Last Friday, the Wikimedia movement awoke to news that one of their number—Rémi Mathis, a French volunteer editor—had been summoned to the offices of the interior intelligence service DCRI and threatened with criminal charges and fines if he did not delete an article on the French Wikipedia about a radio station used by the French military.
The 30-year-old Mathis graduated from the prestigious École Nationale des Chartes for archivists and librarians in 2007. He is now a historian, library curator, and free-culture advocate, specialising in archival science—the diagnosis and restoration of decayed or damaged artifacts. Since 2010 he has been editor-in-chief of the scholarly journal Nouvelles de l'estampe ("News about prints"), which is supported by his employer, the National Library of France in Paris.
The "atypical" Mathis has been described as a "conveyor of knowledge", occupying a space "between two ages", represented by archival prints and modern technologies such as Twitter. Until the past few days, he was a volunteer administrator on the French Wikipedia, which he has edited since February 2006; he is the chair of Wikimédia France.
The bulk of the French-language article on Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute (Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station) was written by Qvsqvs, who has a total of just four edits. The article remained in this state from July 2009 to March 2013, and while no sources were cited, French Wikipedians have noticed many similarities between the article and a publicly available video in which a reporter is given a tour of the base and conducts an interview with its commander.
[Mathis] felt threatened and he was shocked
— Christopher Henner, vice-president of Wikimédia France
[It is the chapter's] duty to denounce such acts of censorship against a French citizen and Wikipedia editor. Has editing Wikipedia officially become risky behaviour in France?
— Statement by Wikimédia France
After a surprisingly long interval of four weeks for a matter purported to concern national security, DCRI then chose a different tack, summoning Rémi Mathis to its offices on 4 April and ordering him to delete the page. The DCRI agents told Mathis that the law applies to the article and to him personally—despite the absence of any link between him and the article or its subject, or his knowledge of either. If he had refused, the agents told him, he would be thrown into jail and prosecuted (under French law, which lacks habeas corpus, citizens may be held for up to 48 hours without cause).
Christopher Henner, the vice-president of the Wikimédia France chapter, told the Guardian that "The DCRI regularly asks us to go and explain to their operatives how Wikipedia works, so this volunteer thought he'd been summoned to explain or show them something. Had the DCRI presented us with documents or a legal order showing us this was a threat to national security we would have taken down the page at once. Instead they summoned one of our volunteers and ordered him to take it down, saying he would be held in custody if he didn't. Yes, he felt threatened and he was shocked."
A spokesman for the French government disputed the characterization of the agents' actions as threatening: "in a state of law, the threat of taking legal action against a passage that poses a problem for national security cannot be considered a threat."
Facing this stark choice, Mathis complied with their demands. Mathis told other administrators of his out-of-process deletion and explained that any French citizen who restored it could be sanctioned, as he believed that it was covered under 413-11. This could carry significant penalties, including five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 euros. (The related 413-10 is even harsher, specifying seven years in jail and a €100,000 euro fine.) The article was restored on 5 April by a Swiss Wikipedian, who is outside French jurisdiction.
Mathis's action drew many comments from French Wikipedians. It was noted that a picture of the station is still on Commons, which the agency appeared to have missed. Someone else suggested that it be hidden from public view, but oversighting is "uncommon" and does not apply in this case. Another contributor asked why the Foundation did not intervene; but Arkanosis replied: "It would not be the first time that the foundation has relied on volunteers to make a decision that it does not want to take itself." Arkanosis pointed out that Wikimédia France has no authority over article content, but the Foundation offers legal counsel to any editor under threats or pressure because of their Wikimedia involvement (Editor's note: Arkanosis' comment is not accurate; the Foundation cannot give legal advice, but it can refer contributors to the Legal Fees Assistance Program or their policy on the defense of contributors, through which it may be possible to "[secure] local independent counsel to defend individual users, or [provide] public support.")
Administrator Hégésippe Cormier asked other administrators to support Mathis, while others suggested that a defense fund should be created to cover any legal costs. To reduce the external pressure on Mathis, Dr Brains asked him to give up his administrator status for his personal safety—a suggestion that was poorly received by some administrators. Dr Brains replied that Mathis's two Wikimedia-related roles—his administrator status and chairmanship of Wikimédia France—were a danger to both him and Wikipedia. However, the Signpost notes that despite Mathis's high visibility, under similar circumstances any French citizen volunteer contributor could be pressured into deleting allegedly offensive content where the DCRI or a similar agency knows their name and address.
