMF to protect their data from now on.
I personally checked the content added by one of the persons who was notified, and there's not anything there at all related to the court sentence, so presumably any case moved against that person would be a dead end. Nevertheless it still is an enormous inconvenience for the target, and in practice it works as personal harassment. Darwin Ahoy! 15:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so unless any of youse has a law degree and is experienced in the nuances of Portuguese defamation law, jurisdiction, and whatever the legal definition of the colloquial term 'Slapp suit' is (lol), this conversation is taking up a lot of space with very little benefit - and those should be confined to user talk pages wherever possible. Don't get me wrong, I can see both sides are incredibly confident in what they say, but it's hard for that confidence to make up for the parties' obvious lack of relevant knowledge. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not entirely sure what your actual argument here is, but your intervention was hardly a model of constructiveness. If anything, it seems like exactly the sort of personal opinion on the general merits of a discussion that would be better kept to user talk pages, as you yourself suggested. Darwin Ahoy! 19:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think GLL's intervention was helpful. The point is that none of us our lawyers, so this conversation is going nowhere, and has no benefit – one might also term a discussion with no benefit "unconstructive". Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a target of a previous lawsuit dealing exactly with this situation (though not with this specific person), maybe I may know a little better than the random contributor to this discussion how the system works here in Portugal concerning individual lawsuits. But whatever, people are always happier with their own little truths, and this discussion is not important enough to insist in making a point. Darwin Ahoy! 13:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between a legal nexus and operating in Portugal? I'm not aware of any form of nexus that would be separate from operations, and the WMF has extensive economic operations in Portugal (it provides a product nationwide and also fundraises nationwide). If you don't think that the nexus had anything to do with operations what was the nexus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the Brussels Regime apply here anyway? The WMF does have much more substantive operations across the EU. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and BTW I'll tell you what y'all are protesting, because I know this community: those who are protesting, you're protesting the idea that somebody outside of Wikipedia can tell Wikipedia what to write. That is actually the offense that is offending so many editors. Well, too bad: as has been said above and many times before, WP:Wikipedia is in the real world (an essay that's existed since 2007!), and yes, that means we subject ourselves to laws and courts, at least in some jurisdictions. That's nothing new or controversial. If we want to be a global project with a global presence, it means we have to subject ourselves to multiple countries' legal systems. Levivich (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying this. Wikipedia does not exist in a libertarian utopia (whatever that is, see The Dispossessed). We exist in an imperfect world, and we (and the Foundation) have to negotiate our way through that imperfect world to build the best Wikipedia we can, and I think the Foundation is doing the right thing here. Donald Albury 22:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we protest the right of a person to sue for defamation? I mean, are we saying Wikipedia is above the law? I don't agree with that. People 'should' have a right to sue for defamation, and if editors add defamatory content, they 'should' be sued. That's a big 'if' of course, but courts are the right venue to decide if defamation has occurred. Thank you for this level-headed comment. I'm kind of appalled by the vitriolic language in some of the opposition here, given that the first item listed in the article message box is This content pertains to 1) accusations of past crimes. If the article at any point had defamatory statements with accusations of criminal behavior, then DePaço is within his rights to sue. We have the BLP policy and WP:SUSPECT for good reason, and if these processes failed then the elevation to a court was the right thing to do. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, Levivich has talked me round. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra, Levivich's sealioning refuses to acknowledge the actual point of contention here, which is our objection to Caesar DePaço's lawsuit and the resulting censorship of Wikipedia. WMF frenzy has become a red herring. We can dislike the WMF's actions and still focus our "do something small" on the cause of the problem, and not a symptom. Did you have anything specific any mind? Because like I said above, I'm glad to hear out constructive ideas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is not "sealioning" to enter an open discussion, present a well-formed opinion, and successfully convince the person who made the proposal in the first place. You should strike this accusation. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 00:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien I've been persuaded by Levivich's real-world argument, and don't see how it's Galapagos fur sealing, let alone something as big as sealioning.. The situation is obviously lightyears away from being optimal – ideally, people don't sue us for defamation – but I don't think screaming about censorship is the right way to go. The current banner on the article seems like an appropriate response.
One of the WMF's prime functions is to deal with complicated legal stuff. They have lawyers, who understand law (I presume). We like to complain about the WMF encroaching on our turf; here, we're starting to encroach on theirs. I don't think yelling about shutting off Portugal for giving a legal ruling we don't like and then pinging Joe 50 times is the right response here, as I said at the top of this subsection. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If thats sealioning I've got a codfish to sell you. Please strike that lazy attempt at gaslighting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You completely lost me at "sealioning". It's a shameful rhetorical tactic, and it dilutes the rest of your argument by showing you're too emotionally invested in your position to hear out any logical discourse. As others have said, I urge that you strike that part of your post. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a "protest" on Wikipedia; just send this story to the news outlets (such as the ones that reported on the ANI vs WMF case or the WMF AI-generated simple summaries idea) and see if they're willing to cover this one. Some1 (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone holds a different opinion than you doesn't mean that you can dismiss those opinions "shouting angrily at the top of their lungs and proposing various radical courses of action." There are things to which shouting angrily at the top of your lungs is the only proportionate response. Some things do call for radical courses of action. These are not inherently bad, and in some cases the alternative is what's bad.
I don't even have a strong opinion about this case (except that, as other editors have pointed out, it is an enormous gift of legal precedent to US government organizations who are already looking to target editors -- huh, maybe I do). But I do have a strong opinion about the golden mean fallacy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legal precedent does not in general cross borders (especially from say Portuagual to the US, that just doesn't happen), people are mostly talking about wikipedia precedent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the interested, the Signpost mentioned this discussion: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-08-09/News and notes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

