This is the Village pump (all) page which lists all topics for easy viewing. Go to the village pump to view a list of the Village Pump divisions, or click the edit link above the section you'd like to comment in. To view a list of all recent revisions to this page, click the history link above and follow the on-screen directions.

Click here to purge the server cache of this page (to see recent changes on Village pump subpages)

Village pump sections

Policy

post, watch, search
Discuss existing and proposed policies

Technical

post, watch, search
Discuss technical issues about Wikipedia

Proposals

post, watch, search
Discuss new proposals that are not policy-related

Idea lab

post, watch, search
Incubate new ideas before formally proposing them

WMF

post, watch, search
Discuss issues involving the Wikimedia Foundation

Miscellaneous

post, watch, search
Post messages that do not fit into any other category

View all village pump sections at once

Other help and discussion locations
I want...	Then go to...
...help using or editing Wikipedia	Teahouse (for newer users) or Help desk (for experienced users)
...to find my way around Wikipedia	Department directory
...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?)	Reference desk
...constructive criticism from others for a specific article	Peer review
...help resolving a specific article edit dispute	Requests for comment
...to comment on a specific article	Article's talk page
...to view and discuss other Wikimedia projects	Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
...to learn about citing Wikipedia in a bibliography	Citing Wikipedia
...to report sites that copy Wikipedia content	Mirrors and forks
...to ask questions or make comments	Questions

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved to a sub page of each section (called (section name)/Archive).

Policy

Fixing the admin inactivity requirements

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr recently generated 66,000 words of divisive debate, ostensibly about Night Gyr, but really about our inactivity requirements. A week after the ~~petition~~ debate officially closed, it continues on the talk page. Two other recalls (Master Jay and Gimmetrow) were also about inactivity. So it seems clear to me we need to revisit the admin activity policy. Perhaps the limits need to be raised. Or maybe we need to have clarity about what constitutes "gaming". Or, maybe we need to state that inactivity is not a valid WP:RECALL reason. One way or another, we need to prevent a repeat of the Night Gyr debacle. RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is still open: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Revisiting_WP:INACTIVITY. Some1 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware of that other thread, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And before that, two months ago there was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 203#Admin inactivity rules workshopping. Anomie ⚔ 13:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps admin activity requirements need to be raised"? Hah. There are no admin activity requirements. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are: At least one edit or logged action in every rolling 12 month period, and at least 100 edits in every rolling 5 year period. See WP:INACTIVE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An edit is not an administrative action requiring "the tools" to perform, covered under WP:ADMINACCT. To put it in other words there are no requirements to actually use "the tools". Most other stuff, including a lot of actions of significant import, any Tom, Dick or Harry can boldly perform as a "non-administrative close". Admins aren't even required to perform any of those, they can just let the non-admins do 90% of the work. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the same as there being no activity requirements. They are expressed as edits or logged actions because not every admin action is logged. If you want to change that then propose an alternative in the linked idea lab thread. Thryduulf (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken admins to task for making unexplained edits to fully-protected material on the main page. i.e. {{DYK}}. If it requires the bit to do, WP:ADMINACCT requires that you explain yourself if asked. RoySmith (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. An edit to a non-fully-protected page is not an administrative action requiring "the tools" to perform, covered under WP:ADMINACCT. An edit to a fully-protected page is an administrative action requiring "the tools" to perform, as is an edit to MediaWiki namespace. None of that is required to keep the tools. You can spend years doing nothing but fixing typos in non-contentious-topic articles, and keep the tools. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a debacle and there's no need to change anything, other than perhaps acceptance of the fact that much of the community wants a low hard limit on inactivity but considers trivial edits to meet the minimum as gaming. Flexibility is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if activity requirements were hypothetically increased, the case of an admin making sandbox edits up to the new limit to evade it is still gaming the system, so this would only catch an actually-active but low edit count for some reason admin (e.g. an admin who's switched to the tech side or sister projects). SnowFire (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way: much of the community wants to honour the spirit of WP:INACTIVITY rather than the letter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we know that some of the community want that, but I think it is obvious other parts of the community disagree. Donald Albury 23:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"edit or logged action in every rolling 12 month period, and at least 100 edits in every rolling 5 year period" - this really is too low and should be raised. 1,000 edits in a five-year period and a minimum number of admin actions a year would be more reasonable. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reword notice at top of WP:Copyright

Reword notice at top of WP:Copyright and restyle box, as it's not as neat as I liked, and it's not as easy to read. See it in my sandbox: User:Waddie96/sandbox2.

Compare:

Old

Important note: The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations. It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images, even if rules at your company, school, or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content. The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about are the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission. Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms (see below and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for specific terms). Images may or may not permit reuse and modification; the conditions for reproduction of each image should be individually checked. The only exceptions are those cases in which editors have violated Wikipedia policy by uploading copyrighted material without authorization, or with copyright licensing terms which are incompatible with those Wikipedia authors have applied to the rest of Wikipedia content. While such material is present on Wikipedia (before it is detected and removed), it will be a copyright violation to copy it. For permission to use it, one must contact the owner of the copyright of the text or illustration in question; often, but not always, this will be the original author. If you wish to reuse content from Wikipedia, first read the Reusers' rights and obligations section. You should then read the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License and the GNU Free Documentation License.

New

Important note:

Please do not contact the Wikimedia Foundation for permission to reuse article text or images.: The Foundation does not own that content and cannot grant permission. This applies even if your company, school, or organization requires permission from website operators before copying material.

When to contact the Wikimedia Foundation: The only Wikipedia content that requires permission from the Wikimedia Foundation is use of its trademarked logos. These logos are not freely licensed and require explicit written permission for reuse.; For members of the media, see Foundation:Press contacts, others see Wikipedia:Contact us.

Reusing Wikipedia article text: Permission to reuse and modify article text is already granted under open-content licenses by the original authors, as long as such use complies with the applicable licensing terms, provides proper attribution and licenses any modifications under the same terms.; If you wish to reuse content from Wikipedia, start by reading the Reusers' rights and obligations section. Then review the applicable licenses: the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License and the GNU Free Documentation License.

Reusing images: Images on Wikipedia are not automatically covered by the same license as article text. Each image has its own license, which must be reviewed individually. Some images are freely reusable. Others are restricted or non-free and may not be reused or modified without explicit permission from the original author. If an image was uploaded in violation of Wikipedia policy, reusing it could result in copyright infringement.

Diff

What do you think? waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s great! Nononsense101 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new layout is much easier to comprehend. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! I'd say it's ready for implementation. Structure is key for improving understandability. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent improvement, and breaks up the wall of text that currently exsist and should help ensure people actually read it. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks guys! Really appreciate it. Will edit-request the change 😄. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update for passersby: change has been implemented (I approve). Mrfoogles (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, +2 passed code review step. <3 waddie96 ★ (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw! Codex icons just got officially, officially released. So maybe I do this to the Commons Copyrights webpage too? What notices right now are v. important. I'm good at copyediting (I hope). waddie96 ★ (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACD and procedural closure due to Wrong venue?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § WP:NACD and procedural closure due to Wrong venue?

– Raladic (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seeking some clarification due to a confusing contradiction between two guideline pages after I was trying to figure out if I can close the AfD I raised myself or not as a procedural close (I know I could close it as "withdrawn (speedy keep)", but since that's not technically what is the right course, here's the issue:

The delection process guidelines instruct to close discussions that are at the wrong venue as a procedural closure, listing examples including a redirect, which is what the discussion changed into - DPR: Venue inappropriate: (e.g., a file hosted on Commons, category or redirect at AFD, or discussions that the chosen venue is unable to address)

The current guideline at WP:NACD only explicitly states that the nominator can close the discussion as "Withdrawn" / "Speedy Keep", but then following the link to WP:SK there it says "If a page is nominated for deletion on the wrong forum (for example, a template on AfD or an article on MfD), the misplaced discussion may be procedurally closed".

So if I follow the logic of NACD pointing to SK, and SK saying that that is a sub-variant of SK, then I'd interpret it as, yes, I could therefore do that under WP:NACD and save some other person the time.

But since the WP:NACD is explicitly contradicting it and explicitly only states "speedy keep" I'm at a loss whether I can infer that since NACD links to SK that they mean that that would also be okay, or not, so hopefully we can ammend the sentence at NACD to either explicitly say that that is also okay to do as a NACD opener, or explicitly say its not. Though personally I think it probably should be okay if it's an obvious case, since I'd rather save someone else the time after I realized the venue was wrong and should go to WP:RM instead due to a scope change as a result of a good point brought up by someone in the AfD page.

Please advise. Raladic (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't "go to RM" if the page was nominated for deletion and the deletion question was resolved within the AfD. Such a situation calls for a close on the merits, and a procedural close is specifically not that. If, in an AfD, an issue of naming is discussed concurrently with deletion, it is possible for the AfD itself to decide on both. There is such a thing as a "keep and move" outcome, based on WP:NOTBURO expediency (various examples exist, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mowbray House School). And AfD can even run concurrently with an RM as an actually running process, to reach the combined decision on whether to have the article or not, and if yes, on what subject exactly -- meaning, how to name it (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shani Louk with the concurrent RM: permalink, closed together). There cannot be a correction of forum by moving an AfD discussion to RM unless it was really some kind of misclick in Twinkle and the nominator who was writing up an RM nomination wasn't aware that they've selected AfD (or similar). If the forum was correct (relevant deletion forum for the given namespace / type of page) at the start of the discussion, i.e., at the time of nomination, then it can't turn into a wrong forum later. The only thing that can be "wrong" is the nomination, i.e., it can fail to lead to the proposed action.

This is a random example of a correct speedy keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Program on Forests. In that discussion, participants expressed an interest in starting a merger discussion, but what happened is that the AfD reached a natural conclusion. The deletion question was substantively considered, was clearly answered in the negative, and the outcome was an outcome on the merits of the original issue.

It is interesting how you say that your linked example is an obvious case of something, and how your would-have-been procedural self-close would have been obviously justified, as an illustration for a certain interpretation or change to the guideline -- while at the same time having a wrong idea about that particular close and that "obvious" case being nothing of the sort. No, you could not have closed as "procedural close". So the only thing that example illustrates is that an uninvolved closer is advantageous for procedural closures relative to a self-closer, as long as there has been an actual discussion (if other editors have participated). —Alalch E. 08:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging closers of these discussions on their perspectives, as I have taken these AfDs which they have closed as examples: @Premeditated Chaos, Elli, and Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Thanks for any thoughts on this. —Alalch E. 08:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could have closed it yourself as "withdrawn (speedy keep)", since you no longer wanted to pursue an AfD outcome and since everyone else had !voted keep. This is the outcome everyone wants, don't sweat the verbiage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I never argued for deletion, so the fact that WP:BLAR only suggest AfD as the venue was a bit strange to begin with since this wasn’t an article, but a DAB page and my contention at the start was basically that the proposed target was the exclusive primary since the other terms were already discussed there, so maybe really BLAR should have some nuance that if one is saying a dab page is an unnecessary disambiguation it should just go to RM to begin with since people watching RMs are more experienced with WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY questions so it could just be an open RM of “Page -> ?” with the text explaining the proposal and community can decide on whether it gets moved to parenthetical disambiguation or indeed just becomes a primary redirect? Raladic (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Party affiliation in BLP infoboxes

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I am an AMPOL editor and I often see articles with party affiliation assumed in the infobox. For instance, Adriana Kugler's infobox states that she is a Democrat, but no inline citation is provided. On the other hand, Todd Blanche does provide a citation for having registered as a Republican. I am questioning the purpose of this parameter for individuals who are not directly associated with politics—in other words, their profession does not pertain to being a politician or political consultant. "If relevant" in the {{Infobox person}} documentation is rather vague. The misuse of this parameter warrants some action.

The rationale for removing the party affiliation parameter is similar to the RfC over the religion parameter. As was stated then, "This would be consistent with our treatment of sexual orientation and various other things we don't include in infoboxes that are matters which may be nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial. The availability of a parameter encourages editors to fill it, whether they have consensus to do so or not, regardless of instructions in template documentation to gain consensus first; new and anon IP editors generally do not read documentation, they simply see a "missing" parameter at article B that they saw at article A and add it." elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Question presented: Should the party parameter in infoboxes be deprecated for non-political BLPs?

Support — As nominator. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and I note that both of the examples given in the original RFC question are "political" BLPs (both of them were political appointees in a system that expects appointees to come from the president's own political party) – people who very much are "directly associated with politics". Whether an inline citation is needed directly in the infobox depends on the usual Wikipedia:When to cite rules, namely whether the information is also present and cited elsewhere in the article. While political party affiliation can be "nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial", it is usually not, especially for people, such as political appointees, for whom this is actually relevant. "If relevant" appears in the documentation for {{infobox person}} more than a dozen times. If you can figure out whether to add |employer= or |height= or amateur radio |callsign= "if relevant", then you can probably figure out whether to add |party= "if relevant", too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I would say that unless they are running/elected in a position that requires a political affiliation to be made as part of the election process so that we have a clear basis to document it, this should be left out of the infobox and explained in the prose. Masem (t) 16:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if they are explicitly running as a candidate for/in affiliation with a given party, and this is cited in the pose, then it should be in the infobox. Otherwise it should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Talk:Sydney Sweeney § RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation was recently WP:SNOW closed with consensus against inclusion, for instance, and editors should not have to waste time dealing with similar disputes on other BLPs whose subjects are not directly associated with politics. Some1 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Too often I see a supposed party affiliation being added to judge infoboxes (Scalia, for example), based not on party registration or self-declaration but by some third party claiming it, and that opinion being claimed as a RS. Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of many local elections that are intended as non-partisan positions, though candidates often assert their position in their campaign materials, in comparison to partisan offices that usually require party primaries to be elected to. In the latter case, the political affiliation is part of the election process and can't be disputed (making it fair to include the infobox). Masem (t) 17:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is explicitly running on a partisan position then that position should be in the infobox. Even if the position is intended to be non-partisan if someone is running on a partisan platform then it is de facto partisan. The job of Wikipedia is to represent what the reality is, not what it is/was intended to be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more clear in this comment and state that the infobox should be following what sources say. Brad Schimel was nonpartisan in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election earlier this year, but he was described as a Republican across various outlets. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly a situation that I would *not* include the political affiliation in the infobox, because that's not a requirement for running in that election. In prose, absolutely. Its the same reason we restrict calling out religion in the infobox for only those people who's careers are specifically tied to the church/equivalent body of their religion, though we are free to include any stated religious beliefs in the prose of the article. Masem (t) 04:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schimel is in an interesting position because he ran as a Republican in the Wisconsin attorney general elections he was involved in. Most of the cases where a politician running for a non-partisan office is clearly affiliated with a party involve prior elections. I was reading a local news report from Wisconsin that made it clear that Schimel was de jure non-partisan. In cases where a candidate explicitly says they are of a certain party but they are running for office in a non-partisan role and they have not run in any other elections where they would be a candidate for that party, then that should not be in the infobox. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a given individual, in some cases it's clear that they're "directly associated with politics," in some cases it's clear they aren't, but there are some people/positions where it's unclear. Todd Blanche is someone I'd put in the third group. He is a political appointee in an ostensibly non-political position, but in this administration, it seems that the position is political as well. I don't think political party is a "nuanced, complex" issue. I also don't think people should be adding this info without an RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Blanche should not have "Republican" in his infobox. He is not a politician nor a political advisor. The argument that the "position is political" is a reach from what is being suggested here. Wikipedia shouldn't make its own conclusions. In reliable sources, Blanche might be described as a Trump loyalist, but not a Republican, a rather vague term that doesn't encompass Blanche's fealty to the president. The prose can handle describing Blanche properly. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should limit listings of party affiliation to people who ran for office as a candidate for the party or people who served as officials of the party. I have seen party affiliation listed for people who served in political office in a position that was elected on a non-partisan basis, I do not think that is justified. There are of course people who have had multiple party affiliations. If they served in office for multiple parties that can be listed. One thing to keep in mind is on occasion a member of one party has appointed people from a different party to their cabinet, so even cabinet members we cannot assume they share the party of the president. This is even more clear in cases or any sub-cabinet position, for judges many times so. The same probably applies even more so to people who serve on the cabinet of governors. Many mayors and other local officials in the US are elected on a non-partisan basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a one-size fits all solution. There are the obvious cases, candidate runs as a partisan in a partisan election. And on the other side, there are non-partisans who run in non-partisan elections. But, there are many people who may be known (either in independent sources or verifiable non-independent sources) as a partisan. And, there are individuals who run as a partisan in a partisan election who change parties or disaffiliate at some point after that election. And, for many subjects, there are BLP considerations to account for. --Enos733 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Political party is a voluntary act, not something that can be otherwise discerned, even by RSs. Unless there is evidence of voluntary affiliation, through registration to vote or entering a party primary that requires party membership, or being a party official of some kind, I would exclude. RSs without evidence of this are just partisan name callers. Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an RfC then it needs to be formatted and advertised as such. If it's just a discussion, perhaps in advance of a potential RfC, it needs to be relabeled. ElKevbo (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't formatted it so it will be advertised as an RfC at WP:RFC/A. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM/AI generated proposals?

We had an RFC earlier this year around how to handle LLM/AI generated comments. That resulted in WP:HATGPT after further discussion at WT:TPG. Recently, an editor started a requested move using LLM generated content. I ran that content through two different AI/LLM detection utilities: GPT Zero says "highly confident", and 100% AI generated; Quillbot stated 72% of the text was likely AI generated.

Should HATGPT be expanded to allow for the closure of discussions seeking community input (RFC/VPR/CENT/RFAR/AFD/RM/TFD/RFD/FFD/etc) that are started utilizing content that registers as being majority written by AI?