The debate quickly snowballed into a much larger question: should the French Wikipedia allow someone to be an administrator if they are a member of a chapter, as their names, addresses and phone numbers are public, making them easy targets for the French intelligence agencies? This exchange coalesced around Ash Crow (WMFR employee), Benjism89 (WMFR board), Remi Mathis (WMFR board) and Serein (WMFR employee), then widened its scope: since some countries have anti-democratic legal and security practices, should their citizens be automatically disqualified from stewardship?
On 6 April 2013, five contributors of the French Wikipedia—all citizens of France and including the four named WMFR employees and board members—requested the withdrawal of their administrator rights, which was implemented.
Reactions to the event from media outlets were swift, with blogs chiming in first (Geekosystem, Battleground); this was followed by online news outlets (arstechnica, zdnet, Boing Boing); and then by major news outlets (the Guardian, France24, Russia Today).
Wikimédia France and the Wikimedia Foundation promptly issued statements, with the chapter's—alongside a post on wikimedia-l—the first to break the news. The chapter stated, in part:
| “ | Wikimédia France cannot understand how bullying and coercive methods can be used against a person dedicated to promote the freedom and knowledge. As Wikimédia France supports free knowledge, it is its duty to denounce such acts of censorship against a French citizen and Wikipedia editor. Has editing Wikipedia officially become risky behaviour in France? Is the DCRI unable to enforce military secrecy through legal, less brutal methods? / ... Intimidation is not the right way to enforce military secrecy in France, and the Internet is not a place that has to be regulated in such a brutal manner. We believe the DCRI has other ways to enforce the law. We hope that an independent investigation will clear up the recent events. France is a legal state, where national security should not be ensured through such measures. | ” |
The Foundation responded via its legal counsel, Michelle Paulson. She detailed the Foundation’s interactions with the DCRI on the matter before issuing a strong condemnation of their tactics:
| “ | When governments have security concerns about Wikipedia articles, they should direct those concerns to the Foundation, and only to the Foundation. We believe it is unnecessary, irresponsible, and often counter-productive for any governmental agency to contact users or volunteers of any Wikimedia website directly ... While we have never received a request of this nature from the DCRI before, it is unfortunately not unheard of for governmental entities to contact, or even harass, local users. The Foundation strongly opposes any governmental attempts to intimidate the volunteers ... . We are saddened and disappointed to discover that the DCRI believes the tactics they employed in the name of security in this matter could be acceptable under any moral or legal authority. The Foundation was, and remains, willing to work with the DCRI to resolve this matter if possible, but we cannot condone any harassment of individuals who have done nothing wrong. / ... in cases where there is no apparent threat but rather a vague unsubstantiated claim of threats to national security, we require more information before we will consider removing any content—to do otherwise would allow censorship to trump free expression, which would be a direct assault on the values of the Wikimedia community. ... In this case, we have been unable to readily determine that the information is classified on its face and—especially in light of the video ... / The community remains free, of course, to retain or remove the article as it sees fit under community policies and processes. We value and respect community decisions in this regard. However, we want to remind users who are subject to the jurisdiction of France that there are risks involved in posting content that government authorities don’t want posted, and we advise such users to consult an attorney before acting in a situation that seems potentially risky. At this point, we do not see a demonstrated reason to remove the article on legal grounds. | ” |
Rémi Mathis declined the Signpost's invitation to comment on the matter.
In a comedic irony for the French intelligence service, articles have suddenly popped up in 26 other Wikipedias, while Twitter has been abuzz with the matter (Editor's note: this includes the Signpost's Twitter account). The article's views skyrocketed in the day after the event, up by more than 45,000%.
It appears that the French Wikipedia article on the Pierre-sur-Haute military base will be around for quite some time; however, internet freedom and intimidation by nation states of people who contribute to the net is still a burning question. Only last week, the Russian government published the list of Wikipedia pages they intend to blacklist. The action comes as part of a new law passed last year that spawned protests and the Russian Wikipedia blackout last July. The law allows "extrajudicial blacklisting of web content deemed to be promoting suicide, pedophilia or drug use", according to the state-owned news agency, RIA Novosti.
.jpg)
Discuss this story
Typo?