After the whole ANI v WMF fiasco (which was in India), I questioned whether it would probably be favorable in these circumstances to have the relevant pages region-blocked for this particular case. I am not a fan of censorship, but I do think if censorship is necessary (such as in the case of court injunctions) it should be as narrow as possible, for example blocking access to a biography just in the jurisdiction where a defamation case is present.

I did open a Phabricator ticket a bit ago requesting such feature. This may be something that might be a good idea to develop just for legal reasons, as it can help protect both information and editors. Many platforms with user generated content such as YouTube already do this especially because a copyright holder in the US might wish not to have their content visible in the UK.

I also am wondering how U.S. legislation such as the SPEECH Act might apply to this judgment (if any does apply). Aasim (話す（はなす）) 03:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation a fiasco? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire page was taken down not just in India but worldwide to comply with a court order. IANAL, but I do wonder if compliance with the injunction in India could have been met by just blocking the page only in India rather than worldwide. Same question for the removal of sourced content from Caesar DePaço.
I am not disagreeing that there may be lawfare going on here. I am just focused on the individual technical measures that could be used to achieve compliance. Obviously for an injunction issued by a U.S. court it likely will have effects worldwide since WMF's main servers are in the U.S. I am not sure if the reciprocal is true, because I do know that censorship laws in even democratic places like Pakistan are much stricter than the U.S. In countries with weaker protections for freedom of speech region blocking individual pages is better than global takedowns. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's next, a court order about the article on Kim Jong-un because the article criticises the subject of the article? Or images removed because an architect decides to sue in a country without freedom of panorama for architecture? --Stefan2 (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the archived revisions at the Internet Archive? We can't let DePaço ruin again. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The WMF has no control over the Internet Archive so if DePaço or anyone else wants those taken down that will require asking the Internet Archive (and a different lawsuit if they refuse). Similarly there are snapshots on archive.is and goodness knows how many other archives and mirrors of Wikipedia content. Explicitly linking to those copies from article space would be a violation of at least the spirit of the court order so I would strongly advise against it.
    As for @Stefan2's questions, the answer is always the same: If someone wants some content removed from Wikipedia for any reason they can and should start in one of three ways (obviously they can start with legal action, but they'll need to explain why they did):
    1. Editing the article themselves and/or nominating it for deletion.
    2. Asking on the talk page
      In both these cases, if they explain their reasons, and those reasons align with our policies (e.g. it's a copyright violation), then the removal/deletion will stick and everybody is happy; otherwise the content will be restored and/or the page not deleted. They'll either let it end there, try again (e.g. giving reasons if they didn't previously) or try one of the other first-level actions. If they just cite legal reasons they'll probably get told to talk to the Foundation.
    3. Asking the Foundation. The Foundation will consider the request and do one of a few things:
      • Ask for clarification/more information
      • Take the content down directly (this will only happen if the reasons given align with legal / policy reasons; e.g. valid DMCA takedown requests will be complied with, invalid ones will not be).
      • Pass the request on to the community or a subset thereof. Some Oversight requests come this route, we assess these the same as if they'd come directly - some result in content being oversighted, some in content being revdelled and some result in no action.
      • Advise the correspondent that they need to discuss the matter with the community (e.g. telling them to ask on the talk page). Some will follow-up, some won't.
      • Say "no" (but less bluntly). Together, this and the previous bullet will be by far the most common final response.
    Obviously some will try again / a different route if they aren't happy, but if the facts remain the same the outcome will remain the same. For those who still aren't happy, and who are both willing and able to take it further, this is where the legal process comes in. When the WMF receives notice of legal action, they will consider many factors including (but not limited to) the nature of the action (e.g. what the plaintiff wants), the jurisdiction and the relevant laws. Their options are either to settle, move to get the case dismissed (for any of various reasons, including rejecting the authority of the court), fight it. I don't know what the proportions are but the first will be the least common. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logging of articles you read?