I was tempted to just start an RFC on this, but if there's alternate proposals or an existing WP:PAG that already covers this, I'm all ears. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. Editors shouldn't be required to waste their time whenever somebody posts LLM slop. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m hesitant still with suggesting the use of gptzero except as additional evidence alongside with conclusive proof. But otherwise I’m always of opinion that most use of LLM in discussion is a bad faith usage of editor time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I say every time things like this come up, the focus is completely wrong. We really should not care whether it is or isn't AI-generated, that's just wasting everybody's time trying to determine something that is irrelevant. If the proposal is understandable, relevant to the page it's on, isn't just rehashing something that's already been discussed to death (even if you disagree with it) then whether it was written by a human or machine couldn't be less relevant: deal with it as a good-faith contribution unless you have evidence it is not (use of an LLM is not evidence of good faith or of bad faith, it's completely independent of faith). If it is in bad faith, not understandable, trolling, rehashing a settled discussion, etc. then close it to avoid wasting time - this applies regardless of whether it is LLM-generated or human-generated. One of the many advantages of this approach is that it doesn't require any changes to policies or guidelines, because that's how Wikipedia has worked for many years. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair" points perhaps, but not good points. Real editors who could be doing real things to benefit the project should not have to spend their time parsing machine-generate bloat in the hope that it will turn out to be the one-in-fifty case that isn't anywhere from fatuous vacuity to bullshit hallucination. The OP's linked example is an unfortunately poor exemplar of the problem, but anyone who's been active in project space over recent months has seen examples of text which makes you angry that someone expected you to waste your time reading it. You know how you can tell a tsunami is coming because the ocean suddenly recedes, leaving asphyxiating fish flopping on the sand? That's the stage we're at right now. We should respond to AI-generated text the way we'd respond to text in Klingon: tell the author to come back when they can write in English. E Eng 01:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EEng's statement above matches my own sentiment exactly, and I support the expansion of HATGPT to cover LLM-generated proposals. Comments in a discussion shouldn't be generated and neither should requests for discussion. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And take a look at this [1] ANI discussion for a truly epic example of how one AI-drunk incompetent can waste hours of the time of a dozen competent editors. `E Eng 02:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. LLMs are getting better, and we will very soon be unable to spot their output.[2] We need to deal with problem posts and edits the way we always have. Donald Albury 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy at some company says his people have trouble recognizing fake videos with their naked eyes. So what? You want to throw in the towel right now based on that? E Eng 03:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel better, pretend we're enforcing our existing policy on meatpuppetry to remove text written by some~~body~~thing other than the user account editing it onto the page. —Cryptic 01:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think that that agnosticism about the source of commentary is correct but I have changed my mind. The choice is not between using an imperfect heuristic like "is this LLM-generated" and sedulously evaluating the content of discussions. As others have pointed out, editor time is a limited and precious resource. Since LLMs make it easy for editors who would not have otherwise been able to do so to add superficially plausible content to a discussion, we can expect that volume of content to increase, without a corresponding increase in time to evaluate it. That means our standards for discussion are going to shift in the direction of being more BITEy and intolerant of imperfect contributions regardless of whether we adopt any rule regarding LLMs. If LLMs really do improve to the point of undetectability, as Donald Albury suggests, then we're probably going to be driven into a different set of heuristics with hard and stringently enforced limits on WP:BLUDGEON and so on. But for now, LLMs do seem to have a distinct "register", even if it's hard to prove with certainty, and I think it might be more fair to go after that while we can. Choess (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (kind of): I support the idea in theory. But the linked move request would have been WP:SNOW closed as oppose anyway. What happens if someone posts a LLM-generated RfC that people support (which will likely happen)? Or if someone posts a LLM-generated RfC on a perpetual source of drama, and people respond to it before the LLM use is noticed (which will also, maybe even more likely, happen)? Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice for discuassions that don't need closing seems to be someone asks if llm was used, and then either it is rather unbelievably denied, or there is some pivot to "you should focus on the argument rather than the method" which I'm pretty sure llms must be offering as a reply given how consistent it is. After that the discussion tails off. For those that do need closing and would otherwise linger wasting everyone's time, I would agree with the proposal that the guidelines should allow someone to quick close them, while not making it mandatory. CMD (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If LLMs are to be allowed to generate such requests then simply ask an LLM to generate a reply based on your position, make sure to ask it to give detailed explanations now all the points it raises. If it's the case then maybe someone could create a script to autogenerate comments, or even the whole discussion. Editors shouldn't be expected to put more effort into replies than the original poster put into theirs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your good sense to troll back basically. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to support this, although with two caveats. Firstly, that AI detection software, while useful, isn't perfectly accurate and shouldn't be exclusively relied on for that purpose. And, secondly, that proposals getting reasonable support shouldn't be closed just because the original proposal was AI-generated, while those with no support can be immediately closed based on that.

The main issue for me (and the reason why I believe this is not comparable to existing human-written discussions) is that it is trivially easy to generate long proposals with AI, and that it comparatively takes a much larger amount of volunteer time to analyze (and usually dismiss) these proposals. This imbalance is simply not fair to our volunteers, and having to repeatedly deal with AI-generated proposals will just slow down community discussions and divert precious resources from more well-thought proposals. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - To address the concerns about good proposals written with AI being closed, if it's so obvious a good idea, it would certainly be proposed quickly anyway. I don't think the benefit of a theoretical wonderful AI-written proposal that wouldn't be suggested anyway is worth the massive downside of giving any kind of additional foothold to LLMs. LLMs are an existential threat to Wikipedia as a useful project, and I see it as our mission to stop it wherever it is possible to do so.
CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy-closes of formal discussions created primarily/entirely by chatbot - It's highly unlikely the people using the chatbots are willing (assuming they're able) to make coherent arguments based on policy and a reading of the available sources, but if they are there's no reason to bring in a fallible script that's huffing nutmeg. Even the most perfunctory human-written discussion is better than a long AI-written post simply because the human is far better at source critique and rebutting opposing arguments. As Enby says above, I wouldn't support speedy-closing any discussion which has already attracted some amount of commentary before its provenance was discovered. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely the people using the chatbots are willing (assuming they're able) to make coherent arguments based on policy and a reading of the available sources, but if they are there's no reason to bring in a fallible script that's huffing nutmeg. – Yes, this is another excellent point. I believe our attitude should be that use of AI to generate either article text, or discussion text, is ipso facto proof of incompetence as an editor -- because no competent person would think that AI-generated text is a useful contribution -- and should result in an immediate indef. I am not kidding about this. Shoot to kill. (Unblock only after a clear statement that they now understand the issue, but a second offense should be another indef, with a minimum 12 months before unblock may be re-requested).
As for the wikt:bleeding hearts who worry about people who would not be able to contribute without relying on AI to write for them: well, if you can't write it yourself, neither can you review what AI wrote for you, so I'm afraid we can't use you on the project. E Eng 22:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly astounded and appalled by this attitude. Whatever happened to WP:AGF, WP:BITE and the other half dozen or so things you've tossed by the wayside in your haste to hate? Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning someone's competence is not questioning their good faith, but stupid sincerity is not enough. And I do not apologize for BITE-ing a robot, even if it speaks through a ventriloquist's dummy in human form. To paraphrase someone that I'm not likely to quote ever again: Extremism in defense of Wikipedia is no vice. Moderation in tracking down and stamping out AI-generated crap posted by script kiddies is no virtue. [3].
If we don't take dramatic action immediately, our cherished Neutral Point of View will soon give way to the Neural Point of View. (You can use that quip free of charge.) E Eng 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I dare anyone to take a gander at this [4] ANI discussion and not be angry at the time wasted by competent editors who are forced to wade through the AI slop being posted -- and defended! -- by this one incompetent. And I have no problem calling him incompetent, since he obviously lacks common sense. E Eng 02:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dare accepted. I'm more angry at the people who are choosing to insult editors on a project page while yapping about how we "must take dramatic action immediately," instead of taking dramatic action immediately. Be the change you wish to see in the world. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you're not kidding. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've literally been tracking down hundreds of AI-generated articles for the past several days. Please don't tell me what I do and don't worry about. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're addressing me: I didn't tell you or anyone else what they worry about. I addressed any editors who happen to harbor a particular worry which I specified, and discussed that worry. E Eng 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant - given that the actual proposal at an RM is simply “current title —> proposed title”, I don’t think it matters if someone uses an LLM to generate it. Similarly, an RFC question/proposal is supposed to be brief and neutral (example: “Should the article say ABC instead of XYZ?”) and, again, I don’t think it matters how that basic question is generated (In fact, I would love to train LLMs so they generate RFC questions this way).
What I think is actually being objected to is using an LLM to generate the proposer’s opening statement (explaining why they think the move should take place, or why ABC should be replaced with XYZ) … but that is commentary on the proposal, not the proposal itself… and commentary is already covered by HATGPT. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, and it's because the opening statement is essentially the proposer's argument for why XYZ should happen. It isn't something an LLM actually has the capacity to summarise or explain in most cases, especially if offline sources are being used for the argument (as LLMs generally cannot access those); using one for the purpose basically forces the proposer to waste time clarifying whatever the LLM said than actually defending their proposal, and that's outright ignoring the LLM's divinorum addiction. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But HATGPT already says we should discount comments generated by LLMs. So what is the point of this proposal? Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent people from wasting time clarifying or arguing over whatever the LLM said instead of defending their position. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the LLM generated the entire request. If you go back to the diff I posted, go look at that page as it looked during the first edits: they inserted it into the wrong place on the page, and I get the impression it didn't know how to fill in certain fields so it left some blank. But if it makes any difference, I also object to the "opening statement" being majority-written by an LLM. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "entire request", you mean only the first of the 10 comments posted in that RM by the newbie, but none of the significant and substantive arguing you and the OP did over (a) the actual question and (b) whether an LLM was used in the first comment, right?

I'm somehow getting a different feeling about which part was the waste of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Blueboar presents a convincing enough argument in favor of this proposal. I consider this to be an extension of existing policy. Talking about discussions over whether a proposal is AI-generated should be conducted in criticisms of the existing HATGPT rule. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) has an RfC

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tomiĉo (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, can't seem to find this RfC. Dege31 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations. CMD (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technical

Should "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" show up when editing a section?

Special:Edit/Earth shows a big list of transclusion under the editor, starting with Planet Earth and ending with Module:Yesno, but edit with section=0 doesn't show the list at all. Was this always the case for editing a section of a page, or did something break recently? I don't look at this list often enough to remember if it was there or not when editing a section.

Both whole-article edit and section-edit show the other two lists: "Wikidata entities used in this page" and "This page is a member of 27 hidden categories" though. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a list called "Templates used in this preview (help):" starting and ending as you describe above in both cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the templates are shown only in preview, thank you. When exactly the preview gets shown depends on user's settings in Preferences → Editing → Preview. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has always been preview-only for sections, and then it says "Templates used in this preview". MediaWiki doesn't know which templates are transcluded by the section until you preview it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I read the replies, I think I always knew it. Maybe I wasn't pressing "Show preview" or something. Accesskeys can be wonky sometimes... Or just had a brain fart. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Searching for templates in the wikitext editor now (annoyingly) opens the collapsed lists below the main edit window. Searching for other text will also open those lists if the text being sought can be found in them. Is that what you're seeing? I asked if there were some way to disable that and got no response; see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 222 § Tech News: 2025-27.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. In the HTML source code on the edit pages, I see HTML attribute hidden=hidden in Firefox, but hidden=until-found in Chromium (at least when logged out).

It might be that MediaWiki thinks that Firefox doesn't support it. There are tickets in Mozilla's bugtracker about hidden=until-found, but I can't figure out if Firefox actually supposed to support it or not, because I don't know how to search well on Bugzilla among the tickets about the "Find Toolbar". —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox added support for hidden=until-found very recently, in version 139 [5]. You might not have it yet. Matma Rex talk 18:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: An extremely crude workaround to not display the "Templates used in this preview" list (which is super annoying now that it expands of its own volition, making it difficult to go directly to the editing box after previewing - because the edit box is no longer at the bottom, it's often several pages up from the bottom) is to add the following line to your common.css:

.templatesUsed {display: none;}

This kludge is okay for me because I never want to see that list. Someone who works with css regularly can no doubt suggest a more elegant solution. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is a kludge. But, it does prevent searches of the templates list and for that I am grateful; thank you. A variant can also prevent searches of the wikidata entities list, hidden categories list, and parser profile data:

.wikibase-entity-usage,
.templatesUsed,
.hiddencats,
.limitreport {
	display: none
}

I've elected to hide wikidata, templates, and categories. If I need them, I can open the page in an incognito browser window. It would be nice if these lists would just stay collapsed until actually uncollapsed with a mouse click.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the lists are supposed to remember whether they were last opened or closed, and try to stay that way. However, this may interact with the feature (recently enabled for Firefox, maybe around a bit longer for Chrome-based browsers) that opens a collapsed section if an in-browser search would find a match inside it to unexpectedly change the saved state to "open". Anomie ⚔ 20:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a Firefox feature, or a MediaWiki feature? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly a browser feature, but MediaWiki was changed to use the attributes to make use of the feature. You can read more about the browser feature at MDN, and T327893 for the request to enable it. Anomie ⚔ 13:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logging in with Firefox

I've noticed that logging in has changed. When I log in on Wikipedia or Wikisource on my computer with Firefox, I'm only logged in to Wikipedia or Wikisource. Before when I logged in, as recently as April, I was logged in to all wiki projects when I logged in with Firefox on my computer (Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, etc). But when I log in with Microsoft Edge, I'm logged in on all wiki projects at the same time. Do you understand what I mean and what has happened and why and how to solve it? Has this been brought up already on this or another language edition? I've already asked about it on Swedish Wikipedia, but maybe I'll get more helpful results here, I was directed to this section specifically. I don't know where else to ask to get a solution. Grey ghost (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grey ghost: If "Delete cookies and site data when Firefox is closed" is enabled in Firefox then disable it. See [6] for how to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the kind of guy who uses more than one device, sometimes I borrow a library computer or someone else's computer I asked for. Then this is still annoying. And I don't think I'm the only Wikipedia user who does this. Many users edit the site in Internet cafés. Can't the technical team do something so that it's like how it was earlier this year? Can I contact them somehow somewhere? Or are they already working on a solution? Grey ghost (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grey ghost: Something did change this year, probably to improve security, but it usually works for me in Firefox. If I'm logged out when I change site then I usually only have to reload the page or click login without filling any login form. Libraries and Internet cafes may have the type of security setting I mentioned so the next user cannot use a login from the previous user. Did you examine the mentioned setting? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the settings but having to do all that seems convoluted. Also, I very often use an incognito setting and I don't know how that affects the situation, checking to see how it does affect it makes things more convoluted. If this is something other Firefox Wikipedia users have to go through, then I think something behind the scenes should change. Is there a way to contact one or more members of the technical team or are they unreachable? Grey ghost (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have Enhanced Tracking Protection enabled, disable it on Wikimedia websites as it may block or partition third-party cookies, such as the ones used by SUL. OutsideNormality (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a side effect of the SUL3 work (which is not great; its goal was exactly to prevent this kind of problem). Are you willing to do some debugging? Either by installing the WikimediaDebug extension, and enabling verbose mode, or (if you know how) logging your network traffic via the developer toolbar)? Then try to log out and log back in again.

("Delete cookies and site data when Firefox is closed" will log you out when you close Firefox, but shouldn't be relevant for whether login works across domains. Disabling Enhanced Tracking Protection probably helps, but we'd like the login to work even when it is enabled.) Tgr (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried verbose mode on the extension, but it didn't help. Grey ghost (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-32

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

Editors can now enable the User Info card. This feature adds an icon next to usernames on history pages and similar user-contribution log pages. When you tap or click on the icon, it displays data related to that user account such as the number of edits, reverted edits, blocks, and more. It's part of a broader project to make it easier for moderators to evaluate account trustworthiness. The feature can be enabled in your global preferences, and later this week it will be available in local preferences. [7]
Everybody is invited to share comments on Collaborative Contributions, a project recently launched by the Connection team. The project aims to create a new way to display the impact of collaborative editing activities (such as edit-a-thons, backlog drives, and WikiProjects) on the wikis. Post your comments on the project talk page. [8]
Administrators can now define the default block duration for temporary accounts. To do that, they need to create a page named MediaWiki:Ipb-default-expiry-temporary-account and use a value defined in MediaWiki:Ipboptions. This allows administrators to easily block temporary accounts for 90 days, which is functionally equivalent to an indefinite block. The advantage of this solution is that it does not clutter Special:BlockList. More documentation is available. [9]
View all 27 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

Gadgets can now include .vue files. This makes it easier to develop modern user interfaces using Vue.js, in particular using Codex, the official design system of Wikimedia. Codex icons can be loaded through the gadget definition. The documentation has examples. For user scripts that use Vue.js, an API module now exists to load Codex icons. [10][11]
Module developers can now use a Lua interface to simplify the preparation of Lua modules for translation on Meta-Wiki. This improvement makes it easier for translators to find and edit module strings without dealing with raw Lua code. It helps prevent mistakes that could break the module during translation. Module developers and translators are invited to watch the demo video, read more about translatable modules to understand how it works, refer to Meta-Wiki's Module:User Wikimedia project for example usage, and share their feedback on how well it addresses the challenges in their workflow. The interface still has some performance issues, so it should not be used in widely used modules yet. [12]
Developers of external tools that connect to Wikimedia pages must set a user-agent that complies with the user-agent policy. This policy will start to be more strongly enforced in August because of external crawlers that are overusing Wikimedia's resources. Tools that are hosted on Wikimedia's Toolforge or Cloud VPS will not be affected by this for now, but should still set a user-agent. More technical details are available, and related questions are welcome in that task.
Parsoid Read Views is going to be rolling out to some smaller Wikipedias over the next few weeks, following the successful transition of Wikivoyages and Wiktionaries to Parsoid Read Views. For more information, see the Parsoid/Parser Unification project page. [13]
Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Meetings and events

Wikimania 2025 will run from August 6–9. The program is available for you to plan which sessions you want to attend. Most sessions will be live-streamed, with exceptions for those that show the "no camera" icon. If you are joining online to watch live-streams and use the interactive features, please register for a free virtual ticket. For example, you may be interested in technical sessions such as:

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 03:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if you enable the User Info card but want the icon to be more subtle, I've found that .ext-checkuser-userinfocard-button.cdx-button .ext-checkuser-userinfocard-button__icon.cdx-button__icon {opacity: 0.2;} in your custom.css or global.css workds pretty well. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've heard of "Parsoid Read Views". Are there other Parsoid Views? And other Read Views? I assume it just refers to Parsoid's HTML output, but it's confusing. Nardog (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog Core Parser Read/Edit Views - Parsoid Read/Edit Views, I suppose. The first paragraph of mw:Parsoid/Parser Unification. Ponor (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the Edit Views? I thought the whole point of Parsoid was that the same HTML could be used for editing in VisualEditor and reading. Nardog (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By default most wikis still use the old parser to render html for the html that is used for article pages. This is a notification that more wikis will start using the parsoid parser to render html for the article pages (read views). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured. What I'm trying to figure out is why this confusing (to me at least) terminology was chosen in Tech News of all places. I guess it's because Parsoid is already used in VisualEditor? Nardog (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because giving simple explanations of highly complex things is hard. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Parsoid Read Views" are basically the only name the effort to use Parsoid for read views is known by. There wasn't other terminology to use. Izno (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new Parsoid viewer has significant bugs (linked from T391624) that make edit links on some page sections fail, including editing sections of template documentation pages. I encourage others to try the new viewer (Preferences - Editing - Use the new Parsoid wikitext parser) to see if they encounter any such show-stopping bugs. It would be good to get these major bugs fixed before the new viewer appears here on en.WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Activating an interactive OWID experience (Part 3)

Am wanting to reapply to activate the OWID gadget following addressing the issues in the prior discussions:

5 months ago concerns were raised regarding bandwidth usage and these were decreased down to 400 KB from 36 MB, a number of bugs raised have also been fixed
2 months ago issues were raised regarding scrolling which have been addressed

The gadget is currently running on Basque Wikipedia. As we have developed multilingual / translation workflows.

Steps to install include

copy MDWIKI:MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider.js to MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider.js
copy MDWiki:MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider.css to MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider.css
copy MDWiki:Template:Owidslider to Template:Owidslider
copy MDWiki:Module:Owidslider to Module:Owidslider
create tracking category Category:Pages using gadget owidslider
add owidslider [ResourceLoader|default|categories=Pages using gadget owidslider]|owidslider.js|owidslider.css to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, which will create a mw:Template gadget
ImageStackPopup was already imported previously, no action needed

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WT:GADGET, WP:IANB Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thank you for implementing my deduplication proposal. I confirm that I see "56 requests 541 kB transferred 2.1 MB resources," and no new requests when changing years, which is good. I was originally aiming for a 100% SVG 0% JS version, but this gadget would potentially handle web accessibility miles better than my idea; the only bug here is that I can't press tab to select countries. Overall, nice work! VectorWorld (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VectorWorld. Can you clarify what you hope the gadget would do when tab is pressed? Not sure what you mean by "select countries"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Us normal users with mice, after opening mdwiki:Template:Owidslider#Example_3, are able to click a country and see a line chart. How can users without mice (like blind people using screen readers) open that chart?

Currently, when I press tab, it cycles through "Select region", "Death rate from indoor air pollution, 2020", "Media credits", then the year slider. Instead, it should be "Select region", "Death rate from indoor air pollution, 2020", Country 1, Country 2, Country 3, ..., Country N, "Media credits", then the year slider.

After selecting a country such as Australia by repeatedly pressing tab, there should be alt text (~~alt="..."~~ actually <title>Between 0 and 25 deaths</title> or the actual number) that a screen reader will read out loud to blind people who can't see the colors or anything at all. After pressing enter, the alt text of the opened line chart should say something like "0.3 in 1990 and 0.01 in 2021" or more granular.