"2009 to March 2009" - Huh? KTC (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EC: The link in The article remained in this state from is missing space in front of July, July 2009 to May 2009 is probably typo of some sort and the permanent link version number leads to . Something is rotten in that sentence. --07:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC), Utar (talk)
This report should really mention the words "Streisand effect" :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had some experience of French official methods in 1979. Don't assume that the article in question is what they are really worried about. It seems quite likely that they wanted to warn off those who in future might push the envelope in posting sensitive information. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't the intelligence services infiltrate Wikipedia using sleeper agents, some of whom eventually become Admins and Arbitrators while most others will remain content editors? Then they can have much more influence over sensitive content, without the World knowing that they are activily involved in subverting Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<An independent opinion> What an atrocious state of affairs. That it's on Wikipedia with sources should tell the Government that it's already public knowledge and thus there's no point hiding it. Secondly, the threatened admin should be aware that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog and thus have refused, because it's unenforceable. What has happened is total horseshit and shouldn't have ever happened.--Launchballer 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Featured censored article of the week
Wikipedia needs an event for banned articles and websites similar to the American Library Association's Banned Books Week. The Turkish ban on Wordpress subdomains immediately comes to mind, as does the various internet blockages in Myanmar and the proposed Saudi ban on Skype. Perhaps an award for the year's most boneheaded attempt at repression, named, say, the Remi Award. —Neotarf (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response from WMF
I applaud WMF Legal for posting a statement on the French Wikipedia's admin noticeboard stating . But I was hoping they would have issued a general press release to the media stating the same thing, since not all security agencies are following that advice. Having it on the admin's noticeboard on frwp is great, but will not provide it with much visibility. Issuing a press release when the media attention was active would have helped circulate that advice to the rest of the world, thus helping to avoid similar future events. Perhaps they are working on something like that already. I'm hoping they are. 64.40.54.180 (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New censorship issues with images?
I see an image used in the original piece, a photo of the Direction centrale du Renseignement intérieur, presumably the building where Rémi Mathis was taken for questioning, has just been deleted. At the same time, a photo from the article the French police wanted deleted has just been nominated for deletion. —Neotarf (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a Commons admin. Neotarf brought the issue to us. The pictures of the DCRI HQ were deleted because they show recent buildings: France doesn't recognise freedom of panorama (see commons:Freedom of panorama#France). These pics, shot by Wikipedians and placed under a free licence, have been uploaded to fr: under a local exception similar to your fair use. I have no doubt you can upload them on en: too under a fair use rationale. You can use fr:Fichier:Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) - affaire Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg and fr:Fichier:DCRI.jpg to perform the transfer. If for some reason you prefer to take the files directly from Commons, I can undelete them temporarily. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the arrogant assumption by Commons people from the start that every editor in sister projects is an expert in multijurisdictional and cross-project image copyright. The worst manifestation of this was on display in the behaviour of your colleague, Russavia, whom you appear to be blithely supporting at Commons as a matter of admin solidarity (this is something that fosters suspicion and even hatred of admins by other editors). He and others have flagrantly breached your policy on blocking, and he has breached your policy on privacy. Yet you don't seem to give a fig for that, giving the impression that it's one rule for admins and one rule for other editors, at your whim.
Congratulations for fuelling a controversy rather than taking steps to resolve it at the earliest possible time. There would not have been a problem if this person had done the polite and practical thing, briefly alerting the Signpost, explaining the situation, and providing the location of another fair-use image from which to source an en.WP fair-use upload to replace the deleted Commons image. Given timezone differences, Russavia might even have organised a quick upload to en.WP himself, to prevent damage to the article—you people are supposed to be the experts, and Commons is supposed to be serving its sister projects. This disgustingly arrogant behaviour has done a lot to damage relations between the Signpost and Commons, and looks like not being resolved any time soon. You guys need to take a more cooperative approach rather than marching in and edit-warring over a high-profile Signpost page.
The fact that Russavia is still calling the tune at Commons suggests that your community is deeply dysfunctional; and the fact that there has been tit-for-tat blocking of me to pay for his re-blocking from en.WP for a month is just appalling.
It's a great pity that you and your friend Turelio just don't get it: the question is how to properly handle high-profile deletions in relation to sister projects in a way that doesn't disrupt a much-read article, and at the very least to communicate with editors on major actions that degrade their published work. To put it simply, the emphasis seems to be on asserting your power rather than connecting with other editors for the good of readers.
You and several others at Commons seem to be perpetuating that dysfunction rather than looking into ways of preventing it. Shame on you both, and shame on these characters Mattbuck, moogsi, and odder. It smells of a corrupt environment. Tony (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Jastrow and Túrelio for your offers of assistance. I am in the process of contacting someone who can advise on this, however, given the difference in time zones, it may take a while for a response. —Neotarf (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So Jastowi, it's just not getting through, is it. Your own arrogance is on nice display in your post right now. And what is this you're spouting? Let's take a few statements:
"precursor"