[edit]

Prompted by the Caesar DePaço thread above, I did a deep dive into our various privacy policies. I found something at foundation:Legal:Wikimedia Foundation Data Retention Guidelines#How long do we retain non-public data? which surprised me:

Articles browsed by readers
Collected automatically from a reader
A list of articles visited by readers
After at most 90 days, if retained at all, then only in aggregate form

I was not previously aware that any logging was done of what articles we read. Could somebody from the WMF provide additional clarity as to what's collected about a user's read activity and why? And who has access to this data? RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you get answers, please update the table. Polygnotus (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One use would perhaps be to make stuff like pageviews. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång You don't need to keep track of which account visits which page for that, just a simple counter++. Polygnotus (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For unique page views, you would. But I don't think we gather those, do we? Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot For unique pageviews the convention is not to keep a counter of which account visits which page, but to keep a counter of which IP visits which page. I am pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't keep a counter of which account visits which page.
So lets say if we share an IP and both visit the same page using our accounts we would be counted as 1. Polygnotus (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that the actual use is the programming that makes the blue links turn purple. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a local function in your browser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's cookies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. In that case, IDK why they would need to log this. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not cookies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they disappear when you purge browser-history, that's why I thought cookies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which links get visited gets stored in memory, and then written to places.sqlite when you close the browser. So that ain't it. Polygnotus (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a browser-side feature, Wikimedia has no visibility on that (see also History sniffing, which imo (with a COI 😄) has a pretty good introduction to the feature and privacy problems associated with it. Sohom (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wikitech:Logstash, basically for error metrics related to Varnish (caching) and other MediaWiki features. This isn't logged onwiki to my knowledge. Sohom (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta So then the table is misleading because it wouldn't be just articles but all pages, right? Polygnotus (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possilikely, though I will cut them some slack cause I assume the person who wrote it was probably less familiar with the semantic difference between a article and all pages in general. Sohom (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the point of the foundation that the person who writes that sort of thing be familiar with those sorts of differences? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back The person who ends up forced to write the documentation is probably... you know... we should REALLY cut them some slack like Sohom said. We should be grateful they haven't killed anyone. Writing documentation is worse than hell. Polygnotus (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that we tar and feather them... Just that more wikipedia literacy than normal should be expected of the foundation. I can both cut slack and be disappointed at the same time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Luis Villa has more Wikipedia literacy than most.[10] Polygnotus (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you just suggest that it was someone much lower down on the totem pole who actually wrote the documentation? I also don't see anything about being a wikipedia editor in that profile, what handle does Villa edit under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Luis Villa is a former WMF legal council and the (former) WMF staffer with the highest number of Wikipedia edits (I guess Seddon has more, may be a couple of more, but definitely in the top ten). Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, but then how does that work with "The person who ends up forced to write the documentation is probably... you know... we should REALLY cut them some slack"? Is the implication not the the person who ends up forced to write the documentation is very far from the top of the pecking order eg far from Villa? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back No I meant like depressed/unhappy/in a murderous rage/experiencing extreme negative emotions. Polygnotus (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake then. I think we can just say "It would be more accurate if it didn't say article" without needing to assign blame or get twisted out of shape about it not being super accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are called web server logs. Google it and read any of the results to learn more. Every website has them, they are required in order for the web to work. The only question is how long they're retained and who can read them. Levivich (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also just how detailed of information is recorded. While I don't recall looking back when I worked for WMF, I'd be surprised if they log much more than the standard level of detail, and wouldn't be surprised if they log less, but they definitely log some in order to be able to look into DoS attacks and other kinds of abuse. Anomie⚔ 15:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Common Log Format, Extended Log Format. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back when i worked at WMF (long time ago now) we would look at it rarely, mostly during account compromises to try and figure out if there were patterns we could block or to identufy which other accounts the person compromised. There are docs at wikitech:Data_Platform/Data_Lake/Traffic/Webrequest Bawolff (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PTAC proposals for feedback