On the other hand, I should not hear "No data, 0, 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200" before "Media credits" when using the Google TalkBack screen reader. The proposed alt text would play the same role for blind users, so the numbers on the scale should be muted with aria-hidden="true".

Tab is actually just cycling through "focusable" elements (so try wrapping each <path d="..."/> like <a xlink:href="#"><title>Alt text here</title><path d="..."/></a> and moving the onclick onto the <a>). TalkBack uses swiping right instead of a tab key. VectorWorld (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that feedback. We can add it to our development efforts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James Say I want to import the following graph https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/birth-rate-vs-death-rate. What workflow would you recommend? What settings should I keep or change in the importer? When it comes to translation, it seems that every imported svg needs to be translated, even though almost all the text in them is the same - it's hard to believe that people will do that. How will everything work in 2-3 years when new data comes in, will a new set of images be created, will old images be overwritten and new ones added (what if there are design changes)? I like the idea, but I would like us to not have to do the import, i.e. WMF (and ourworldindata.org) should find a way to enable option 2 for the benefit of both. Ponor (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first image in the world set needs to be translated and then the tool will apply it to the rest of them. It is not working 100% (only 50%) but we are working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tool is for heatmaps not line graphs so would go here https://ourworldindata.org/data and look for the world maps for uploads.

If we go with https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index we start getting https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human-development-index,World,1990.svg Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux, Sohom Datta, and Dylsss: those previously involved Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The interface work has been done. The template/module can be looked in to by others. The category/gadget definition may need better descriptions. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The gadgets page is giving the error "owidslider: Description MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider for use in Special:Preferences does not exist" at the top. Might need to double check the gadget definition. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that? I'm not seeing it at Special:Gadgets. The description needs MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider created by any admin. It should point to the description page for this gadget onwiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Which someone should write at Wikipedia:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) — xaosflux ^Talk 17:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that? MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, at the top. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, that's not an error per se, it's just a custom template that notices it. The definition description isn't actually needed for a gadget to work. It should be done though - directions above along with all the other things that have to be done still. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be an error per se, but it does show as a problem at more than one page. So far, I have found:

MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, the box at the top as mentioned above
Special:Gadgets#gadget-owidslider, where the first line shows "⧼gadget-owidslider⧽ (Edit description | Export)", which begins with a placeholder and includes a redlink
Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, where under the "Template gadgets" subheading, the last item shows as "⧼gadget-owidslider⧽"

There may be others. To fix these issues, I have noted that MDWIKI:MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider exists, and contains the plain text "Shows a popup dialog with a slider for OWID images". Since this is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, I have copied it verbatim to MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider, with appropriate attribution in the edit summary. As regards the Wikipedia:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mentioned above, judging by Category:Pages using gadget owidslider that would be WP:owidslider gadget. Perhaps Bawolff (talk · contribs) could assist in writing that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying over my response to the post at WP:IANB which appears to have been placed in the wrong place all along) Oppose, I still have reservations about this, it does not feel production ready, the page jumps around when click on the play button (and when I return to the article). The play button itself looks out of alignment/misshapen and the text surfaced by the info button cannot be interacted with (copied etc). My understanding is that by deploying this on enwiki, you will start using this in reader facing areas (and the gadget will need to be maintained by interface admins). If this had been "hey we will experiment with this thing onwiki but not in article", and it had buy-in from a interface administrator (somebody who can say "hey, I'll keep updating and fixing this"), you would have my cautious support. But, at the moment, you don't have my support since I don't believe the gadget in a "finished" state and you don't have folks who would be interested in maintaining it long-term on the English Wikipedia. -- Sohom (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, question, @Doc James what are the security considerations that were considered when you implemented the gadget, were any considerations given to mXSS (mutation cross-site scripting) vectors (given that MediaWiki's sanitizers are server-side sanitizers that do not consider the way your gadget loads SVG files to be a valid way of loading svgs). The more I look at this, the less sure that deploying it on enwiki in reader facing areas is a good idea especially considering we might be putting our readers at risk (besides giving them a janky experience). Sohom (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until the question above is addressed/has a satisfactory response, I've removed the default directive from the gadget as a precaution (i.e. only users who explicitly enable it will load the JS code). -- Sohom (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will ask User:Bawolff to provide the security details you requested. With respect to play button appearance it is perfect on my machine but yes notice that it is too flat on some browsers. Will look into it.

Will work on making the text under I selectable. Agree it is not perfect yet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One security consideration that needs to be addressed is that innerHTML should not be used, such as at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider.js&oldid=1305026826#L-1583 . It should be const node = document.createElement("span"); node.textContent = config.name; countryPopup.appendChild(node); like the other places.

But as for the "finished" state, nothing on a wiki is supposed to be or will ever be complete, so this is fine as long as it is being improved. VectorWorld (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that nothing is ever complete, but in the context of gadgets that are being deployed in a reader facing manner I personally would expect the JavaScript code to be relatively more mature and bug free compared to the status quo. Sohom (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and manually yanked out that innerHTML, my concerns regarding mutation cross-site scripting still remains. Sohom (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence of things

Artificial intelligence of things should be rewritten because it is a mess. Polygnotus (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

It is appropriately tagged. This page is a forum for discussing technical issues and problems, not content problems. If you want someone to improve that article, it would help to list specific problems and suggestions on the article's talk page, as suggested by the cleanup template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 Yeah I tagged it. I know the purpose of the village pump, to pump water and spread gossip. I have to go feed the chickens (not a metaphor) so I figured I leave a note here. Polygnotus (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is the technical village pump. Please read the text in the banner at the top of the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the technical village pump. We wouldn't want the chickens to go hungry. Polygnotus (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Polygnotus (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New "Cannot find section" error at Template:Tire

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T391624

The first time this happened to me today, I wrote it off as a page change that happened while I was reading. The second time, I can't explain it. Here's how to replicate it:

Go to Template:Tire
Next to the section header "Usage", click the "edit" link.
I see an error page with the heading "Cannot find section".

The URL it is looking for is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Documentation&action=edit&section=T-1

This URL is wrong. Notice that it is trying to edit {{Documentation}}, not {{Tire/doc}}. When I am logged out, the above steps work correctly, showing me an edit window for the Usage section at this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Tire/doc&action=edit&section=T-1

When I view the page in safe mode, I get the same error.

I use the original source editor, if it makes a difference, and Vector 2022. FWIW, my "edit" link is on the right, due to some preference, I think. I have tons of css and js customizations, but see the above note about safe mode. Can anyone replicate this problem? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot replicate this, with either of my accounts. The URL it points to for me is correct (screenshot of mouseover). HTH. (My setup: latest Firefox, Mint Linux, Vector-2022, tons of scripts and gadgets). Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can reproduce this when using Parsoid for page views: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Tire&useparsoid=1 Matma Rex talk 02:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a bug report to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid/Feedback#enwiki:Template:Tire using the "Report visual bug" button in the sidebar. Matma Rex talk 02:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I just switched over to Parsoid views today, since the Tech News (above) said that it was coming. Hooray, I found a bug! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reports. Just for visibility, phabricator:T391624 tracks the broad set of issues we are working through around section edit links and Parsoid. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing archives numbering

Hi, there is an issue with the numbering on my talk page archives; they're not appearing in the correct sequence in one line from 110 onward. Does anyone know how to fix this? If so, could you please fix it for me? Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 23:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer Thank you very much for fixing it for me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely because archive numbers from 1 to 99 are short enough to fit inline, but once they reach triple digits (100 to 132) the links become longer and do not display properly in the small box size. – DreamRimmer ■ 02:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer Thank you for taking the time to fix it for me. Appreciate that! Cassiopeia talk 02:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted to Template talk:Archives#Line wrap for 3-digit numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Random article - keyboard shortcut

The link for random article has a tooltip showing the keyboard shortcut as Alt-Shift-X. This seems to be correct in Firefox and various FF based browsers I've tried, but if I use Edge it appears that Shift-X is the keyboard shortcut instead. Is this just a feature (or oddity) of Edge or does it apply to all Chromium based browsers - I don't have any others installed to test. Nthep (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: See Help:Keyboard shortcuts#Using access keys. I don't know whether MediaWiki tries to read the browser and adjust the displayed shortcut. ~~Most people use browsers where Alt+⇧ Shift works~~. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I tried Chrome which has a majority browser share on desktop and it only worked with Alt but still said Alt+⇧ Shift. Maybe it's best to mention both keys. It's easier to guess you might omit one of them than you have to add an unmentioned key. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Chromium-based browsers have changed their behavior sometime since we set up the tool that generates our labels. They used to, on Windows, always work if you did Alt+⇧ Shift, and only-sometimes work if you did just Alt because of conflicts with other shortcuts (e.g. Alt+d focuses the location bar). Thus we just generated everything as Alt+⇧ Shift and called it a day.

It looks like now the most-comprehensive thing to do would be to encode knowledge of all the built-in shortcuts that are based on Alt and selectively display the modifiers based on that list.

Alternatively, and what I'm going to submit a patch to do on T401503 😛, is changing it to just show Alt, and hope that Chromium will someday actually implement the accessKeyLabel property that everyone else provides that would just let it tell us what the label is supposed to be. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: actually, the way it worked before is still true. However, Chrome has rolled out a lot more browser shortcuts based off of Alt since we originally made those accesskeys. In particular, every accesskey in the main menu now seems to be overlapping with a browser shortcut related to new tab-group features... which don't actually do anything if you have tab groups disabled, thus the appearance that they're just being completely skipped.

On the bright side, since my last comment, the chromium issue for accessKeyLabel got assigned someone to maybe work on, so the entire question may shortly be moot. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SpecialPages

Why am I seeing a single list of special pages that takes a ton of scrolling and needs a search function of it's own? Did I foolishly set some option or gadget? Or is this an "upgrade"? In either case can I reverse it? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Extended content

Always provide a link when reporting a problem. Are you talking about the list at Help:Special page or something else? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone else seems to understand what I mean. I've added a link to the header. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I did not until I read zzuzz's post. Thanks for confirming the page to which you were referring. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I. But hey, Jonesey, please go easy on him; he is still not in the top five yet; you can't expect him to know everything. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: This is completely irrelevant to the original query ... but I know you were joking around, and from your edit count stats it appears that you weren't that active here when the original poster was more prominent in the community, but he actually used to hold the #1 ranking. The history of the subsequent events is a very long, sad, and complicated story. As a perennial lurker in this situation, I don't think it's my place to try to offer any more explanation than that and perhaps I've already said too much. Sorry Rich for calling you out like this. Graham87 (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in bringing their failed RfA here. What a bizarre comment. — DVRTed (Talk) 07:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realise there's probably little I can do to dig myself out of this, but by way of explanation, I linked his 2015 RFA as a pointer to the 2012 arbitration case about him that severely curtailed his editing. On a much brighter note, there's this 2020 piece in the Signpost, published when he was ranked 4th in terms of number of edits here. I think it may well have been better if I'd sent an informational email to Mathglott and one to Rich saying "I just let Mathglott know that <XYZ>", rather than airing out dirty laundry in public like this. This will be my last comment here unless anyone has specific questions that they wish to have answered on this thread (I don't really mind whether it's hidden or shown); my talk page/email are always open too. Graham87 (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem at all, it's all part of Wikipedia history, and though it was suboptimal, some of it is quite funny, like when two prominent editors "accused" me of being calm, reasonable and polite on AN/I. (And indeed the "not in the top five yet" comment above.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

phab:T219543 is the cause. Snævar (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Special:SpecialPages. I can't say I see it as an improvement either. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-1 from me, too. It's a little less offensively space-wasting with the vertical padding removed (body.page-Special_SpecialPages .cdx-table__table td { padding-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; }), but only a little. —Cryptic 18:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, WMF not getting consensus again I guess. Thanks folks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

While I'm personally not a fan of the change, routine technical changes do not need consensus. Sohom (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major user interface change, especially for power gnomes. For context also, there are bugs/feature requests that have been outstanding for a dozen years or more. When WMF did the font refresh, they asked for volunteer input and, as far as I can tell, ignored it. It's certainly true that WMF can do what the hell they want, as indeed can volunteers, but working together is both an an efficient use of resource and a promoter of harmony. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

The font refresh you are talking about is a change from 2014 (over a decade ago at this point). Do you believe any of the folks (or even the same C-level staff) working on that project worked on this? (From the looks of it, for this particular change it was a single engineer + designer who pushed this change during their volunteer time, and there is rightfully pushback against their changes from some members of WMF staff and technical volunteers on the phab task) For context also, there are bugs/feature requests that have been outstanding for a dozen years or more. - Right, I am aware. I don't get the point you are trying to make by bringing that up, this is a bit like saying "We haven't gotten any of our vital articles to good article status, we shouldn't invest in making any new shiny articles". Sohom (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those bugs were fixed by volunteers and the staffers didn't have time to do code reviews. It's not a question of specific things, it's a question of culture - not just tech stuff incidentally.

We have seen repeatedly vast sums spent on projects that produce nothing or almost nothing, while simple things go unfixed. Another example was when a mass of triaged tickets were changed to "won't do".

And the WMF wants to do better, it just repeatedly fails. One notable exception is the Wish List.

I get how hard this is, when you are trying to run something that looks very like a business (but isn't a business) - the bit in brackets gets forgotten. We really should be able to deal with it though, maybe there's something we can do from the volunteer side to sharpen the focus.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I think Sohom is trying, with the whole PTAC thing. It is unlikely to fix all problems right now and retroactively, but it is intended as a step in the right direction. Polygnotus (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was a relatively minor change. I get it when people are frustrated over a lack of consultation on big changes, but this was a relatively small change. There are like 500 changes to mediawiki a day. If you want to give feedback on all of them, you can by all means register an account at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org and watch MediaWiki's equivalent of RecentChanges. Otherwise someone needs to come up with some criteria for what type of changes they'd like to be consulted on. Bawolff (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bawolff I'm happy to be consulted on all changes, but then I would also like a salary or two. Polygnotus (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im all for criticizing WMF when they deserve it, but i think it should be for things that they could at least theoretically do better on. Community does not generally want to be consulted on changes of this magnitude, because there are too many. But they also want to be consulted on the "bad" ones. That is not physically possible because WMF cannot read minds. Bawolff (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But if they pay me a decent salary or two I can tell em which changes the community objects to, and even when they should and shouldn't ignore that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Users regard changes in line with how many pages it affects, or in some cases, if the page in question is widely used in administrative workflows. The problem is actually that it very much differs by wmf designer wether they listen to feedback or not, not where or if the feedback gets posted. Users are also at blame here, listening to feedback does not mean doing every little bit of it. I would like to end with a quote.

"As one designer, you know, I couldn´t possibly hope to ever encompass the massive diversity of experiences that those readers have in my work alone, right? Uh and so I truly feel like contributors feedback is a gift." (Justin Scherer, ux designer, Reader growth team, Wikimania, session "Making Wikipedia More Readable: What Comes Next", link to verify ). Snævar (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been (mostly) reverted back to the original display now, per phab:T219543. See: the page on the beta cluster. The original appearance is back, but the filtering search is retained. It'll make its way out to all the wikis by the Thursday deployment.DLynch (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent news. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Woo! Sohom (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding animations and interactive visuals to make Wikipedia easier to understand

Hey everyone, I just wanted to throw out an idea about making Wikipedia a bit more engaging for readers. I love how much info Wikipedia has, but sometimes the pages can feel a bit dry or overwhelming, especially when there's complicated data or timelines. What if Wikipedia added some subtle animations or interactive visuals — like charts you can explore, timelines that move, or little infographics? [at least on mobile devices] I’ve seen something similar with the The Hundred cricket tournament — their animations and scorecards look really cool and help explain things better. I heard those might be from Jump Design (Mark Fairless leading animation)? Not totally sure though. I’m not talking flashy or distracting stuff, just simple, clean visuals that help people get the info faster and maybe even enjoy reading more. Has this been thought about before? Or are there any plans to add more of this kind of thing? Would love to hear what people think! Vinizex94🌍 12:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could be helpful, although one drawback of animations is that they're not really editable like the rest of the article, which makes it harder for other editors to participate. However, we do have some more editor-friendly (while still also reader-friendly!) tools, like the interactive Chart extension for infographics! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjectMed:VideoWiki has worked on editable ones. There are also other issues, such as how you know that content in a video is properly sourced. There's a bit of previous discussion here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its often surprisingly hard to come up with good ideas for animation and interactivity. I think the best thing people could do on this front is come up with fleshed out ideas (perhaps drawing by hand if appropriate) which people can discuss and decide if they want. Then once people are agreed on what is wanted, technical people can make it happen. Bawolff (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wonderful idea, but animations are difficult to verify. Many animations in science articles perpetuate incorrect concepts. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the challenges here — especially when it comes to keeping things editable and accurate. One thing that might be worth looking into is the Chart extension for Mediawiki. It lets you create interactive visualisations directly in wikitext, so they’re easier for other editors to maintain and update than traditional animations.

Maybe the best approach is to start with a few concrete examples of what could work — even if that’s just simple sketches or mockups — so people can discuss and refine them before anything gets built. That way we can focus on ideas that really help readers without risking accuracy, and ensure that whatever’s added can be verified and improved over time by the community. Vinizex94🌍 02:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good solid, comprehensive HowTo page for editors would go a long way to make these feature more commonly deployed. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Charts explains how to add an chart using extension:chart. Snævar (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should it really not be possible to edit your own watchlist while blocked?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T401577

I do a lot of browsing Wikipedia from behind a VPN and something that I've noticed in the past few days is that it seems to now be impossible to add or remove a page from my watchlist while under the effects of a block (in my case, the "No open proxies" IP block). Opening the watchlist link in its own tab displays "You do not have permission to edit your watchlist, for the following reasons:" and then the block notices. Considering that nobody else can even tell what's in your watchlist, this seems like an odd permission to deny for blocked users. Any ideas what's going on here? twotwos (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems odd. I was not able to duplicate this on testwiki. Are you using tor specifically, or something that has a manual range block? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you would believe it, watching and unwatching pages from the UI now seems to work normally. Typical of technical problems to go away as soon as someone else looks at them. But, going to one of the watchlist edit pages, like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&action=watch, still brings up the block screen. It's a global manual range block but not tor, like this - I did just go through my VPN region options to see if I could test one that was locally blocked on Wikipedia but not globally blocked, but couldn't find any. twotwos (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bug phab:T401577 opened on this. It should be consistent one way or the other. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this it's not clear what IP blocks are supposed to be doing. If you are a trusted user with good security there is no need for you to be affected by IP blocks. Therefore we can assume IP blocking of accounts is either for untrusted user accounts or accounts with poor security (not exclusive or). The first could be reasonably addressed by excluding extended confirmed accounts. The second - for example attempts to hail Mary weak passwords (where we do want to protect users who's accounts have been ahved from having their watchlists tampered with), should be applied by very different mechanisms than those we use for anonymous editors from high schools, libraries and pubs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

That seems to be going off tangent of this bug, which is presenting in the presence of any block that affects editing, but only via the action parameter. Administrators applying network blocks may choose to have them affect or not affect users - this situation should not be affecting logged in users that are otherwise able to edit a page. If it is, please let us know. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it certainly is a tangent. On the other hand I've already learned that there is a new option for IP blocks that I wasn't aware of (thank you). I am also pleased if I've got people thinking about more efficient and editor-friendly ways that blocks could - and maybe should - work. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Making sure we are on the same page :) "Block watchlist access" is not an option that is expected - that seems like a bug. A longstanding option feature of IP blocking is (Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address) Customary practice on IP blocks is not use this option unless there is a need for it. When not set the block will usually show as (anon only) in lists such as the blocklist. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely the same page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Global contribution tool seems to be broken

The global contributions tool, linked in the bottom of the contributions page, seems to be broken. Trying to access https://guc.toolforge.org/ results in a 404 error. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

86.23.87.130, This URL is managed by the guc tool, maintained by Krinkle, Lucas Werkmeister, Luxo, Majavah. I would start by asking them. — Qwerfjkl talk 19:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It works again. Polygnotus (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

How to archive article with some kind of pop-up?

