Your own link says only the judge saw them, nobody else, and they won’t be seen by anybody else until the case is over & nothing can be done to them. Never mind the info provided sounds like it’s not terribly useful.
Actually, the judge opened the sealed cover, perused the contents thoroughly, then asked WMF counsel “How can these addresses be verified?” to which the reply was “These are all we have, and the website does not conduct verification of its users”. The ANI counsel assisted his opponent by saying that service on the editors (D2-D4) is complete, they have not appeared, so can we please move on to my defamation takedowns. The judge then resealed the covers. So it can be safely inferred that WMF did not give ANI anything, and ANI never wanted the D2-D4 details at all, it was only a procedural formality so ANI can take on the “Wikimedia method/model” directly which is troubling all their SPAs/IPs. On a procedural note, once the case is complete and judgment given, the sealed covers are opened and anyone can inspect its contents. So nothing to fret over. Storm in a teacup.
As a European, I wonder if I can be protected via EU law?
If the foundation decides to share the details of the involved editors, a large group of contributors could quit their accounts and ask for removal of their contributions.
Considering the structure of Wikimedia, this will be a near impossible task, it may bring them to European courts next for violating EU law???
They could ask for removal, and Wikipedia has made efforts in the past to batch-remove big stuff for similar reasons, but the foundation wouldn’t be obligated to do so, because it was all contributed under a free license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors’_rights_and_obligations
deleted by creator
Theoretically Wikipedia could be held accountable under GDPR already since unbeknownst to many, the website has a despicable procedure where they dox details of anyone whom they deem as alleged vandals.
If the foundation decides to share the details of the involved editors, a large group of contributors could quit their accounts and ask for removal of their contributions.
As seen here and below, the judge reportedly mentioned the word “addresses”. Others have said that in this case it could only mean email addresses, home addresses, or IP addresses. The shit has hit the fan.
Actually, the judge opened the sealed cover, perused the contents thoroughly, then asked WMF counsel “How can these addresses be verified?” to which the reply was “These are all we have, and the website does not conduct verification of its users”. The ANI counsel assisted his opponent by saying that service on the editors (D2-D4) is complete, they have not appeared, so can we please move on to my defamation takedowns. The judge then resealed the covers. So it can be safely inferred that WMF did not give ANI anything, and ANI never wanted the D2-D4 details at all, it was only a procedural formality so ANI can take on the “Wikimedia method/model” directly which is troubling all their SPAs/IPs. On a procedural note, once the case is complete and judgment given, the sealed covers are opened and anyone can inspect its contents. So nothing to fret over. Storm in a teacup.
[Wikipedia] has a despicable procedure where they dox details of anyone whom they deem as alleged vandals.
Any details on this?
deleted by creator
There are, but because of the brigading, to avoid stuffing the beans, I’d put this link to their “sockpuppet investigations” page instead so you can look into it further by yourself.
Ultimately, Eric Barbour of Metasonix has collected a trove of Wikipedia’s affairs and scandals over the years which is only accessible through hard drive formats to journalists if asked. There’s even a book which has yet to be published and which could be the Hollywood Babylon of Wikipedia.
to avoid stuffing the beans
No idea what that means
“sockpuppet investigations” page instead so you can look into it further by yourself
I don’t see how that is related. I am by no means a wikipedia expert but reading that article and some of the linked investigations it all seems mundane to me.
tbh this response seems kinda shitty to me. You originally said “[Wikipedia] has a despicable procedure where they dox details of anyone whom they deem as alleged vandals.”. I interpret this as a systemic issue (procedure, they) which happens regularly or always (procedure, anyone). It makes me imagine a wiki page “Vandalism cases on wikipedia” containing a table of cases with date, article, edit, and IP/account, existing for months or years frequented by wikipedia mods and admins.
I interpret your response now as ‘there is info but it is private and part of ongoing investigations’.
If it was a larger issue there should be evidence. After all doxxing is precisely about making something publically available.
My interpretation now is that this is a small thing which either happened in the past or is unknown?Can you please be specific about what you are referring to? And even without giving evidence, at least clarify what you aledge wikipedia or admins or anyone else did here?
deleted by creator
I interpret this as a systemic issue (procedure, they) which happens regularly or always (procedure, anyone). It makes me imagine a wiki page “Vandalism cases on wikipedia” containing a table of cases with date, article, edit, and IP/account, existing for months or years frequented by wikipedia mods and admins.
That’s right! That’s exactly the format they used in these procedures, which sometimes branch over onto “sockpuppet investigations” casepages. The other day I approached an Europe-based digital rights lawyers group and they agreed with the assessment that these pages do indeed constitute violations of General Data Protection Regulation. The only problem is that they have to find a victim who’s willing to be a complainant in order to initiate a formal complaint.
Wikipedia kowtows to every fascist government that asks them to. Remember when they banned users who called the Holodomer a genocide against the Ukranians by the Russians?
So Wikipedia hosted content objectionable to India’s government, refused to take it down, was requested to provide identities of the users who provided it, refused, fought in court, appealed, and then offered a compromise which would involve keeping the identities of the users under seal but still allowing the court proceedings to go forward to whatever extent the government wanted to push the issue? That doesn’t exactly sound like kowtowing to anyone who asks.
I’m not completely familiar with the issue, but that all is what it sounds like to me. I do understand the point of view that they should have thumbed their nose at the court and let whatever happens happen, but that’s not always a good way, and refusing to do that isn’t always capitulation.
Also, do you have a citation on that ban? That sounds to me like unreliable narration of bans that happened for some other reason. The Holodomor article talks about genocide, summarizing the contested topic, and the talk pages have some lively debates about whether or not it’s a genocide and how things should be presented.
Citations needed.