[edit]

The Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) is a one-year pilot of group of Wikimedia Foundation staff and community members that advise the Wikimedia Foundation on its technical direction and provide input on the long-term product and technical priorities for the Wikimedia movement.

Following recent community reactions surrounding two initiatives, the trial of AI-generated article summaries, which subsequently led to the RFC surrounding AI features by the WMF and the concerns surrounding Tone Check, members of the Product and Technology Advisory Council came together to form two working groups to brainstorm ways to improve how the Foundation conducts and communicates experiments and product development and how it engages with the community surrounding updates regarding its product development.

As a result of the brainstorming, we came up with a set of proposals of experiments the Wikimedia Foundation can conduct to increase transparency, trust, and lead to more constructive engagement between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia communities. We would like to community provide feedback on the proposals at the talk page. This feedback phase will last until August 22, following which (provided there are no objections) we will forward the proposals to the Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology Department who will subsequently look into ways of implementing and incorporating these recommended experiments. Sohom (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Survé

[edit]

South African businessman Iqbal Survé has made a complaint that the article about him and his companies are used "to disseminate false and defamatory information regarding him and his companies" according to this link [11]. Independent Online is part of Sekunjalo Investments, a company of him. The editors who posted the information haven't edited since February and have very few edits. The article states that "If Wikipedia fails to act decisively, Sekunjalo and Dr. Survé are poised to take legal action against both the platform and the individuals behind these malicious edits. The planned legal proceedings will address criminal defamation and crimen injuria, alongside civil lawsuits seeking damages for the reputational harm inflicted." Before we have a new Caesar DePaço, should we do something about this or this is the wrong venue? (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably be better raised on the article's talk page. Maybe WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) if you want more attention, and WP:AN or WP:ANI if you think there may be calls for WP:NLT blocks or the like. Anomie⚔ 21:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was already posted in the BLP noticeboard and in the COI noticeboard. Most of these allegations are supported by multiple reliable sources, but the article is a coatrack right now and it's perfectly justifiable if some of the controversies are trimmed down. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the ban against legal threats does not apply here since it was made outside of Wikipedia Trade (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations – Wikimedia Foundation

UPDATE: On Monday, 11 August, the High Court of Justice dismissed the Wikimedia Foundation’s challenge to the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) Categorisation Regulations. While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the Court’s ruling emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA is implemented.