If you want to load archived version of this article or pdf version at Wayback Machine pop-up error appear and if you skip it you are being redirected to main page. Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eurohunter, this page is about raising technical issues about Wikipedia. We have no say in how the Wayback Machine (Internet Archive) organizes their platform. I suggest you check with them. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter H:ARCHIVESOURCE provides a few options. Polygnotus (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replacements for old tools?

In some WikiProjects, I see the following tools listed that are dead links:

Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.

While I know Wikipedia:reFill is seen as a replacement for Reflinks, and Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups helps with resolving ambiguous links, has anything replaced the other two? I particularly recall Peer reviewer being a really useful tool. At the very least, I'd like to clean up these tools recommendations lists in WikiProjects with updates or deletions whenever I come across them. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 09:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's reFill 2 which is pretty good. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

User:Dispenser/Dab solver was a very useful tool which broke due to database changes within Wikipedia. There are several copies of the source code but no licence to update and deploy them. Its replacement was a popular item on the annual community request lists but never received any resources. Certes (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vote listed as redirect

I just glanced at my AFD stats here and notice that it's counted me as a redirect vote for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coldplay_jumbotron_controversy. I never supported redirect there, in fact I was the one who nominated it for deletion, so my vote should be listed as delete. It's purely cosmetic, but is there a way to fix that? Valenciano (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valenciano: I haven't looked at the code but you have a post saying "delete and redirect" in bold as part of a quote. I guess that caused it. You could try unbolding it or breaking up "redirect" with something undisplayed like nowiki or {{void}} inside. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that. Thanks a lot! Valenciano (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-33

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

The WikiEditor toolbar now includes its keyboard shortcuts in the tooltips for its buttons. This will help to improve the discoverability of this feature. [14]
The Product and Technology Advisory Council published a set of proposed experiments the Wikimedia Foundation can try to improve communication with community. Feedback on the proposals are welcomed until August 22 on this talk page.
The search bar on the Minerva skin (mobile) has been updated to use the same type-ahead search component that is used on the Vector 2022 skin. There are no changes in search functionality but there are minor visual changes. Specifically, the close-search button has been changed from an "X" to a back arrow. This helps to distinguish it from the other "X" button that is used to clear any text. [15]
Editors on some wikis will see a new toggle for "Group results by page" on watchlist, related changes, and recent changes pages. This is an A/B experiment that is planned to start on August 11, and will run for 3–6 weeks on the Bengali, Chinese, Czech, French, Greek, Portuguese, and Urdu Wikipedias. The experiment will examine how making this feature more discoverable might affect editors' ability to find the edits they are looking for. [16]
View all 31 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

The multiwiki datasets of Unicode data have been moved to Category:Unicode Module Datasets on Wikimedia Commons, to follow the idea of "One common data source, multiple local wikis". Most wikis have been updated to use the Commons version. You can ask questions at the talkpage. [17]
Lua code can add warnings when something is wrong, by using the mw.addWarning() function. It is now possible to add more than one warning, instead of new warnings replacing old ones. If you maintain a Lua module that used warnings, you should check it still works as expected. [18]
Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just once I would like this to tell me about a major breaking change like Phab:T400119 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 Good news, last week's edition mentioned it:

Developers of external tools that connect to Wikimedia pages must set a user-agent that complies with the user-agent policy. This policy will start to be more strongly enforced in August because of external crawlers that are overusing Wikimedia's resources. Tools that are hosted on Wikimedia's Toolforge or Cloud VPS will not be affected by this for now, but should still set a user-agent. More technical details are available, and related questions are welcome in that task.

Matma Rex talk 00:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the policy will be progressively enforced over a couple of weeks, would it be possible to have an update of where we are at in each tech news? It could be more practical in case people suddenly start getting API issues without having seen the news weeks ago. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue where the only last invocation of mw.addWarning() on the page worked was, if I recall correctly, a regression, and SomeRandomDeveloper, who graciously submitted the patch fixing it, identified gerrit:731175, which was merged almost four years ago, to be the likely culprit. Did we not have mw.addWarning() working as expected for that long? (cc Trappist the monk) Nardog (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge over a dry ravine

On a schema diagram, I am using the code uexhKRZWae to produce a bridge symbol for an under-construction rail line using it. The code shows water flowing under the bridge, which I do not want as the bridge passes over a dry ravine. I want to represent the bridge, as it is a substantial construction to carry a new tram line over a deep ravine. Is there a code for a bridge without the water? I looked at lists of schema codes without success. Thanks for any advice. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask this question on the relevant template's talk page or the relevant WikiProject's talk page. I would guess most people familiar with whichever flavor of schema you're referencing don't hang out here.

NB a dry ravine today is a flash flood warning tomorrow, so whether it's an actual river now is potentially irrelevant. Izno (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTrolleyPole: The full list is available at Template:Bsicon, and it's crazy how many different icons are available. You're probably looking for hSTRae, but there's a whole section full of bridge/viaduct icons. Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File links are

(uexhKRZWae) and

(hSTRae). This would have been better posted at WT:RDT, but should really be asked at c:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests. BTW: Template:Bsicon, here on English Wikipedia, is a long way short of the full set. All icons should be in c:Category:BSicon or its many subcategories. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic identity: Maintenance template has extra orange stripe

On the Coptic identity article, the multiple issues notice contains an extra orange stripe partially intersecting with the bullet points. I tried safemode=1 and opening it in incognito (without any extensions and on Vector 2022 instead of 2010) and the issue persisted. It seems to be a CSS issue. Would someone be able to investigate? I'm on Firefox 141.0.2 (64-bit) though it also happened on Chrome version 139.0.7258.67 (Official Build) (64-bit). Thanks, OutsideNormality (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. This was caused by Template talk:Ambox#Fix stripe and bg color in dark mode. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'de-expand' page data beneath editor

Whenever I edit an article, there's a cluster of data 'reports' beneath the editor, such as "Wikidata entities on this page", "This page is a member of X categories", etc.. That all would be fine, if each of the entries was not by default expanded, sometimes pushing the preview down an entire screen's length. I've looked through the various preferences and extensions I have in place and nothing stands out as a possible cause. I use monobook on PC, largely on Firefox. I also have the following scripts in my monobook.js, however, after disabling them there was no change, so I've re-enabled them - User:AzaToth/twinkle.js. User:Lupin/recent2.js, User:Omegatron/monobook.js, User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js. Thoughts, suggestions? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastrophe: I can collapse those items and this setting is remembered so they start out collapsed next time. Do you have any Firefox settings against cookies? The preview is above the items for me in, also in MonoBook, so the preview isn't pushed down even if they are expanded. Is the preview really below the items for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting angle. I just checked my FF settings, and I did have a 'custom' setting configured for privacy; returned to standard privacy, but no joy. However, I also have uBlock origin installed. I disabled it for WP, collapsed the entries, then went into the editor on a large article - joy! As for your preview query, I by default have preview selected to be beneath the editor, and the cluster of data reports is between the editor and the preview. But now that it's collapsed, it's entirely livable. Many thanks! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

Proposal: Remove the Contents link from the sidebar

Considering the amount of pageviews this page gets, I just don't see the value in keeping this page. When looking at the page, it disappoints me that while it does cover most types of articles, it doesn't cover biographies pretty well. Biographies make up a huge portion of our Wikipedia pages, so unless the page is improved to include them, I think it would better to just remove the link. Interstellarity (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support improving the page, would not support removing it. Different people use the different ways to navigate the encyclopedia and its not causing harm. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for appearing in the sidebar is much higher than "not causing harm." If it's not pulling its weight, it should be removed. SnowFire (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The number of views is about 3800/day, essentially all of them from desktop, almost none from mobile. WP:Contents and its subpages are an attempt at providing alternative ways to discovering Wikipedia content (not through direct search), a time-honoured traditional approach. I am not sure it is working well for many people and I do not know how well-maintained it is, but if there is no link to this from sidebar or at least the Main Page, it won't work at all. —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contents is indirectly linked on the Main Page, via Contents/Portals. Maybe replace that with a straight link to Contents? Dege31 (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the benefit of the removal? Dege31 (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De-cluttering sidebars/menus generally has one underlying goal: to quit 'distracting' people with something that's not useful/helpful, so that they will be more likely to find/click on something that is useful/helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support removing the page, as it does not help navigation, nor does it make sense to have 7 million articles condensed into a scrappy and incomplete list in the sidebar. Portals probably do a better job. Pksois23 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to check, the sidebar and its links are only relevant for logged in users right? Taking action/no action would not affect most readers, so the links are mostly there for newer editors (or to try and beguile readers creating accounts into becoming editors)? CMD (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar is visible for everyone logged in or not Pksois23 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where? When I look at Henry de Hinuber logged in, I see the "Main menu" on the left side above "Contents". When I look at it logged out, I see only "Contents". CMD (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the contents of the page, it's the the Contents link under the Main menu menu below Main Page, that links to Wikipedia:Contents. Also whether the main menu displays in the sidebar is a setting you can turn on/off. Pksois23 (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there is no Main menu when I am logged out. I don't think logged out users can turn settings on and off. CMD (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's hidden as the three bars left of the Wikipedia logo in the top left. When you click it it should have an option that says move to sidebar. At least on vector 22 it's like this Pksois23 (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, how fascinatingly unintuitive. CMD (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the issue. How should we cover biographies on the Contents page? Or if you don't know (which is quite reasonable) what benefit would you expect to get that you don't now? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Support as proposer. Interstellarity (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is very useful for readers on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6180:6290:a5fd:f285:f94e:d195 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Adding featured and good content status to the tagline

Should the site tagline display featured and good content status in the following style?

London Beer Flood

A featured article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of English words containing Q not followed by U

A featured list from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea

A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All horses are the same color

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background (tagline)

Apologies for the long text to follow but I think a detailed RFCBEFORE and implementation is necessary for such a highly-visible proposal.

There's been perennial proposals for increasing the visibility of page status, with a fair amount of assent but no proposed directions. Many editors in prior discussions have felt the topicon is too small a notice that doesn't accurately reflect the amount of work put into raising articles to featured status. Other editors think the topicons are opaque to readers, and feel that more prominence will draw editors to these backend projects.

15 April 2021: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 174 § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name closed as no consensus.
Pinging Jr8825 as proposer.
23 October 2021: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 185 § Make FA and GA icons in articles more noticeable #2
Missed this one, see note below from proposer Dege31.
1 February 2023: Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023 § Proposal 21: Make GA status more prominent in mainspace consensus to have an RfC on increasing visibility.
Pinging czar as proposer.
1 March 2024: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 211 § Proposal: Remove the topicons for good and featured articles closed as snow keep, article quality important to readers
Pinging Interstellarity as proposer.
14 April 2024: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 31 § Proposal 10: Finish doing some or all of the things we agreed on last time we did this (lol)
Pinging Thebiguglyalien as proposer.
11 January 2025: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 216 § Good Article visibility requesting the topicons in mobile, which is currently ~~being worked on~~ stale at phabricator:T75299.
Pinging Iskandar323 as proposer.
20 March 2025: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 66 § Metadata gadget as the default experience requesting technical feasability of modifying the tagline.
Discussion opened by myself.

In this most recent discussion at the Idea Lab, I proposed using the tagline-modifying style of the metadata gadget which got some assent. Aaron Liu, WhatamIdoing, and Novem Linguae were helpful in pointing me toward Lua modules and how taglines are built into the software. While it wasn't feasible then, the recent implementation of phabricator:T380122 and addition of "Project-independent assessment" to the banner shell allows us to directly get FA/FL/GA status using Lua. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation (tagline)

I've developed Module:Page assessment raw, a simplified version of Module:Page assessment that uses the newest features in the MediaWiki pageAssessments extension. I wanted to have a duplicate module to reduce the expensive function count (since this will be on every page) and to allow full- or template-protecting the module (for the same reason).

I think the most efficient way to implement this proposal is to fully replace the page MediaWiki:Tagline with a switch-case function to change the tagline based on the output of the Lua module:

{{#switch:{{#invoke:Page assessment raw|get_class|page={{FULLPAGENAME}}|project=Project-independent assessment}}
 | FA = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured articles (linked from tagline)|featured article]]'' from
 | FL = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured lists (linked from tagline)|featured list]]'' from
 | GA = A ''[[Wikipedia:Good articles (linked from tagline)|good article]]'' from
 | From
}} Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This example code also uses statistical redirects (suffixed with "linked from tagline") in the same manner as Elli's additions to the current topicons. This allows us to get a good view of how often readers click on these new taglines, and determine whether they're a useful addition to the project. In the month of June, about a third of visitors came to the featured articles page through the topicon. With these new statistical redirects, we can see how many use the tagline. Of course, if this passes, an admin should fully-protect these three redirects. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (tagline)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Featured articles, Wikipedia talk:Featured lists, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, MediaWiki talk:Tagline. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a small change (probably smaller than people expect, considering the banner blindness phenomenon) which could nevertheless increase new editor attraction from people curious enough to click the link. I don't really see any downsides. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good articles being invisible on mobile – 65% of our readers – doesn't make sense. Bringing us to some parity with the web version communicates to readers that some verification and vetting effort has been made, especially with the recently increased level of scrutiny required by GAs (and much-discussed at WT:GAN. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sadly won't affect mobile users as the tagline does not appear in Minerva. It would be a good impetus for bugging WMF over at Phabricator to show the tagline though. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Leonard: Thanks for telling me that, although it is disappointing. I assume this affects web Minerva, too? If so, do we have any statistics on how many users aren't using Minerva at this point? I'd assume the number is relatively low, and largely our most engaged user base. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where to find skin usage statistics. OVasileva (WMF) made a couple pie charts at commons:Category:MediaWiki skin statistics, but they're of editors, not readers, and don't have details on where the source data is from. It does seem like there's an open task for the tagline to be shown at phabricator:T349117. Presumably if this RFC passes it can also be seen as a request from the English Wikipedia community to finish that request. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who edits exclusively from mobile, I support adding the tagline to the mobile skin. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I have to commend you on your dedication to the project if you do it entirely on mobile. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a different problem - wouldn't adding GA indicators in Minerva solve this? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other respondents mentioned here that mobile topicons don't seem to have any progress and community work on adding a mobile tagline would probably be easier than adding a mobile topicon, not to mention the engineering needed to have parity with tooltips on mobile. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a minor change but a positive one. Anything that (1) raises awareness of our quality content and (2) might conceivably encourage readers to contribute is a good thing. Cremastra (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support taglines are harder to miss, so this does seem like an improvement. Would this also remove the topicons, or would a highlighted article end up displaying both? Paprikaiser (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth keeping both, at least for a trial period, to compare clickthrough rates. But maybe I'm just too addicted to pageview stats. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I support keeping both. Topicons are cute. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Airship, though I think the current wording is needlessly verbose. I feel it could be more impactful if it said something like "A featured article, meaning it represents the best Wikipedia has to offer" IAWW (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@It is a wonderful world I'm not sure I understand you. If you think the suggested wording is too verbose, why are you proposing a longer version? Cremastra (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, verbose wasn't a good word. I mean the current wording doesn't make the best use of space. Adding "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is pointless, because the reader obviously already knows this. Those words could be replaced with something different that the reader doesn't already know, like what a "featured article" is. IAWW (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tagline "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" has been stable for a while after many thorny discussions, so I think replacing the language wholesale would be much more controversial than just squeezing in "a featured article". See the many subheadings of MediaWiki talk:Tagline/Archive 1 § "that anyone can edit". Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would probably be tough to reach consensus and it should be a separate proposal to this. IAWW (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a drafter of a similar RfC that failed to reach consensus, I assume my !vote is no surprise... Dege31 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought my RFCBEFORE was complete. Thanks, I've added your discussion to the above list. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a better way to make the good and featured stand out. If this proposal passes, I recommend removing the topicons. I would also like to implement this change to all the vital articles as well. For example, George Washington would say A level 3 vital and featured article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia while an article that is neither good nor featured, but vital like Christianity would say A level 3 vital article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Interstellarity (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure removing the topicons is necessarily a good plan, since many eyes will skip over the tagline entirely. Cremastra (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vital article status uses a very different method of data management so would require a different solution. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That can be something we can discuss here or maybe the vital article talk page to figure out what level of organization is best. I'll leave a note on the talk page to get opinions on what method is best. Interstellarity (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vital article status seems less important, as not only is it less transparent to readers ("is level 1 vital the least or most important?"), but also only relates to the topic itself rather than the quality of the article they are reading. Knowing that what you are reading has been through a formal review process is great to gauge the level of trust you want to give to the article, knowing that the subject has been assessed to be important, less so. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the technical limitation raised by Dan, Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 25#Proposal for a VA "top icon" rejected a far smaller top icon for vital articles on the basis that unlike article quality, "vital" describes the subject itself which has little use to the reader already here to learn about it. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ oppose. Current system seems fine. Interestingly, neither icons nor tagline work on mobile web. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Phallological_Museum?useskin=minerva –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At phabricator:T75299, JScherer-WMF explained the current roadblock in showing topicons in Minerva:
For example, a FA/GA badge with enough context could be an interesting and valuable trust signal for a reader, similar to how warning templates are often used as distrust signals when articles are low quality. On the other hand, I assume that a "protected" badge would be of little interest to anyone who isn't logged in and actively considering contributing to the wiki.
Another tension in the current proposal is the form of the indicators themselves. As mentioned in the VP discussions about this, there may be a low awareness of FA/GA for casual readers, and an unlabelled icon might not "onboard" casual readers into explaining what FA/GA are and why they're useful.
While the tagline isn't currently shown in Minerva either, WMF might be more amenable to displaying it as it is likely technically simpler than showing topicons and solves the problem of an unlabelled icon might not 'onboard' casual readers. It's currently tracked, albeit stale, at phabricator:T349117. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm already used to seeing it with Wikipedia:Metadata gadget, and, while classes below GA are more subjective, it could be great for our readers to highlight articles that have had a formal review process. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support been waiting a long time for this one. Very much needed! --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for GA/FA as long as we also keep the topicons; I think the visual cue is nice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2nd on this. Topicons are still nice and useful. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 23:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I agree with AirshipJungleman that it likely won't be noticed by the vast majority of users, but if one percent are intrigued and find out more about the Good & Featured processes, I think that makes it more worthwhile. I also agree with the takes that it'd be more applicable to mobile than a topicon would be, and I think it adds context to the topicons on desktop if people don't realize you can click on them. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the overdue implementation of repeated consensus for greater visibility. Like Chaotic Enby, I would never want this expanded to other article classes because many (myself included) use Rater for an AI-generated classification that works for our technical needs but communicates little to readers. I would have this appear alongside the topicon, both because the aesthetic badge is a big motivator for article writers and to run Dan's click-through experiment. Hoping that even if the topicons are never added to mobile view, at least this expanded tagline can be. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in a previous discussion, I don't agree with the premise. I think the current amount of prominence given to the article rating is appropriate, given the way the rating is determined. Thus I do not support changing the tagline in this manner. isaacl (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since that comment is in turn referring to another comment, here's the link to isaacl's argument against greater visibility for GA/FA status. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 23:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand slightly on the determination concerns: I appreciate that the good article/featured article review processes are the only ones we have for this type of article rating. However they do not ensure evaluation by subject matter experts with the background knowledge to best evaluate the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the article. I think giving the rating higher prominence would raise reader expectations that an evaluation has been made by subject matter experts. isaacl (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. These two ratings are the ones with the least amount of arbitrariness so I don't think this status should have any less prominence. They're already displayed as topicons everywhere except Minerva, which shows the reader interest. If these statuses are any overprominent, there's already consensus for them being so. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the tagline should be kept simple. I agree with isaacl that we don't need to give more prominence to article ratings, which are subjective anyway. Some1 (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this isn't simple. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A tagline that changes depending on the article rating isn't simple, and I prefer that the tagline text remains the same for every article, regardless of its rating. Also, it's misleading to state that Example article is "A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" when that rating reflects only one editor's review (opinion) of that article. In that instance, the tagline is more misleading than the topicon, especially when most readers won't bother to click on the good article link in the tagline.
Many editors in prior discussions have felt the topicon is too small a notice that doesn't accurately reflect the amount of work put into raising articles to featured status Seems like this proposal is more for the editors than for the readers. Some1 (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the impact of this small bit of added complexity?
when that rating reflects only one editor's review (opinion) of that article
I think that's only an argument for renaming GoodArticle. In my opinion, "good article" signifies only as much value as it should. This also means if a reader thinks "hey this is not good-article quality" they can start something on the talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As long as we can keep the topicons as well, I don't see any downsides to this. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the harm per se, but more visibility for GA/FA ratings makes more critical the need for participation at WP:FAR and WP:GAR and for those processes to function properly. CMD (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As I mentioned in the 2023 RFC: I once observed a high school classroom that happened to be teaching research skills on using Wikipedia. The teacher said that the lock icon in the corner meant that it had been reviewed and was safe. Readers have no idea what our esoteric icons mean, so a little explanation of what exactly is verified and what isn't could go a long way towards mutual incentives. This is a smart way to start. czar 02:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see the harm in mentioning the fact that the article has reached good/featured status, and it would certainly help reader to become aware of those statuses and as a compliment to the topicons. Speaking of those icons, why don't we include them in the tagline too so the reader will notice it when reading the tagline and be able to recognize it when reading another article on its tagline or on the corner of said artile. So maybe something like "A good article from Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia." Here I placed the icon after the phrase introducing the article class since it looked akward to have it immediately following the indefinite article "A" when I tried that first. Gramix13 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This thought came to mind for me as well. I like the idea of having a more prominent visual, but I feel like it'd be redundant presuming we're keeping the topicon. My preferred approach to accomplish this would be to move the icon from the top right to directly next to the article title, as was previously proposed. Sdkb ^talk 05:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that since that 2020 proposal argued for matching the Danish Wikipedia's practice, dawiki has switched to our practice of having the topicon appear in the top-right corner (e.g., da:Israel). ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; any idea why? Sdkb ^talk 14:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. I checked through their relevant talk pages and Landsbybrønden (village well) archives to no avail in identifying why they switched. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An article's good or featured status is a key piece of information that every media-literate reader ought to pay attention to, but our current display is nowhere near prominent enough to make that happen. This is a well-thought-out step in the right direction toward making that happen. I support keeping the topicons, and ultimately moving them next to the article title per the prior proposal. I also continue to hope that phab:T75299 is taken up so that icons display on mobile. Sdkb ^talk 05:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support and additional request. I have a script that already does this, but this being an automatic thing for other editors would be extremely useful in helping people maintain articles. Possibly, we could also have 'Currently a featured article candidate', 'Former featured article', 'Currently a good article nominee' too; that might be a bit too technical though. 750 h+ 05:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a candidate or having former status is mainly relevant for editors, not readers, so I would not support this. Sdkb ^talk 06:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Graham11 (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Metadata gadget? It's a good thing the code is already pretty much there. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If we are to use a redirect like Wikipedia:Featured articles (linked from tagline), we should probably change the tooltip to simply "Wikipedia:Featured articles". Graham11 (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great idea. I'd also support other measures to improve GA/A/FA visibility, like moving the topicon to be right beside the title. Toadspike [Talk] 09:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reaction to much of the opposition is that our readers are not stupid. They know what Wikipedia is. They will not see "good article" and think "this must be a 105% perfect article certified by the leading experts in the field and then fully-protected so no-one can edit the page again". They know that Wikipedia is a wiki written by regular people, many of whom are not experts on the topics they write about, and that Wikipedia articles can generally be edited by anyone, anytime. By calling something a "good article" or "featured article", whether in a tagline or with an icon, we simply argue that this article is better than many others. And while were bashing the names as "hokey" or "bizarre", I must point out that "featured" sounds stupid outside the context of being featured on the main page, while "good" is a simple English word that accurately describes the point of the rating. Toadspike [Talk] 13:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The top of many articles, including GA and FA, are already overly cluttered. I would support the reduction of clutter rather than the adding to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but this would add practically no clutter, as "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is still a default tagline. I assume you are generically opposed to the tagline in the first place? Dege31 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would support removing it altogether, rather than adding to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ActivelyDisinterested here Logoshimpo (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Awareness of the featured article process is partially what inspired me to begin contributing to Wikipedia, and I feel like increasing this awareness wouldn't just inspire more people to edit, but would also inform readers which articles have been more diligently reviewed to eliminate gaps and verification errors. Sad that this won't be visible on mobile but it's a step in the right direction with no glaring downsides. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can see no downsides to this proposal - anything that helps promote good and featured content, and potentially bring in new editors, is a positive in my book, and this is a pretty nice and yet non-obtrusive way to do so. CoconutOctopus talk 20:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It sounds like we are proposing adding a module to every single page load on the entire wiki. Has someone who understands mediawiki caching and performance given some thought about if this will cause stress to the servers or performance issues? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: WP:VPT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mw.title.new().pageAssessments is an WP:EXPENSIVE function, but since it is only called once it usually shouldn't often be an issue considering the per-page limit of 500. The module does access the class rating via iteration (see the for loop at lines 29–33) rather than via random access, which is admittedly inelegant but probably not too inefficient. Sadly, I got what feels like a WONTFIX for random access at phabricator:T396135.
Regardless, whether the community wants something shouldn't be dependent on whether it is currently feasible. I trust the interface admins and WMF will fix things if the community breaks them.
This isn't to say I am in any way opposed to a code review of this, which I welcome wholeheartedly. I am sure there is something here that could be made more efficient. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with the link to WP:DWAP here (which has been relevant for parts of the interface like this before, the link to Category in the footer of each page used to be treated as sufficiently expensive for some reason or another that we couldn't let it vary by number of categories or something like that).

The only way to get an authoritative answer to this question would be to ask WMF directly I think.

That aside, I'm actually not really certain this will work the way OP wants it to. Has it been attempted on test Wikipedia? Izno (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting my developer hat on, to my understanding the MediaWiki:tagline is added by a user's skin. As such, running page assessments at that layer is prohibitively expensive since the skin layer is re-rendered every time a user visits a page (as opposed to the parser cache layer where data is computed/rendered every edit and thus can have expensive functions). Unless folks contradict me, to my understanding this will require a significant investment of engineering effort to implement into core-mediawiki (or one of it's extensions) which I'm not sure is worth the outcome.

Putting on my WP:INTADMIN hat on, I'm not sure I'm completely onboard with using JS (or even Lua) to hack and slash at the existing tagline at pages that we as enwiki are wanting folks to visit. (For context, every time such a thing is implemented folks with bad internet connection will see a flash of unstyled content that often makes the navigating/reading experience worse). Sohom (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I didn't realize it was part of the skin. ~~What a shame. Guess it'll have to rely on mw:Extension:CustomSubtitle if it's ever finished.~~ I defer to SD0001 below, who wrote the MediaWiki code that makes this possible and seems to think it's potentially possible. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's prohibitively expensive, just a bit expensive. Performance is not affected for logged-out users as for them the entire page html, including the skin, is CDN-cached. For logged-in users, it does result in re-rendering, however note that the Lua .pageAssessments call is just a single SELECT call in the db. Being marked as WP:EXPENSIVE doesn't give the full picture. – SD0001 (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to oppose, but only for technical reasons. This should be part of MediaWiki (→m:Community_Wishlist/Wishes), not a Lua hack. Then maybe one day even mobile users would get it. Ponor (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely isn't a Lua "hack". Functionality like retrieving page assessments have been exposed to Lua for use cases like this. It doesn't make much sense to implement everything natively in MediaWiki since most MediaWiki installations don't have a concept of FAs or GAs. – SD0001 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exposing page assessments to Lua is a part of MediaWiki. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hack because it hacks a message that shows at a place convenient for desktop users (⅓), but is not shown to mobile web and app users (⅔). It's not a complete solution, it's a hack. ~~Other than that, there's a javascript gadget that also hacks the message, used by some 1000 active users. Why reinvent the wheel?~~ Ponor (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, it's a complicated js script. I'd still like to see a solution that every reader can see. Indicators are fine. Ponor (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using client-side JavaScript to scrape the talk page and modify the DOM after page load is a very different solution than using a MediaWiki extension's intended functionality to modify pages server-side. Mobile users miss out on a lot of things, including navboxes, sidebars, and even categories. Are categories "hacks" because Minerva chooses to hide them? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the gadget, just checked the code: ugh, that's an ugly one. But here, we're saying "this is important, we want everyone to see it", while at the same time we know that two in three readers will not see it. Categories and navboxes are the things at the bottom. Most users rarely go past the lead. So I'd say there is some importance difference. I'm not strongly opposed to "the hack" – I'd simply like to see a better solution. Use different indicators - find better icons? Use icon+text on desktop, icon alone on mobile? Ponor (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Topicons aren't shown on mobile because it's a difficult implementation and because they're even more opaque to readers (see phabricator:T75299#10512584): on desktop, {{featured article}} at least benefits its readers with the tooltip "This is a featured article. Click here for more information", but touchscreens don't get tooltips. The tagline isn't shown on Minerva either, but it's probably a much simpler implementation and hasn't been done simply as a screen real estate saving measure. If we can get the tagline shown (phabricator:T349117), it'd serve the same purpose as the tooltip serves for desktop users. I do want mobile users to see this, and I think using the tagline is an important first step to getting WMF to increase visibility. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot see indicators on mobile either. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is the point? FAs and GAs are not necessarily better than normal articles, and the reader does not care about who followed internal Wikiprocedures to get something declared FA/GA. Also per Ahecht. Polygnotus (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While you are technically correct that some articles which haven't been formally reviewed are as good as GAs or FAs, the average GA is certainly better than the average article, which is a stub or not much more. Toadspike [Talk] 07:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike The best kind of correct! Polygnotus (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have necessarily underwent quality control, which includes things like "checking whether the sources confirm what the article say"- not exactly obscure, Wikipedia-only procedures. Dege31 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an idea. If the current technical implementation is insufficient, then it can still be recognised as something the community supports and perhaps be added at a later point. Even if that is not likely to happen any time soon given other technical priorities, it would be better having than having another RFC every time someone comes up with another way to make FAs/GAs more visible. novov talk edits 08:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the idea that consensus and technical details should be separate. The closer should feel free to find clear consensus that the community wants this (because they do). Then a consultation with a WMF dev good at performance and caching (maybe via a Phab ticket tagged #performance_issue and pinging someone like Krinkle?) and/or a trial should probably be encouraged in the close as a next step, but can leave that part vague / not as strong as the community consensus part. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hacking a module in to the tagline for every single page is a poor technical implementation, especially for something that is only needed on an extreme minority of pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose conceptually using the tagline for this purpose; work was already spent on indicators and if wanted I'd prefer improvement to indicators. Indicators are also much more consistent across the Wikipedia's in other languages. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The French, German, and Russian Wikipedias all use different icons (from us and from each other). Of the Wikipedias I regularly visit only Chinese and Norwegian use the same icons we do. Smaller wikis like Alemannisch don't have quality ratings at all. Toadspike [Talk] 13:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's possible to add code to {{good article}}, {{featured list}} and {{featured article}} that changes the tagline. Cremastra (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was my original thought too and I asked the same thing at the idea lab. The MediaWiki extension mw:Extension:CustomSubtitle could allow this with {{#subtitle:A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured articles (linked from tagline)|featured article]]'' from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia}}, but the extension is in beta and hasn't been touched in years. It seems like it uses a deprecated function global $wgOut so would need to be updated. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional oppose reason, as others have called out already, this will not solve the problem of casual readers (who increasingly use minerva) not seeing the rating - as the tagline element isn't even shown on that skin. I'd rather see indicator support added to minerva. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support A tagline seems much more understandable than cryptic and tiny symbols that we use today. If this proposal passes, I would support the removal of original topicons, as they will be made redundant. I don't know how feasible it is, but I would like WMF develop a way to show the taglines in the minerva skin as well. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tagline is there to provide credit to Wikipedia, not provide extra information such as an assessment from a niche rating project that the vast majority of Wikipedia readers and editors don't participate in. I don't think we should be adding overhead to every single page, including non-article pages, just for increasing the visibility of page status. Not to mention that, to those not familiar with our lingo, "A good article from Wikipedia" sounds incredibly hokey, if not conceited.--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what will the readers do with this information? Nothing. Polygnotus (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're assured that the article has been reviewed. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A previous version of the article was reviewed. NebY (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu That is not how they will interpret that, but even if it was, what will the readers do with this information? Nothing. Polygnotus (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's like the opposite of the unofficial secondary purpose of maintenance tags. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu You lost me. I am assuming the unofficial secondary purpose of maintenance tags is to give the tagger the feeling they did something useful. Polygnotus (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's to inform that there is (more likely to be) a problem with an extract from an article. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like its the official primary purpose. Polygnotus (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very controversial opinion. The question of whether cleanup templates' visibility to readers is in conflict with the WP:NODISCLAIMERS philosophy has been a battle on here since the beginning. The official primary purpose, a little fiction we tell ourselves to resolve this, is to categorize articles and flag areas for other editors. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Leonard to inform that there is (more likely to be) a problem with an extract from an article doesn't specify who gets informed, it might be the readers or editors or both. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just explaining Aaron's comment, which I saw as a joke referencing the TfD battles over cleanup templates and the official policy that they aren't for informing readers. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well I am mostly asleep so any jokes will go over my head. Polygnotus (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "inform readers" lol. Dan is correct in what I'm talking about, but I did have a point with my joke though in that the tagline would have the inverse purpose. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers should absolutely be paying attention to an article's assessed GA/FA status. The fact that something underwent (in the case of FAs) a rigorous review process is a key piece of information as a reader decides to what extent to trust an article (and yes, in an ideal world they'd be verifying everything, but in practice doing that rigorously would take nearly as long as writing the article). It's something we pay attention to even when just reading an article we do not intend to edit. And it's therefore something we should make noticeable enough to readers that they can do the name. Sdkb ^talk 23:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb I think one of the major weaknesses and strengths on Wikipedia is that the writers are completely clueless about the readers. should absolutely be paying attention to an article's assessed GA/FA status. No, of course not. It means only that someone jumped through some hoops. a reader decides to what extent to trust an article In my experience, people don't work like that. it's therefore something we should make noticeable enough to readers that they can do the name. Why should we tell a reader information that is not helpful to them and that they do not know how to interpret. Doesn't make sense to me. Polygnotus (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA/FA statuses only reflect the quality of an article at the time it was reviewed. Some (most?) of the articles with GA/FA status haven't been reassessed in several years or have undergone so many changes since achieving their status that their current quality differs significantly from when they were first reviewed. J.K. Rowling, a "Featured article" (which apparently means that it's "[one] of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer"), currently has two large templates on the article, one of which indicates that it has neutrality issues. So again, these article ratings are subjective, and readers do not need to be paying attention to them any more than they need to. Some1 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're conveniently omitting that there is currently an effort to delist the Rowling article. Which illustrates exactly how it should be working: Quality articles that no longer meet standards should be reassessed. Sdkb ^talk 02:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The J.K. Rowling discussion has been opened for almost a month now (and who knows how long it'll take for that discussion to close), and in the meantime, that FA status is there, misleading readers into thinking the article is still "one of Wikipedia's very best works" despite multiple experienced editors arguing that the article should be delisted. Some1 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And plenty of others arguing that it should remain listed (and those editors are arguing that the aforementioned maintenance tags were added in an effort to try to get it delisted). I take no position on whether it should or should not remain an FA, but the active discussion around it, as the example you chose, contradicts the notion that FAs are listed and then never looked at/reevaluated again. People who watch them periodically send them to FAR, and WP:URFA/2020 has been going through every single one systemically. Of course, as in most areas of the encyclopedia, we don't have the editor capacity to monitor everything as closely as we wish, but that's no reason to give up on the project or minimize the value it provides to readers — if they know about it. Sdkb ^talk 17:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the giant neutrality tag on the top of the article. It's just like a "Disputed" inline tag right after a claim, and here the claim is that this is once of Wikipedia's very best works. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has provided a very critical review, I’m not concerned about the time the review has been active. It has been Featured for several years in roughly the same state. A month is pretty normal and I expect it’ll be moved to FARC soon (I’m going to post a follow up review tomorrow, which is how the process works). The moment we start speeding up the process of delisting, you will see (for example) large swathes of gender related content beset by meaningless and inaction able critiques to force delistings. WP:There is no rush. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the common slogans of Wikipedia sound incredibly hokey, if not conceited, to those who are opposed to wikis, the free knowledge movement, ... even the tagline itself, what if someone thinks "no such thing as a free lunch!", we have pages explaining free as in libre vs free as in gratis! This is just a walking on eggshells mentality which is not productive. Dege31 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's for providing credit, it should say "from Wikipedia contributors", given that Wikipedia/WMF don't own the copyright of article content. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how either the FA or GA process is niche. If you were talking about WP:ACLASS, then sure, that would be truly niche. But almost 1% of all articles are already either FAs or GAs. As long as it links to the actual WP:FA and WP:GA pages, it isn't any more niche than the topicons already there, which I'd argue are even more cryptic to the casual reader. Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 1% is pretty niche. How many Wikipedia articles would you have to read to have a 50:50 chance of stumbling on one of the 0.76% that are GA, FA, or FL? NebY (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But GAs and FAs are some of the most-frequented articles that readers are likely to bump into. They're not randomly distributed. Cremastra (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Popular pages § Top-100 list, quite a few of our most-viewed articles are GA or FA:

Rank	Page	Views in millions
	Main Page	46,800
	Special:Search	15,000
	Special:Random	7,900
	-	2,900
	Undefined	1,800
	United States Senate	350
	Special:Watchlist	344
	Special:Randompage	314
	YouTube	296
	Wiki	277
	Facebook	277
1	United States	254
2	Donald Trump	243
	Wikipedia	228
	404.php	225
	xHamster	212
	Portal:Current events	208
3	Elizabeth II	198
	Google	193
	Special:Book	185
	Special:CreateAccount	172
4	India	165
5	Barack Obama	161
	Search	153
	Bible	153
6	Cristiano Ronaldo	151
7	World War II	145
8	United Kingdom	144
9	Michael Jackson	142
	Wikipedia:Your first article	137
10	Elon Musk	135
	Special:RecentChanges	135
11	Sex	132
	Cleopatra	132
12	Lady Gaga	129
13	Adolf Hitler	129
14	Eminem	127
15	Lionel Messi	125
16	Game of Thrones	122
17	World War I	121
18	The Beatles	116
19	Justin Bieber	114
20	Canada	113
20	Freddie Mercury	113
22	Kim Kardashian	111
23	Johnny Depp	109
	Creative Commons Attribution	109
24	Steve Jobs	108
24	Dwayne Johnson	108
26	Michael Jordan	107
26	Australia	107
28	List of presidents of the United States	104
29	The Big Bang Theory	103
30	Taylor Swift	102
	Search engine	102
31	Stephen Hawking	101
31	List of highest-grossing films	101
33	China	100
	Portal:Contents	100
	XXXX	96
	Malware	96
34	Russia	96
34	New York City	96
34	Japan	96
34	Kanye West	96
38	List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films	95
38	Abraham Lincoln	95
40	LeBron James	94
40	Charles III	94
40	Darth Vader	94
40	Star Wars	94
40	Miley Cyrus	94
40	Germany	94
40	September 11 attacks	94
47	Leonardo DiCaprio	93
48	Kobe Bryant	92
48	Selena Gomez	92
50	Joe Biden	91
50	Tom Cruise	91
50	Rihanna	91
50	Albert Einstein	91
50	Academy Awards	91
55	Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh	90
55	Harry Potter	90
55	Elvis Presley	90
55	The Walking Dead (TV series)	90
59	Scarlett Johansson	89
59	Lil Wayne	89
59	Tupac Shakur	89
59	Angelina Jolie	89
63	Queen Victoria	88
63	Jeffrey Dahmer	88
65	John F. Kennedy	87
65	COVID-19 pandemic	87
67	Diana, Princess of Wales	86
67	Marilyn Monroe	86
69	Keanu Reeves	85
69	Arnold Schwarzenegger	85
69	How I Met Your Mother	85
69	Chernobyl disaster	85
69	France	85
69	Ariana Grande	85
75	Jennifer Aniston	84
75	Breaking Bad	84
77	Meghan, Duchess of Sussex	83
77	Muhammad Ali	83
77	Will Smith	83
80	Ted Bundy	82
80	Pablo Escobar	82
80	Mila Kunis	82
80	Vietnam War	82
80	Mark Zuckerberg	82
85	Manchester United F.C.	81
85	William Shakespeare	81
87	Titanic	80
87	Tom Brady	80
87	Jay-Z	80
87	Singapore	80
87	Earth	80
87	Bill Gates	80
	Wikipedia:Contact us	80
93	Winston Churchill	78
93	Bruce Lee	78
93	Nicki Minaj	78
93	Israel	78
97	Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon	77
97	John Cena	77
97	Charles Manson	77
97	Ryan Reynolds	77
97	Brad Pitt	77
97	Vladimir Putin	77

Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - more than I was guessing! NebY (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above; I have an extension installed which does practically the same thing. To partially address the concerns some users have about the taglines being potentially misleading b/c the GA/FA is super old, the extension says Currently undergoing review of its featured status etc when articles get re-reviewed. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon rereading the discussion, perhaps that might be too much for the average Joe, but it was a nice thought while it lasted. ❤History Theorist❤ 04:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It took me ages to find the tagline. I'd never noticed it, but support anything that lets our readers get more of a sense of relative fidelity of Wikipedia articles. A good thing that the GAR process is alive and kicking: we've been able to remove the icon from the 'worst' articles in recent years. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We should not be misleading readers into thinking that the article rating is objective or meaningful when it is neither. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Cremastra (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing the average featured article is not better than the average article? Because that's what article ratings having "no meaning" would mean. The reality is the opposite. The average featured article is way way better. IAWW (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@It is a wonderful world by what objective measure is the comparison being made? What is the definition of an "average article" and an "average featured article"? The median-length featured article is definitely going to be longer than the median-length non-featured article but length alone is not a reliable indicator of anything other than length (e.g. an article that is two thirds reactions from random celebrities on Twitter is worse than an article one third its length that is purely encyclopaedic). Article ratings are meaningless in that they do not reliably convey to the reader any information about the quality of the current state of the article. Even a featured article rating simply says that someone put a lot of effort into satisfying a small number of other people that they put a lot of effort into the article at some point in the past. There is no requirement for writers or reviewers to be subject matter experts so there is no guarantee it is any more or less accurate than any other cited article. Ratings other than featured are worth less than the paper they are written on. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a non-featured article whose quality is better than a featured article, that article should be made a featured article. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes that the current version of every featured article is of sufficient standard to be regarded as one of Wikipedia's best, that is simply not true. If you think the effort in getting a rubber stamp of approval from a self-selecting group of non-experts is worth the time it takes, good on you, but that doesn't make the rubber stamp meaningful to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If an article does not meet the standards, you can be the one to delist it. The great bulk of articles do not meet Feature quality standards, therefore articles that do are in fact among the best. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what objective measure you use. Any measure which tries its best to rigorously define the heuristic concept of article quality will show featured articles are better than non-featured articles in 99% of cases. You can see this by picking random featured articles and random non-featured articles – seriously, just go and try it right now! You don't need to rigorously define "average" and "objective measure" or any other words to see this. IAWW (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any measure which tries its best to rigorously define the heuristic concept of article quality will show featured articles are better than non-featured articles in 99% of cases. citation needed. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence after: "you can see this by picking random featured articles and random non-featured articles" – go try it IAWW (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without some measure which tries its best to rigorously define the heuristic concept of article quality I cannot. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no objective measure you can think of (though I'm sure there is), your claim would be unfalsifiable. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I'm not the one claiming that the average featured article is better than the average article (that's @It is a wonderful world's claim). Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13959 empirically derived features of FAs from FAC discussions, and for two articles I've tried it seems to work. Regardless, Wond's claim did not say the measures have to be objective; that's what you introduced. To see whether an article has better quality, we only need to agree in our judgement, no matter whether it is based on subjective criteria or objective criteria. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the abstract of that 2009 study (I don't have time to read more), it seems to only show that articles that were awarded featured status reliably contained the features the FAC process looked for - which is unsurprising, not really relevant to this discussion, says nothing about whether those features do indicate quality (if the featured article criteria required every featured article to contain a sentence about the colour red and every featured article did contain such a sentence, that would indicate that the FAC process is following its own rules, but wouldn't say anything about the article quality) and may or may not still hold true nearly 15 years later.

To see whether an article has better quality, we only need to agree in our judgement, no matter whether it is based on subjective criteria or objective criteria. true, but no criteria (objective or subjective) were specified let alone agreed - I asked what objective criteria were being used to back up the claim (and still haven't got an answer) because while we could agree to use subjective criteria to verify the claim I do not agree that such would be both relevant and meaningful. Also, it's worth pointing out that putting the article status in the tag line is not agreeing anything with anybody, or telling anybody anything about the average Wikipedia article. It is claiming that this version of this article is an example of Wikipedia's best work. That is not reliably true. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I still maintain that you should use whatever subjective criteria you should stand behind, but ORES scores also show quality. I strongly disagree that subjective criteria are meaningless. I'm sure we all know the meaning in having "good" article quality, and that is of course subjective. It is meaningless to ask for objective assessments of something being better if we can agree using other criteria that something is better much faster, especially when the selection of such "objective" criteria is, in itself, subjective. All I'm saying is the near-tautology of subjective assessments being able to produce the subjective assessment of "good quality", while you're saying that only objective assessments will suffice, an unfalsifiable claim if you cannot provide an objective measure.
The topic of "this version" is being discussed elsewhere in this RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to your main argument, that labeling articles at some point in time is incompatible with the wiki model. But I think your comments rubber stamp of approval from a self-selecting group of non-experts, even GA only requires that citations exist, an article that is two thirds reactions from random celebrities on Twitter is worse than an article one third its length that is purely encyclopaedic, and ratings other than featured are worth less than the paper they are written on are very dismissive of the work content reviewers do and I don't think you should be surprised you're getting piled on here over them. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What pile on? It's about even in terms of people who (broadly) agree with me and people who (broadly) disagree. The final statement you quote from me is entirely a matter of opinion, we can agree to disagree regarding that. The quote about reactions relates only to article length not being a reliable metric of quality, I don't understand why you think that is dismissive of the work of content reviewers unless they do regard length as a reliable indicator of article quality? (If they do, that's definitely a black mark for the process).

The first two are factual statements. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By calling the result a "rubber stamp", the first one is an opinion. For the claim to be factual, you would need to show FAC does not disagree with its insiders, which is verily false. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really disheartened by the comments decrying the content review process here. IAWW's review of an article I wrote was one of the most enjoyable editing experiences I've had on here, and it was very comprehensive and involved a text-source integrity check. Reducing his work to a rubber-stamp without citation checks is insulting. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are GA reviews like that, but there are also GA reviews like Talk:I-No/GA1. As Stepwise stated below, promoting articles to GA status only requires one person's approval. Some1 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with the subject article that makes you think the review was conducted improperly? It obviously has fewer BLP and political considerations than the one I cited so the prose does not need to be checked as closely. Regardless, it still gets a topicon with a "this is a good article" tooltip so I don't see why the modified tagline would be so extreme an addition. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little off topic, but @Some1, what makes you think that review you linked was not conducted properly? IAWW (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the review was conducted "improperly", but find the differences in the lengths and comprehensiveness of the two GA reviews quite jarring. Some1 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are factual statements Ha ha. No they aren't. I'm not sure why you're taking this opportunity to complain about editors who want quality articles, but your second statements is clearly false. Perhaps you should look at the GA criteria, which are loose but set a baseline of acceptable quality content, before making clearly and egregiously incorrect statements, which at this point is approaching disinformation. Cremastra (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion elsewhere has identified that the GA criteria I was reading and the GA criteria that are actually applied are different, so while I thought that was factual it turns out that it wasn't. The first is though.

I'm not complaining about editors wanting quality content - far from it - what I'm saying is that article rating labels are not a reliable guide to the quality of the current version of an article. I'm also saying that the FA and GA criteria used to award those labels are not a guarantee that the version of the article reviewed is one of Wikipedia's best, just that it meets those criteria. If you think that is an attack on editors then you haven't been reading what I've actually written. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the GA criteria excerpts the part from the "how the GA criteria should be applied" guideline on spot checks being minimum, so you could say it is in the GA criteria you were reading. That is an interesting state of affairs indeed. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the GA criteria as written differ from the GA criteria as applied in practice, then we definitely shouldn't be proclaiming GA status in the tagline. Overloading the ordinary word "good" with an insider meaning is confusing enough. Expecting that people will read a set of criteria and then a further guideline to figure out what "good" is supposed to mean is... not really practical. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the relevant part of that guideline is quoted in the set of criteria. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you know that that's the only relevant part of that guideline. Maybe someone would figure that out after reading both. But it's not at all clear. Every time a reader has to investigate a behind-the-scenes Wikipedia page to understand what something means, we've failed. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have explanatory essays that go in depth on the specific meanings of everything. That does not undermine the meaning of what is explained at all. The criteria by itself sufficiently explain what is expected of GoodArticles. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't differ, criteria 2 definitely requires sources verify the text. I don't follow the claim that there's a discrepancy here. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty serious claim you're making. Do you have any objective evidence that the process is this fundamentally useless? None of the criteria for good and featured articles, after all, are not length, so if they don't measure anything else, that's pretty serious. You think the process is so bad that even checking the sources doesn't increase the average accuracy, that it's just a rubber stamp? This all sounds pretty unbelievable to me, but maybe I'm wrong. If this is all true, why do you think the average participant of this RfC is ignorant of it? Dege31 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have evidence for a claim I am not making. Checking the cited sources do verify the content they claim to verify is extremely valuable but only a small part of what is required to get the FA badge, not required for any other rating (~~even GA only requires that citations exist~~) [see later discussion, it turns out the documented GA criteria I based that comment on do not match the GA criteria that are actually applied. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)], and something that can be done completely independently of the FA process. My claim is that FA status does not reliably communicate anything useful to readers about the current version of the article. The current version of the article might be better than average, even one of Wikipedia's best, but it might even be below average now. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's no longer true. Funnily, the new GA checks are in some sense more strict that the FA criteria on WP:TSI. All GANs require spot checks (since 2023 or so), whereas only newer FA nominators have their articles spot checked. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what is written at WP:GACR6. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well in practice, spot checks are expected. See the guideline Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Assessing the article and providing a review. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the GA criteria used to include that a spot check was required. Did this get removed? IAWW (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know, but if we can't even reliably communicate what the GA criteria actually are to editors who know that "good article" is jargon then it is even less useful information for readers than I previously thought it was. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed destination for the modified tagline is Wikipedia:Good articles, which states (emphasis mine)
A good article (GA) is a Wikipedia article that meets a core set of editorial standards, the good article criteria, passing through the good article nomination process successfully. They are well-written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses.
Also, I think you may have missed footnote 3 in WP:GACR6, which states "at a minimum, check that the sources used are reliable ... and that those you can access support the content of the article". I think these adequately explain to readers that a good article has had its sources checked for verifiability. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see what you mean now. I understand the concern, but personally, with the (re)activation of the good & featured article review process, I don't personally think it's as critical. Would you also support removing the good article and featured article topicons, by the same logic? Dege31 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not something that bothers me enough to propose myself, especially as some people seem rather attached to them, but I would probably support if someone else were to propose it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: even GA only requires that citations exist please strike this factually incorrect statement. Cremastra (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck with a note as it's slightly more complicated than simply being incorrect, see discussion subsquent to my comment about why I made that statement. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cremastra (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for writers or reviewers to be subject matter experts so there is no guarantee it is any more or less accurate than any other cited article. Yes, exactly. Schizophrenia is a Featured Article with almost 4k edits since its FA review back on May 2, 2011 (14 years ago). Who knows if that article is still accurate or up-to-date, but because of its FA status, readers will blindly trust that the article and its content are accurate. Some1 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean WP:MEDRS the policy is pretty good at tackling that exact problem^{Superscript text} Aaron Liu (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Thryduulf - GA particularly has little to do with quality and is more of an Wikipedia:Esperanza-like process to promote the participants. The GA talkpage currently has an RFC to enforce Quid pro Quo reviewing of articles and to reduce the standard of reviews. GA reviews are in many cases completely subjective and amount to little more than "I like this" or "I don't like this".Nigel Ish (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit subjective, yes, but there are detailed criteria on how articles should be evaluated for GA. GAs that don't meet the criteria go through GAR. The linked "reduce the standard of reviews" discussion is not about reducing the standard of reviews but about reviewers who make additional comments beyond the standard of the reviews. And the quid prop quo proposal RfC is currently met with a swarm of opposition. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point this discussion discussion has devolved into GA-bashing by people who apparently don't want any kind of quality control and for who any recognition of hard work is evidence of a social clique. Cremastra (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user specifically seems to have an axe to grind against the GA process: see their userpage. Cremastra (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a post I made is linked here, I feel obligated to comment that this is a misrepresentation of what I said. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'd ever noticed the tagline before, but I've definitely seen the topicons. The fact that they're coloured images makes them more noticeable than small italics, but having linked text in the tagline would probably cover some of that deficit. Maybe I've overestimating the readers, but because "good article" doesn't have a standard colloquial meaning, I think that if a reader did notice that the tagline said that, there wouldn't be any standard meaning to assume. If they wanted to know what it meant, they might click the link and learn more about the internal processes of the encyclopedia. If they didn't, they wouldn't walk away with any wrong assumptions. "Featured article" is a little different - assumptions could be made - but the meaning could vary wildly. Maybe this so-called "featured" article was chosen at random somehow to feature on the main page at some point in the past. I think the topicons make the meaning clearer, appearing to be badges the article has achieved somehow, but I don't think the additional text in the tagline would harm the project (outside of potential technical burden). 207.11.240.2 (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - because as written, the tagline is misleading. For instance, the first example listed: London Beer Flood. When you go to the talk page, it is clearly tagged as: London Beer Flood is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. So it is misleading to imply to our readers that the current version they are reading is the FA version. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd be a good thing. If an article's current state is incongruent with what one expects from being "one of the best articles", readers would be alerted to raise the issues somewhere. This can help ensure quality within FAs. Also, <pedantic>, the banner you quoted says the article or a previous version met the definition, and that the article is a featured article, not that it might be a previous version that is the featured article instead of the current version. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, what it means is that the FA article could be the current form or an earlier, possibly different, iteration of the article could be the FA. For instance, Michael Jackson was promoted to FA status 17 years ago, and on July 8, 2025, there was a brief edit war over a cleanup tag placed in a section. The article had 16,000+ pageviews that day, so how many readers (hundreds, thousands) read a version (current version) that didn't meet the criteria for a FA, and we shouldn't expect for our readers to try and hunt for a previous version that actually meets the FA criteria. I mean, if we are going to say to our readers with a tagline - the current version you are reading meets the criteria for a FA, but yet editors are squabbling over content that may not reflect what the cited sources actually say, then yeah, go ahead with a misleading tagline. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was still designated FA. The definition of FA is that the article or a previous version was reviewed and met criteria, not necessarily the current version even if the FA-designation is the status quo. I'm not saying we should expect our readers to hunt for that previous version; I'm saying that increasing this prominence invites readers who realize the incongruence to challenge. I don't see how the cleanup tag changes anything in your argument's favor here. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
invites readers who realize the incongruence to challenge the vast majority of readers will not recognise the incongruence, but will blindly trust that an article that proclaims to be top quality is top quality, even if it contains blatant misinformation. Even editors with years of experience working with featured articles will not always see an incongruence for topics (or even topic areas) they are not familiar with. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there's a giant orange banner. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this reply earlier, but I'm struggling to understand what relevance a banner has to anything in my comment? Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. I was referring to maintenance tags. If the maintenance tags that are about eight times larger than the tagline (on desktop; on mobile it's probably gonna be like 3x) and colored in alarming ways say the article contains misinformation, the reader will believe the article contains misinformation over the tagline that says "featured article". Aaron Liu (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but only a very small portion of current revisions (at the time any given reader loads the article) of good or featured articles that are not of that quality (due to vandalism, gradual degradation, changing standards, link rot, POV-pushing, real-world changes, editing disputes, etc, etc, etc) have maintenance tags. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's where we diverge. I have not seen any GA/FAs that have problems untagged for a significant amount of time. Would you give me a post-Coldwell example? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "post-Coldwell" but see everything just before it was sent to FAR/GAR, every vandalised revision, etc. It doesn't matter how long the page is below the standard, it matters that whenever someone views a revision that is below standard (for whatever reason) the tag would be misleading. Sometimes only in a very minor way, other times in extremely major ways and of course everything in between. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. Still, I think this deserves a trial to see if the increased visibility will bring more articles to maintenance categories or GAR and thus counter the issue you describe. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article had 16,000+ pageviews that day, so how many readers (hundreds, thousands) read a version (current version) that didn't meet the criteria for a FA - Kind of beside the point, but an article doesn't automatically change from "FA quality" to "not FA quality" just because there's a tag (and similarly for GA). Instead it's usually one of two situations:
The tag was justified, and therefore the article was already not up to FA/GA standard beforehand. It can be resolved, or the article brought to WP:FAR/WP:GAR if issues are pervasive enough.

The tag was not justified, nd therefore it changes nothing about the article's rating.