The judge recognized the “significant value” of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly-assigned OSA categorisations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors. The Court stressed that this ruling “does not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations”,  and indicated they could face legal repercussions if they fail to protect Wikipedia and the rights of its users. In order to achieve that outcome, he suggested that Ofcom may need to find a particularly flexible interpretation of the rules in question, or that the rules themselves may need amendment in Parliament.

If the ruling stands, the first categorization decisions from Ofcom are expected this summer. The Foundation will continue to seek solutions to protect Wikipedia and the rights of its users as the OSA continues to be implemented.

qcne (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another excerpt from the post:

If enforced on Wikipedia, Category 1 demands would undermine the privacy and safety of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors, expose the encyclopedia to manipulation and vandalism, and divert essential resources from protecting people and improving Wikipedia, one of the world’s most trusted and widely used digital public goods.

For example, the Foundation would be required to verify the identity of many Wikipedia contributors, undermining the privacy that is central to keeping Wikipedia volunteers safe. In addition to being exceptionally burdensome, this requirement—which is just one of several Category 1 demands—could expose contributors to data breaches, stalking, lawsuits, or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes.

Some1 (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems withdrawing Wikipedia from the UK might, sadly, be the best outcome for the project if that happened. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, bye-bye then me lovlies. I have really enjoyed editing Wikipedia. Thank you to every editor who has helped me along the way. I've met some great people here. Thank you for the opportunity to help the worlds best encyclopaedia. Knitsey (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1, if this is it for Wikipedia in the UK then I would like to say it’s been an absolute pleasure being a part of this community for over a decade, and I will really miss it, as well as all the people here I’ve connected with as a result. Patient Zerotalk 13:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this really does become it for Wikipedia in the UK which it might, then it has been a pleasure editing Wikipedia.
I would like to give my thanks to everyone who has helped up to this point.
I can't believe my time here could be up soon after 5 years and nearly 24,000 edits later. Maurice Oly (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible you all are writing your resignation speeches a little quickly? Wouldn't it be better to try to circumvent whatever they're doing with a VPN or something? Is it even confirmed that they're doing anything to Wikipedia yet? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since VPNs are routinely blocked by Wikipedia, and the edit restrictions would be imposed by Wikipedia to prevent it breaching the Category 1 threshold, I don't think that users of Wikipedia in the UK can rely on VPNs to be able to edit Wikimedia sites.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a situation where a VPN is needed, UK editors would probably want to apply for WP:IPBE. This is how Mainland China editors circumvent their country's restrictions, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a UK editor, if this were to happen, and I had assurance that Wikipedia administrators wouldn't block me for circumventing the OSA law, I would probably consider doing that. VPNs and browser proxies I have used previously however, have been slow and have issues with maintaining connection across tabs (which for Wikipedia is a must - partaking in multiple discussions on different pages for example). 11WB (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is good to know. I have IPBE already and would certainly want to use it to contribute using a VPN if anything does happen. I hope I would be allowed to do so. I believe that the OSA does plan on addressing VPN usage at some point, though, so if that were to happen it would only be a temporary fix. Patient Zerotalk 00:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The full judgement is at Wikimedia Foundation -v- Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.
It's not actually that bad of a loss for Wikipedia. The relevant extracts from the judgement (emphasis mine):

I stress that this does not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations. If they were to do so, that would have to be justified as proportionate if it were not to amount to a breach of the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention (and, potentially, a breach also of articles 8 and 11). It is, however, premature to rule on that now. Neither party has sought a ruling as to whether Wikipedia is a Category 1 service. Both parties say that decision must, for the moment, be left to Ofcom. If Ofcom decides that Wikipedia is not a Category 1 service, then no further issue will arise.