Though, I can't argue with the fact that the current version of an article that previously passed an FAC or a GAN may not necessarily be up to standard. That's why substandard articles are (and should be) listed at FAR or GAR. Epicgenius (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On MJ's article, if you or I ran across the maintenance tag, sure, we would know it could be either one of the two situations you listed, but would our readers? If this prominent tagline had been in place on MJ, bragging about this is one of our very best articles, and a reader scrolls down to a section that is tagged with - the content you are about to read may not reflect what the cited sources actually say, they are going to walk away scratching their heads, thinking, this is their very best? Of course, this situation would hold true with the FA icon already present, but I just don't see how adding this prominent tagline (more bragging) is a benefit to our readers, when it has the potential to be misleading. It's bad enough these unnecessary icons are already on the page. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per a combination of Ahecht's arguments (scope creep: rating is not what the tagline is for; and "a good article from Wikipedia" sounds bizarre for everybody not familiar with the technical meaning) and Thryduulf's (rating status is far too unreliable for such a highlighting to be responsible). I may add that both arguments apply particularly strongly to "good articles", for which I would oppose this proposal very strongly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clearly sensible, not least as readers on mobiles do not get to see the FA or GA icons. Whatever the merits or demerits of the GAN and FAC procedures, these articles do have a defined level of quality and it's helpful for readers to know that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see above how readers on mobile also do not get to see the 'tagline'? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

these articles do have a defined level of quality. No they don't. A previous version of the article was assess as having a defined level of quality, but there is no guarantee that the version of the article the tagline is displayed on bears any resemblance to that version. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one of the things where Wikipedia works better in practice than in theory. "There is no guarantee that any of this is true" is correct for all of Wikipedia, yet it is highly trusted and extremely widely used. —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but that's completely different to a prominent banner saying "this is our best work" with links saying that our best work has been verified etc, being placed on articles that are anything but our best work. While many people seeing a page that has been very obviously vandalised will realise that it has been vandalised, not everybody will and the more subtle the vandalism (or POV pushing, etc) the fewer people will know not to take the statement at face value. Doubly so if the article's POV has been slanted towards a POV the reader happens to share. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, I think you overestimate the amount of change that quality articles, especially FAs, see after their review. Ovalipes catharus has some small additions of references and phrasing tweaks ([19]) since it was promoted in January. Malicious edits would be reverted, which leaves potentially problematic edits down to POV-pushing, addition of inaccurate information, and bad writing. These would probably all be caught by the person who brought it to FA in the first place. Cremastra (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All those mallicious edits, etc were current revisions before reversion. The person who brought it to FA is not watching it 24/7. Also, changes accumulate over time God of War III was promoted to FA in February 2015, it has since undergone significant changes. Is it still FA quality? I have absolutely no idea. Do I trust a 10-year-old rating? if yes, then it's misleading if I happen to have viewed it one of the many reverted revisions was current. If no, then it's pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GAs can see many changes: Western Roman Empire 527 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users so far[20]; Catilinarian conspiracy 68 by 39[21]; Biblical Hebrew 791 by more than 100[22]. FAs too: Ethiopian historiography 192 by >100[23]; Eagle (British comics) 323 by >100[24]; John Lennon >3000 since being TFA on 8 Dec 2010[25] (apologies if I've missed any intervening reviews). NebY (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Swift has almost 10,000 intermediate revisions since its promotion to FA status back on October 31, 2016 (9 years ago), and there are complaints on the article's talk page that the article is a mess, outdated, and "completely bloated." Some1 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, these intervening 9 years count for almost half of Taylor Swift's career. I wouldn't expect any article, let alone Swift's article, to remain unchanged in that time period.
As for the article being bloated and outdated, that is less relevant to the topic currently at hand (mentioning FA status in the tagline) and more like a WP:FAR issue. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are complaints about the featured article(s) just illustrates that these article ratings are subjective, provide little meaningful information to readers, and don't need to be given more prominence (and in this case, by modifying taglines, of all things). Some1 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how. It simply makes them wiki articles just as mistakes make us human. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

these article ratings are subjective,
There are literally objective criteria (WP:GACR, WP:FACR) that are used to evaluate articles for GA or FA status. So no, it isn't a subjective rating.
The fact that there are complaints about the article just mean that people have opinions. These may indicate that the article doesn't meet the criteria. They may also be unjustified, however, as Dan Leonard indicates below. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That recent complaint from an unregistered editor is plainly false (the masters buyback is covered in the lead with a link to Taylor Swift masters dispute and extensively in § 2018–2021: Lover, Folklore, and Evermore). I get that FAs sometimes get delisted but choosing one with a drive-by nonsense complaint isn't a very good argument. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fallacious to imply that just because an article has reached GA or FA status, it shouldn't undergo changes. It's one thing for an article to be modified significantly after its promotion to FA or GA status. Sometimes, this is even required in order for an article to keep its rating, especially for articles about people who are alive or things that still exist.
It's another thing entirely for these changes to have significantly degraded the quality of the article, but even a small number of changes by a small number of editors can degrade an article's quality. In short, quantity of changes != quality of changes. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever fallaciousness you might infer, I was not implying that just because an article has reached GA or FA status, it shouldn't undergo changes. I was responding to I think you overestimate the amount of change, began by saying many changes, and didn't discuss their quality or materiality. NebY (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever fallaciousness you might infer, I was not implying that just because an article has reached GA or FA status, it shouldn't undergo changes.
If I was mis-attributing that to you, then I apologize. I was speaking primarily in the context of Thryduulf's comment; they claimed that there is no guarantee that the version of the article the tagline is displayed on bears any resemblance to that version. Which may very well be true, but that comment also implied that articles have to remain more-or-less static after their promotion, which is not the case.
I was replying to your comment about the number of changes to selected GAs/FAs because I was trying to convey the fact that a large number of changes may not necessarily be an indicator of an article's decline in quality. It can be an indication of such a deterioration of quality, but this can also be done by one or few editors who remove large parts of an article. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that articles have to remain more-or-less static after promotion, and I'm not sure how you read that into my comment. I'm simply saying that because articles are not static, a previous version being assigned a quality rating is not a reliable indicator of the current quality of the article. It might be that there have been a thousand changes but no material change, it could be that there have been ten changes and the article is substantially different (which could mean it is worse, better or about the same quality). It is this changing nature that means the assessments are not a reliable indicator of the quality of the version displayed, so we should not be proclaiming that something is an example of our best work when we have absolutely no idea whether it is or isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support mildly increasing the visibility of our assessment processes. We should also strengthen GAR and FAR to ensure the designations remain meaningful. —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to put the cart before the horse. Shouldn't we ensure that the designations mean something before we increase their visibility? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are meaningful. I am using the opportunity to assert that FAR and GAR are important in ensuring that the designations are meaningful. We do not have to improve all processes to perfection before considering something like the present proposal. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction The designations do mean something and always have. Cremastra (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that we shouldn't be shoving words that have specialized Wikipedian meanings in front of every reader. "Good" is a particularly bad word to use in this way. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the term "good article" overloading the ordinary word "good", but also, getting that status for an article really only requires the approval of one person. We shouldn't make that look more official than it is.

I do not think this was intentional, but this proposal amounts to gratifying long-term editors at the cost of confusing readers. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also requires the article surviving challenges to the good article status and the reviewer being in good standing.
Why not give it a try and see if readers are confused? A lot of people here doubt they will be. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A similar number of people have made very strong arguments that readers will be confused and/or actively mislead. Why should we dismiss those concerns just because some experienced editors with detailed knowledge of the procedures vaugely hope that readers will understand that when shove jargon in their face they will understand both what it means and also that it might not actually mean that? Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is claiming readers will know right away what these terms mean, the idea is that they'll be clearer than the status quo of topicons. Czar's story in § Proposal 21: Make GA status more prominent in mainspace shows that readers currently don't understand what these icons mean and actually have serious misunderstandings. A plain-text phrase "good article" or "featured article", with a clear link to these meanings, will hopefully both alleviate confusion and onboard future contributors. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment I somehow missed. If readers have serious misunderstandings about what the jargon means when it is tucked away in a corner and accompanied by a link and/or tooltip to an explanation, why would putting that same jargon front and centre not result in anything other than more readers with serious misunderstandings? Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My complaint is not about the info being tucked away in a corner but about being obscured by an icon and a tooltip. Tooltip explanations are discouraged by most accessibility guidelines including our own because readers clearly aren’t hovering over them to learn what they mean. Replacing (or here, supplementing) icon-and-tooltip presentation with plaintext and a link is self-evidently clearer and less confusing. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One reviewer "in good standing" is still just one reviewer. And "good standing" is one more thing that is not explained either at the criteria page, the instructions page, or the guideline (which is a different page than the instructions). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a defined thing but empirical, basically the chances of such reviews ending up at GAR. It's not a real thing besides just having reviews that fit the criteria. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Good" is a pretty good description, better than "featured" but I think the link will be enough for people to cope. —Kusma (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If "Good article" actually meant something similar to the non-jargon meaning of "this article is good" then you might have a point. So while I applaud your optimism the evidence of how readers currently interact with Wikipedia suggest to me that it is significantly misplaced. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many here that !voted support believe that good articles are good. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That established Wikipedians can have a good faith disagreement about what the phrase "Good article" means is more than enough evidence that it will mislead some readers. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a GoodArticle you think is not good? If so, you should nominate that article for Review after starting a discussion about it, no matter how much the article has changed since it was reviewed. By something approaching induction GoodArticles are therefore good articles. I think the only situation where the GoodArticle process fails to produce good articles is if you believe the criteria are not enough to ensure "good", in which case I'd like to know. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that in Wikipedia jargon "Good article" means that a specific revision of an article was judged by one person to meet a set of very specific criteria (that the current version of the article may or may not now meet). To most readers seeing a tagline saying "good article" would indicate that the version of the article has been assessed to be "good" and thus can be relied upon to be neutral, accurate, and at least reasonably comprehensive and thus by implication articles that are not "good" are "bad" and cannot be said to be poses any of those qualities. While it is true that the current version of many Good Articles is indeed good there are also current versions of Good Articles that are not good. There are also plenty of articles where the current version is accurate, neutral and comprehensive but which are not Good Articles simply because nobody has formally assessed it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going round in circles at this point. I made a similar reply at #c-Aaron_Liu-20250711004700-Isaidnoway-20250710235400.
there are also current versions of Good Articles that are not good
(besides what I say in the linked reply) Those are also very few.
by implication articles that are not "good" are "bad"
I don't think that's true. The rest are just unreviewed articles, and even not meeting the standard for good doesn't necessarily mean bad. I think this also addresses your last point. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor familiar with the review process you know that "not good" doesn't mean "bad". The same is not true of the average reader who does not know that "Good article" is jargon, let alone what it means.

Re current versions of Good Articles. If you mean stable versions then there probably are relatively few (but still a large number), however when you include every version that is current at some point it is much larger. There is no way for the casual reader to know whether the version they are seeing is the good version or the vandalised version. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant that I doubt that's what readers'll interpret it is. WIthout "good" it's still "articles".
I mean at any moment. I don't think aggregating anyone that had any version that was bad is meaningful. And it's not like RC patrol's gone handicapped. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does mean something similar, and I am indeed optimistic that our readers know that blue text means a link that can be clicked on to obtain clarification. Most of our readers are not using Wikipedia or the WWW for the first time. —Kusma (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that "featured" is a less confusing term than "good" in this context, since it's less generic and actually conveys the connotation that the articles were selected via some process. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a simple change to address a problem that has come up frequently. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What problem? Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Visibility of page status as addressed in the discussions listed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Background_(tagline). Phlsph7 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal has indeed come up frequently. Some editors see increased visibility of article ratings as an improvement to the status quo, but if there is a problem with the status quo it is that it overstates the reliability and importance of article ratings, which is not something making them more prominent can solve (indeed rather the opposite). Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I like the idea of better signaling which of our articles have met a minimum bar for quality. GAs aren't perfect articles, but we show worse articles on the main page every day. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnecessary embellishment Logoshimpo (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An embellishment is defined as ornamental, or decorative detail, to make something more attractive. Is it to your belief that the good article, and featured article processes are likewise embellishments? Dege31 (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Logoshimpo (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnecessary and potentially misleading use of wikipedia jargon.--Staberinde (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean by 'unnecessary'? Dege31 (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no noteworthy problem that requires fixing here.--Staberinde (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – for the same reasons I proposed more prominent topicons in 2021. As Wikipedia matures, I think it's increasingly important we 1) focus on raising the quality of existing content and 2) help readers learn how to effectively use and understand the varying quality of articles, especially in the current information landscape. Drawing attention to the main ways we review articles, however flawed they are, is a step in the right direction for both these aims, and by raising awareness of peer review processes it might help improve them. I think it would be even better if the "featured article" or "good article" text linked directly to the article's most recent FAC/FAR/GAN, but perhaps that wouldn't be feasible. I understand the valid concerns about the varying quality of FA/GA status articles, but ultimately it is better than no review at all, I trust that most readers understand Wikipedia is not infallible, and the more we focus on peer reviews the better for raising quality and trust in the project. Jr8825 • Talk 12:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ways to make GA/FA status more prominently visible, including this proposal. My preferred way of going about it would be to have the icon next to the article title, kind of like how (on desktop) the icon is displayed next to the name of another language in the "Languages" list if that version of the article is good or featured (see e.g. Jupiter). Several of the opposing comments sound more to me like arguments to abolish GA/FA (or at minimum the icons) entirely, which I am fairly certain is a proposition that would be overwhelmingly rejected by the community. TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To your point about opposing comments, I agree. Some of the oppose !votes bring up valid concerns, like Future Perfect at Sunrise's and Isaidnoway's comments that this tagline might not be appropriate for articles that actually need GAR or FAR. However, comments like "GA particularly has little to do with quality and is more of an Wikipedia:Esperanza-like process to promote the participants." and "Yes" (in response to a query about whether the respondent considered the GA/FA processes mere "embellishment") do seem to be rooted in opposition to the GA or FA processes, not to this specific proposal. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per several of the arguments made above. If this is intended to bring in more editor participants, we're sending a confusing signal to a group very few of whom are the right target. The terms are opaque and likely to be misleading to our readers, since there are plenty of GAs that are no longer good quality but have not been reassessed yet. Fewer FAs are in that state, but there are some. If the GAR and FAR processes were working as well as we'd like, this would be less of an issue, but we haven't solved that problem yet. Future Perfect at Sunrise puts the case against well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support trying this out, at least for some period. I believe Wikipedia should try to make GAs/FAs more visible to the common reader, and I think more awareness may also lead to more GAR and FAR helpers. ALittleClass (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for "A good article from Wikipedia"; which implies that other articles are "not good". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you feel differently, @Pigsonthewing, if we renamed GAs/FAs to something like "high-quality article" and "top-quality article"? Sdkb ^talk 15:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would imply that other articles are "not high quality", so no. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some other language we could rename GAs/FAs to to connote that they have undergone more thorough review and received a higher quality assessment than other articles, without implying that all our other articles are trash? I do think the concept of article quality assessments for articles should be fairly intuitive to most readers, Wikipedia being a work in progress and all that. Sdkb ^talk 15:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, at least as things currently stand, articles that there is a set of articles that have been assessed as being of a particular quality at some point in their history and a set of articles that are currently that standard of quality. The two sets overlap but are not close to being the same with both high quality articles that have not been assessed as such and articles that were formerly high quality no longer being. Unless and until the significant majority of articles tagged as being of "X" quality currently (at the time any given reader loads the page) are that quality and the significant majority of articles that are that quality are tagged as such any tagline will be inherently misleading in some way. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could get around some of that by something that says something like like "on <date>, a <version> this article was assessed as being <quality standard>" with a link to that quality standard and an explanation that the current version may or may not be of that quality standard, but (a) that isn't a tagline, and (b) is not what is being proposed here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Part of our responsibility of editing the encyclopedia is to ensure that articles that should be FAs/GAs are nominated and that those designated as such but that no longer meet the standards are delisted. It's no different than having an article tagged as needing more citations: That tag was placed at a specific point in time, and represents our judgement at that time, but it doesn't imply that other articles don't also need more citations. And if, as the article evolves, it acquires enough citations, it's our responsibility to remove it. The articles tagged as needing more citations will never correspond precisely to those that actually do need more citations the most, but we still use the notice since it's a good enough (albeit imperfect) indicator. Ditto for quality article assessments. Sdkb ^talk 16:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Part of our responsibility of editing the encyclopedia is to ensure that articles that should be FAs/GAs are nominated..." No it isn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you do not support having the GA/FA system as an integral part of the encyclopedia. Sdkb ^talk 16:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an integral part of the encyclopaedia, it's an optional status symbol. Just because that status symbol motivates some editors to improve articles doesn't make it integral - look at the countless articles that get improved in other ways and for other reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that; please read what I wrote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That's true in the abstract, but this proposal is not good - indeed for the reasons explained in detail multiple times it's actually harmfully bad. The comparison to dated tags that specify in detail what the problem is/was and do not proclaim or imply anything about other articles misses the mark in multiple different ways. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia approaches this by putting de:Template:Exzellent at the bottom of pages with a notice "This article was added to the list of excellent articles on day (DD_MM_YYYY) in [permanent_link_to_version this version]. See today's featured article, de:Abreise König Wilhelms I. zur Armee am 31. Juli 1870. That also has serious downsides, for example de:J. R. R. Tolkien links to a version from 2004 that does not have a single inline citation and does not actually meet modern day standards. "The 2004 version of this article met the 2004 version of WP:FA?" is not particularly useful information. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The latter issue might be mitigated by only displaying the message if the article was promoted or had its status confirmed within the last N years. The German Wikipedia has (or at least had) a very different approach regarding inline citation to the English Wikipedia, so the status of articles is not trivially comparable between the languages. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does no such thing, especially since there is a link explaining what "good article" actually means. —Kusma (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might not do that to you, but it does to me and Andy and assuredly will to anyone who doesn't know that "good article" is jargon (regardless of whether there is or isn't a link). Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think we have enough GAs or FAs that the absence of a "good article" tagline will be so widely noticed. I don't think the proposal will be as impactful as you and Andy seem to think, but we won't find out if we don't try it. —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I believe that the multiple severe downsides (not just this one) combined with the extremely low benefits that will come even if successful mean that even a trial will come up with a significantly negative benefit:cost analysis. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What will the net negative impacts of a trial be? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the negatives explained by multiple people multiple times already. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any argument that hasn't been responded to. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments have been responded to but have not been refuted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, how does #c-Aaron_Liu-20250711005600-Thryduulf-20250711005500 and #c-Dan_Leonard-20250711201400-Thryduulf-20250711194700 not refute what you said? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence of severe (!) downsides outside of hypothetical Wikipedia editor discussions? We already have the topicons. Why don't we see any inklings of these severe downsides, if they are a realistic concern? At least I'm not aware of any. Dege31 (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The top icons are decoration that most people ignore and have to be investigated (but even then others have pointed out that they cause misconceptions). A tagline is extremely prominent and makes a bold statement to everybody reading the article (even more so if it is expanded to mobile) meaning the problems caused by misleading statements will be very significantly amplified. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dopamine in the mobile view