If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, and if the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. Such a challenge would not be prevented by the outcome of this claim

qcne (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the use of the words "May be" my guess is that the government will do everything in its power to change may be to not have to.
We will just have to wait and see what happens. Maurice Oly (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't see how we can fall under the Category 1 regulations? They keep talking about the number of users but the key part for us is surely "uses a content recommender system". I saw some saying things like Special:NewPagesFeed would count but it's not algorithmic as defined in the legislation. Even if it was classified as such instead of reducing access, as some have said, just put such feeds behind permissions and remove any perceived "content recommender system"s from the general readership. Worst case is IP editors get a bit restricted. KylieTastic (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic the NPP was actually specifically addressed in the judgement. qcne (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly put this on Knitsey's talk page discussion instead of here. I'll repost here. This is my takeaway from this as a UK contributor:

The OSA and how Wikipedia will be categorised by Ofcom is concerning. However, looking at this which lays out how the categorisation works based on the 2 conditions - personally, I don't see how Wikipedia could meet condition 1, as for condition 2, 'allows users to forward or reshare user-generated content' I believe is true and 'has more than 7 million UK users on the user-to-user part of its service, representing c.10% of the UK population' is possible (I don't think the actual number of active registered UK Wikipedians is known publicly). Dependent on how Ofcom determines the second condition, Category 1 could be a possibility. It's clear though if that were to happen, the Wikimedia Foundation don't plan to leave it unchallenged. Hopefully that's some reassurance! 11WB (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But option (b) needs to hit all three conditions as there is an and at the end of (ii) so if uses a content recommender system can be show to not be true or taken away from the main user base (the readers) then we can ignore the sharing part of the regulation (iii). KylieTastic (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this will happen. But if it does, I'll edit through a VPN. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A VPN did cross my mind, however Wikipedia itself has very tough policies on those. Editors who are known to be from the UK that begin using VPNs to circumvent any (potential) Category 1 block run the risk of their Wikipedia accounts getting blocked by a Wikipedia admin in return! I think if Wikipedia editing rights were stopped in the UK I would have to hang my coat up on the rack and call it a day (as unfortunate as that would be). 11WB (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'User-to-user part' refers to editing and Special:EmailUser, right?
When counting users, do you only count registered users or also IPs and temporary accounts? What about very infrequent editors who might make one edit a year?
When counting users, do you count all WMF projects as one, or do you count, for example, English Wikipedia and Welsh Wikipedia as two separate projects? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The medium article about the original legal challenge that's linked to from the blog post does include some discussion of why it's potentially classifiable under category 1. It looks pretty plausible that with how broadly "content recommender system" is defined, there's a bunch of stuff on wikipedia that could qualify:

a “content recommender system” means a system, used by the provider of a regulated user-to-user service in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, that uses algorithms which by means of machine learning or other techniques determines, or otherwise affects, the way in which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the service.

"By means of machine learning or other techniques determines, or otherwise affects" is... broad. I bet that a bunch of moderation tools fall under that definition. A sufficiently hostile reading could get "Special:Random" under it. DLynch (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't Special:Random count as a "content recommender system"? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly uses an algorithm to pick content to show to a user! It's not a very complicated algorithm, but the law doesn't seem to define "algorithm" in any way, so I think we have to read it as its plain-language meaning. DLynch (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the search bar, which presumably uses an "algorithm" to determine what order the results appear in? "Algorithm" is such a vague word that I'm not sure we'll be able to expunge all algorithms for UK readers. Toadspike [Talk] 15:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the WMF shouldn't spread their cheeks wide to oppressive governments. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Cecilia Ivimy KC, for the government, said ministers had reviewed Ofcom guidance and considered specifically whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations and rejected that. She said they had decided that Wikipedia “is in principle an appropriate service on which to impose category 1 duties”, and how ministers had arrived at that choice was not “without reasonable foundation nor irrational”." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best VPN for wiki editors in the UK to use? - Roxy the dog 17:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left a reply above on this! The best choice would be not to use one at all in the event a block occurred. 11WB (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So how would I edit then? - Roxy the dog 17:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOP however, Open or anonymizing proxies, including Tor as well as many public VPNs, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog, in the event editing rights were revoked, I think it comes down to the individual editor to decide what they would do. VPN IPs have the disadvantage of being accessible by anyone, including to those who vandalise, as a result many are already blocked from Wikipedia. It would probably be preferential to cease editing in that scenario (hopefully this won't be the case!). 11WB (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems silly. If I am editing through a VPN, signed in, why would an admin sanction an editor in good standing in these circumstances? - Roxy the dog 17:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to the IP address being used already being previously blocked as VPNs are usable by anybody, including vandals. 11WB (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont care about what random IP editors do, and my Q wasn't about them. Vandals are vandals if they use a VPN or if they dont.
I repeat, "If I am editing through a VPN, signed in, why would an admin sanction an editor in good standing in these circumstances?" Roxy the dog 18:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a thing (though I'm obliged to point out Wikipedia:PROXY#Checkuser). -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't explain it in the best way. The VPN you log into may be assigned an IP address that has previously been used by a vandal (as IP ranges are the same by service and per chosen country), meaning you'll find it unusable on Wikipedia. That is what I meant to say! 11WB (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this was the chosen method, I believe this is where WP:IPBE becomes important. 11WB (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the wiki software would automatically block my VPN, without human intervention, despite my being logged in? Roxy the dog 18:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most proxies (especially free ones) have been blocked due to abuse. Others are blocked preemptively (due to abuse). Most are blocked by humans, but don't rule out a bot doing it. These blocks are usually hardblocks, not anononly (due to abuse). You take your chances being able to edit on a proxy without IPBE. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way Zzuuzz explained it is the best way to articulate what I was attempting (quite badly) to explain! Thank you for this! 11WB (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I temporarily turned on my Chrome extension proxy so I could screenshot the message that shows when you attempt to make any edits using a VPN or proxy IP. You'll see something like this (those are not my regular IP addresses) when attempting to edit on a VPN usually, and you'll find you cannot make any edits as a result. Hope this helps visualise it for you! 11WB (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think Ive got it. Thanks. Roxy the dog 18:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems overall like the best we really could have reasonably expected out of the courts at this stage... Personally I view it as a strategic victory, it sets us up really well for when/if the OSA does actually have significant deleterious consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said to someone somewhere else, I think it's clear that Wikipedia has won the argument. Subjecting us to Category 1 rules would be a proper absurdity, in addition to being probably unlawful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like a Pyrrhic victory to me. - Roxy the dog 18:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The court case was really about whether Ofcom is required by law to put us in Category 1. The court said it didn't have to put us there, or subject us to Cat 1 rules, and agreed there's a good chance doing so might be unlawful. It's not as bad as it sounds. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is no way a victory of any sort - any editors from the UK (and possibly even readers) now have a Sword of Damocles over their head, where Ofcom or the Government can decide to designate Wikimedia as a Category 1 website at any time, with all the consequences and loss of editor base that would result.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst this is true, it is mostly out of our control! Your Sword of Damocles is a very good metaphor. The saying I am applying to this is, 'what will be, will be'. 11WB (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the case that they already had a Sword of Damocles over their head and the court simply declined to remove said sword although they did comment on what a lovely head it was and what a problem it would be for such a sword to fall? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way does this seem like a Pyrrhic victory to you? By my reading neither side has really committed to battle yet, this was a skirmish. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The judge doesn't want (and may not be allowed) to issue an injunction barring a (currently) counterfactual scenario, but considers WMF's arguments logically and perhaps legally correct. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my understanding of the situation. Dronebogus (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were it to come to that (which it seems it hasn't yet), I am sure IPBE would be liberally granted to editors in the UK who are in good standing. I certainly would be willing to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seraphimblade If it does come to that, I'll send you a talk page message! I am kidding of course, I genuinely don't think it'll go to that extreme, things often have a way of working out! TikTok is still available in the US as far as I'm aware. This whole thing has given me a strange sense of déjà vu to be honest... 11WB (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not gonna last long for US TikTok users. And by the way, YouTube is starting to verify every US viewer with AI based ID scan. We can't let WMF projects do the same for US readers. WMF might find a workaround to stop implementation of privacy invading policies. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)&oldid=1305641684"