Oppose I'd not noticed the taglines before and suppose that I've been blanking them as fluff. The specific suggestion of calling out FAs and GAs seems quite marginal as we don't have many of them. Why not give an assessment of the article when it has a lesser status too? It might be more useful to warn readers that an article is a stub or just C-class or whatever.
And I don't like the idea that this will be forced onto the mobile interface as space is at a premium in that. See the example of Dopamine which I took a snapshot of for another discussion recently. Notice that this doesn't manage to get all of the first sentence of the article onto the first screenful. Adding a tagline would push it off completely.
So, the idea of giving readers an assessment of the article upfront has merit but the implementation needs work.
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be in favour of putting the assessment class icon ( ) next to the article title? TompaDompa (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, those icons are too obscure and unclear. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the specific suggestion of calling out FAs and GAs seems quite marginal as we don't have many of them: the good and featured systems have broad community support and are currently represented on articles already by topicons with tooltips like "this is a good article". This proposal is intended only as an extension of that as shown above in § Background (tagline), and so any extensions beyond what is already very highly supported would be undue. Also re: it might be more useful to warn readers that an article is a stub or just C-class or whatever a "warning" would violate WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NODISCLAIMERS is irrelevant. Every page has a general disclaimer per WP:GENDIS. And there's already a well-established set of tags to show that that an article is a stub. The trouble is that these appear at the bottom of articles where the reader won't see them until it's too late. It's better to make the status of an article clear to the reader at the outset, so that they have this context as they are reading it. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You literally used the word "warning", though. That's exactly what NODISCLAIMERS is about. This proposal is about promoting articles that have reached a high standard of quality that the community is proud to present to readers. Giving a "warning" to readers that an article is "just C-class" is the opposite. That could be considered at a later point but should not be part of this proposal. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exclusively promotional language is contrary to MOS:PUFFERY and WP:PROMO. It's more informative and NPOV to give the reader our quality rating in a uniform way, whether it's good or bad. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B-class and lower can be changed by anyone anytime. I'm not confident in the quality assurance for those.
Also, if you want more mobile screen space, dismiss that banner. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re:mobile accessibility- that might be easy for you or me, but the "dismiss banner" button is *really* tiny on mobile. I don't think my mother could reliably click it, for example, she just doesn't have the eyesight anymore. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 18:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. But that's an issue we could easily solve by enlarging the button; we don't even need to file a task for it as we can simply do it through an interface admin. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not noticed or understood that button. That's mainly banner blindness – Wikipedia has a very busy interface and so I tune out the clutter and extraneous excess. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that it's not very busy on mobile. There's only one banner at the top. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This would be a positive for readers and editors alike. Perhaps people opposed should also advocate for removing WP:TMVs from articles—they link to editor-focused stuff as well. We have giant banners when an article has issues, but a small link when it has been determined to meet a set of standards is a bridge too far? Heartfox (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I do not see further clutter is necessary. Janhrach (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like tag lines to be the same for every article. If it is to be tried, I would propose to do it for the Featured articles first. Readers are more likely to have heard from them from the main page. The articles are higher quality and more editors are needed to certify them as featured. The Good article slogan sounds worse. Ideally it should be measured whether readers understanding of the featured article process increases after the change. Rolluik (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the featured article tagline is worthy enough to be trialed and measured first? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to do that first. I have not myself participated in a FA or Good article process. I'm aware of the cleanup efforts for older FA and Good articles (and also that it seems to have stalled for the featured articles). I think that new featured and good articles seem mostly similar quality wise for most readers but as an editor I see that the featured ones have mostly better sources. Keep in mind that English is not my native language, so I care less about spelling mistakes and similar issues. I'm sceptical though that changing the tag line will have a big effect on anything (increase of FAC's, Good article nominations, FAR's, readers knowledge of quality assesments...). I don't think it will be detrimental either. Maybe we should give people an easy link to the version of the article that was reviewed in the tag or near the tag (not just on the talk page). I see no real problem with giving newer FA's that were on the main page this tag line (If we were confident enough to put it on the main page...). Rolluik (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support A marginal improvement to the reader's experience I think. ~ HAL333 15:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. I'm sorry; I really believe the article status should be more visible, but I can't stand the tagline being modified in such a drastic way. In my opinion, the benefits of keeping the current tagline intact and free of links and other notices outweigh the benefits of letting the user know an article is good/featured. I'm all in for doing the same thing while keeping the precious tagline intact! --FaviFake (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an alternate way to present the information? Maybe including plain text in the {{featured article}} topicon, etc.? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing like the "this article is a stub" messages but at the top, perhaps. It could also include the most recent date it was promoted/survived review as recommended above. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fine to me, I mostly opposed the tag changing due to esthetic reasons. The only downside is banner blindness (and scrolling distance) but most readers seem fine with maintenance templates and similar; and featured/good articles are not supposed to have those. Rolluik (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to "Good article" tagline, weak support to the rest. Our neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. It's not up to us to declare to the reader our articles are "good". I believe our quality article assessments are quite helpful for Wikipedia's editors and I'm happy with the current topicons (which [being icons] don't declare anything and link to the full explanation), but outright writing at the beginning that this is "A good article from Wikipedia" is not neutral. I'm attracted to the argument that this could increase new editor attraction but I don't see that outweighing the opposers' concerns. I also don't believe making the tagline more verbose in response would be a satisfactory workaround. Sophocrat (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm much more open to doing this only with Featured articles and lists due to the arguments others have made. As a bonus "Featured" is much more neutral than "Good". Sophocrat (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify how exactly this proposal violates

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

i.e. neutral point of view? An article assessment is not "view[s] that have been published... on a topic".

Dege31 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is pedantic. Sophocrat is talking about the principle.
I was going to say that it would represent all significant views on the article until I realized I was just going to repeat #c-Aaron_Liu-20250710200000-Isaidnoway-20250710182800. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Aaron Liu says I refer to the principle. We don't declare ourselves to be a reliable source (even though we strive to be!) to the reader. In articles we should avoid stating opinions as facts as our aim is to inform the reader, not make judgements for them. That said, I think I would support doing this only with Featured articles and lists as they have the highest quality standards and because the descriptor "Featured" is just a fact (as those are indeed prominent articles) whereas "Good" is a judgement from us (however well-founded). Sophocrat (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been using a userscript that does something similar and it is quite useful. (Wish I could tell you which one, but nothing in my common.js is obviously it.) Loki (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In § Background (tagline) I note this is explicitly based on the style of Wikipedia:Metadata gadget, which is not in your common.js but in Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance → Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header (documentation). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it! Thanks. Loki (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Why not? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: On the one hand, it'd be simple, as there's already a gadget for this, it could just require flipping it to default-on. On the other hand, there's already a gadget for this - and more pointedly, we already put an icon in the upper right of the page header for FAs, FLs, and GAs, so having this be by-default seems slightly redundant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we already put an icon in the upper right of the page this proposal is mostly inspired by Czar's story here, detailing how readers are not just unaware of the meaning of icon-based indicators but actively misguided. I think text and a transparent hyperlink is a clearer presentation. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – I'll take anything at this point... time and time again we've needed increased visibility for our best articles (most readers don't even know these distinctions exist, let alone the difference between featured vs good)... – Aza24 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose My greatest concern is that most Wiki users have no idea about what this actually means, especially since "good" can be interpreted much differently. In my experience what most readers care about (almost exclusively) is factual correctness, being of course part of being a GA it's not the entire story and (hopefully) most other articles meet that standard too. Highlighting it there makes me feel like it's implying that other articles are inherently "bad" and cannot be trusted. I could however see it work out with FA as not being Featured misses such an implication in my opinion. Squawk7700 (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (tagline)

@Dan Leonard: Can we not also have FLC, FAC, GAN? like so...

{{#switch:{{#invoke:Page assessment raw|get_class|page={{FULLPAGENAME}}|project=Project-independent assessment}}
 | FA = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured articles (linked from tagline)|featured article]]'' from
 | FL = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured lists (linked from tagline)|featured list]]'' from
 | GA = A ''[[Wikipedia:Good articles (linked from tagline)|good article]]'' from
 | FAC = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/PAGENAME/archive#|featured article candidate]]'' from
 | FLC = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/PAGENAME/archive#|featured list candidate]]'' from
 | GAN = A ''[[Talk:PAGENAME/GA#|good article nominee]]'' from
 | From
}} Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OR, if getting the archive# and GA# might be tedious, we could simply say... Can we not also have FLC, FAC, GAN? like so...

{{#switch:{{#invoke:Page assessment raw|get_class|page={{FULLPAGENAME}}|project=Project-independent assessment}}
 | FA = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured articles (linked from tagline)|featured article]]'' from
 | FL = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured lists (linked from tagline)|featured list]]'' from
 | GA = A ''[[Wikipedia:Good articles (linked from tagline)|good article]]'' from
 | FAC = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|featured article candidate]]'' from
 | FLC = A ''[[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates|featured list candidate]]'' from
 | GAN = A ''[[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|good article nominee]]'' from
 | From
}} Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in reader-facing indicators of article nominations. Best to be left for the talk page. Dege31 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC proposal is intentionally limited to be an extension to the topicons, which already get enough community support to exist. I disagree with this idea (drive-by junk GANs shouldn't be shown to readers) but also just don't think we should overcomplicate the proposal by going beyond what is already represented by topicons. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Leonard that makes sense. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would better understand those on the oppose side for non-technical reasons, if they could bring in some real data, or real examples, of harm caused by the smaller outreach variants already extant: that is, the topicons, and the talk page assessments. After all, if it is problematic, there should already be evidence. I haven't seen this presented in significant levels. To me, these pitfalls feel remote, and rare. I feel like the potential downsides aren't so big that we can't even do a test run to see how it goes. The large majority of readers read within the confines of the lead paragraphs, so that lessens the potential cumulative impact, too.

Nonetheless, valid concerns. The supporters should also answer: is there will, and capability for scaling up the maintenance of these articles? While this has been ramping up in recent years, this imposes a higher standard.

I've also thought about an idea (this is not a proposal, but fuel for separate discussions, if I, or anyone else, wants to take it further) that maybe takes into account some of the reluctance. It would involve an article losing its reader-facing indicators of GA status or FA status after X years of no review, or Y edits if it's very high activity. That way, there would be a guaranteed minimal level of accountability. Dege31 (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it’s a cosmetic change to the website so I think it's fine to balk at it subjectively. It is a shame that my proposal can't have any data or examples of how this would improve reader outreach (although there does seem to be some interesting-looking papers on FAs), as any analysis of such data would only be possible post hoc. If this passes I do hope to do a 30 day postmortem to see how many people click on the statistical redirects and see how many new editors participate in the project pages. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you mention, I don't think there's enough problems to scale up the maintenance yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding scaling up the maintenance of these articles, I hope that one side benefit of this passing may be that, if GA/FA status confers additional prominence compared to the status quo, there will be both more incentive for editors to pursue that status for articles that deserve it and more editors noticing/sending to FAR/GAR when an article has that status that does not deserve it. Sdkb ^talk 04:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's too much emphasis on the quality of an article and whether an article is good or bad. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see some people voicing opposition because of reservations regarding WP:Good articles, specifically. An alternative might be to implement this for FA and FL, but not GA. TompaDompa (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also think such a proposal would be more likely to be accepted. Sophocrat (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal fails, I think it might be worth it to consider something like the dewiki way (wording very tentative):

This article became a reviewed good article on {date} in this revision.

and something similar for FA. Though I do wonder how long after the RfC closers should the discussion be started and whether it should be started even if it succeeds. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at de.wiki and their rating system and I'd be more supportive about this proposal if our system would be more similar to theirs because their equivalent to GA "Lesenswerter Artikel" lit. "Article worth reading" reflects the meaning of GA a lot better than "good" in my opinion. But I get that that's unfeasible already because the translation is way too long and sounds a bit awkward. Squawk7700 (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's any better either. It still has all the problems other commenters say about "good article" above. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what I ment is the problem of what “good” means and the implied opposite of “Bad”. Squawk7700 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the opposite of "worth reading" is "not worth reading", which is the same thing to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, quality is not the only factor in what makes an article "worth reading" - a generally terrible article is very much worth reading if it contains a single reliable source that verifies as correct (or not correct) the one claim you are attempting to verify or it unlocks your understanding of whatever it is you are researching. Even a featured article is not worth reading if it doesn't contain the information you are looking for (which could be for many reasons, including not quite being in scope, the article being outdated, a source no longer being available, the relevant portion being removed (with or without consensus) or vandalised, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That changed my perspective, thanks. I totally agree Squawk7700 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this as much. While I support any addition of plaintext with wikilinks, the English Wikipedia has long had opposition to emphasizing old revisions. See for instance the massive difference between how pending changes are used between German and English. I think it goes against the wiki model and its core belief that articles always get better over time. Articles should never have prominent links to old revisions. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on the PendChang difference or the opposition, especially its reason? I think when the wiki model works, it's isn't at all bad to highlight how the article has evolved since it was established to pass a minimum standard. I don't see how the inclusion of the link leads to any default implication that the article got worse. It's just a tool for all the examine, serving the "transparency" part of our ethos. AFAIK even on enwiki, logged-out users see the latest approved revision (an old one) on PendChang-protected pages by default. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we gave GAR and FAR is because classifying an article as GA or FA applies to future revisions, unless and until that status is revoked. It isn't just for the one reviewed version. If it were, we wouldn't still call them GAs and FAs or have processes for removal. Linking to historic revisions can confuse readers, especially when transcluded templates have since been deleted (the deletion of the lang-xx family breaks the first sentence of many historic revisions). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are about effectively applying pending changes to every single article. If we can have pending changes protection as it is at enwiki today, I don't see why we can't have a link to an old revision especially when it's labeled as an old revision. I still believe that having a link to the old revision is a useful point of comparison. Anyways, we can drop the revision link if needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to enwiki's rejection of dewiki Gesichtete Versionen as an example of the philosophical differences in the wiki model. You can see arguments like incompatible with the basic principles behind wikipedia ... they no longer qualify as a wiki (Erachima), against wiki ethos (IanOfNorwich), creeping implementation of flagged revisions in disguise (S Marshall), 'A rose by any other name?' (OmniArticleEditor). The German Wikipedia's practice of placing a little check mark on specific logged revisions of articles, and presenting them to readers as if they are better than or more reliable than the current one, represents a significant change to the wiki model akin to Citizendium. Articles are assumed to still improve after promotion, and if they decline then they are demoted. Kusma already discussed this above, with the example of a dewiki article that links to an old revision without images or inline citations and has broken template calls (as I mentioned). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion. Although I personally oppose any and all implementation of Pending Changes, vehemently and on a philosophical level, if we are going to have to put up with the awfulness of Pending Changes in our Wiki, then Pending Changes interacts with Good and Featured Articles in complex ways and I'm leery of one-size-fits-all decisions. I think we need to be mindful that Good and Featured Articles are an anomaly -- a holdover from old days of Wikipedia, back when we got to say things like "This is a good article" without having a reliable source for that contention. I think the fact that these assertions are made by Wikipedians rather than by trustworthy sources is highly relevant to the decision of whether to link them.

Some good and featured articles are about things that scholars have largely finished thinking about. If our subject matter is, say, Tropical Depression Ten (2007) then I'm with Aaron Liu. I don't think any massive reevaluation of that topic is likely, so I think we could quite legitimately pick one revision of that article and say, "This! This is the Featured Revision of this Featured Article!" and crystallize it thus for all time.

But other good and featured articles are about things that are still in flux. If our subject matter is, say, DNA nanotechnology then I'm with Dan Leonard. There could be a new discovery that could substantially change the article, at any time, and I would say that to pick one historical revision and imply that it's the platonic ideal of that article isn't the greatest idea I've ever heard.—S Marshall T/C 03:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember having discussions about pending changes in the past but with edit filters in place, this wikipedia seems prefer protection Logoshimpo (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really don't think having a message like what I mentioned at all implies the old revision being the apex. "became a good article in {revision}" retains the meaning of "everything after this" Dan mentioned.

I also find what's extracted from the pending changes discussion weird as applied here. It seems Dan's point is that this is supposed to illustrate opposition to presenting a specific revision with a checkmark, a star, or a plus sign. But that's what we've lived with and supported for a decade and a half, just not at the scale of every single mainspace article. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Remove the births and deaths from all years on Wikipedia

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_199#RFC:_split_births_&_deaths_from_year_articles

I believe that we should remove the births and deaths (specifically before 1980) from all of our year articles (or at least extend the range to as back as need be) and just link the categories (like for articles on years after 1980). It can be a time-consuming process to determine whether someone they are notable enough to even be included in the births and deaths section. I think it is better to just remove them altogether and just link the categories. Interstellarity (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider separate lists? For example, instead of having 1900#Births, could we split off a List of births in 1900? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal, especially in the case of births. Even in the case of someone very notable, their birth was almost never notable. To put it another way, the birth of notable person is not automatically a notable event. Nor is their death, in most cases. I would limit exceptions to cases where the birth or death actually had a real effect on the world. Zero^talk 12:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. We had a previous RFC on the matter already. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That RFC, which the OP started out by linking, concluded with a consensus to split "large" articles. There was no consensus on what to do with the split material, but deletion explicitly did not get consensus. There was no consensus to split or remove births and deaths from articles that are not "large". While "large" was not explicitly defined, it seems the guidance at WP:SIZESPLIT was what most people seemed to be thinking of when using the term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to doing a split of everything for consistency, to the extent it should be followed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support pushing the cutoff back from 1980 to some time in the early 1900s, but I do not support banning births and deaths from all years. Picking an old year article at random, 966 has a very manageable number of births and deaths. Even 1900 is at a reasonable length, but by 1930 the page starts getting excessively long. So, I support a cutoff at some year between those two.

Much of the challenge with these entries is that each requires a reference, which adds more to the page size than the entry itself. I think splitting is a better solution than deletion; these lists don't seem unmanageably large to me. Toadspike [Talk] 13:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading over comments below, I agree that nearly all births and many deaths are not all that significant. It would be best if we could use our existing guidelines on due weight to determine, when a year article faces SIZERULE issues, which items to include. I strongly support abolishing the current expectation that every birth or death of a notable person gets a mention on a year article. Toadspike [Talk] 16:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a good idea in that while the vast majorities of births and deaths are very important to that individual, they are usually not so important to the events of that year. There will be exceptions; perhaps someone might suggest the birth of Prince Hisahito of Akishino ending significant discussion on changing the Japanese system of primogeniture made an impact to 2006, although even our 2006 in Japan article doesn't currently link this birth to any particular impact. Regarding splitting a list of births, that effectively creates the Category in a different form. If there is use for this, you probably could somehow generate the list by reproducing the category plus short descriptions. CMD (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Interstellarity (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nonsense to suggest not mentioning deaths such as that of JFK or Princess Diana, which were top global news stories for their respective years, in the articles about those years.

Most of the rest can be managed through separate list articles (which, of course, would be populated automatically from Wikidata in sane world), if not categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with year articles has always been sourcing. They tend to get treated as some kind of list or index or navigational aid. IMHO, we should really be treating them as standard articles, subject to standard policies and guidelines on sourcing. That means finding sources that treat that year as the topic. Something like this. With this kind of sourcing, we don’t need to make up rules for how many births/deaths/events to include, we just need to summarise the sources with due weight. The example of Princess Diana’s death has been mentioned. Her death would be included on 1997 because there are sources about the year 1997 which cover it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this with the caveat that any births/deaths that have an article on the birth/death itself (as in the Princess Diana example) can still be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to clarify WP:AIGI in line with MOS:AIUPSCALE

Background

A previous RfC on the use of AI imagery resulted in WP:AIGI, which made it WP policy that images wholly generated by AI should not generally be used in articles, with certain exceptions, mainly relating to when the AI imagery itself is notable.

That policy applies to images wholly generated by AI. In WP:AIGI, cases of "major AI enhancement" are mentioned passingly as "marginal cases [...] subject to case by case consensus." The draft policy Wikipedia:AI image use gets a bit further into this, but I found that the topic was not discussed much in the original RfC, and so I am creating a new RfC to clarify what our policy should be relating to images substantially redrawn by generative AI, but based on an existing non-AI image.

As I understand, within the context of the previous RfC, images wholly generated by AI are understood to be those generated from a text-based prompt. Substantially AI-redrawn images are generated by AI using an image with a "restoration" function. In these cases, the AI image generator uses its models to create an image which matches (perhaps roughly) the original input image. Often, these functions are advertised as AI upscaling or restoration.

This topic is already covered in the editing guidelines, but not enshrined in WP:AIGI. See MOS:AIUPSCALE: "AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption." However, this resulted from an earlier discussion which was not discussed in depth when the RfC which led to WP:AIGI took place.

Here is an example. The photo on the right has been significantly redrawn by generative AI in a way that is intended to match the original photo; the details and color, as can be seen here, did not exist in the input photo.

In another case (from Wikipedia:AI image use), we can see an old image and the output of this AI process:

Original
AI

Let me give some other examples of images "restored" using this process which I found in use on actual mainspace pages.

Original (since superseded)
AI

Original
AI

Original
AI

Original
AI

In some other cases, an image created using one of these processes is uploaded without the original to accompany it. However, even without an original for comparison, images created using this process are generally (as of 2025) visually identifiable. The details are unnaturally sharp in some places while being unnaturally soft or reduced in quality in other places in a distinctively uneven way. Some details are smoothed, while others are filled in with detail that clearly does not match the original image. As seen in some of the examples above, the "restored" versions of these images can add excessive and unnatural detail in the faces while leaving the rest of the image jarringly different.

1
2
3

The reason why these images look like this, of course, is because they are not actually produced via a photographic process, but are instead modified using software that searches for certain types of elements (e.g., faces) and uses generative AI to redraw those elements.

While this is most often done to "restore" images of faces, a similar process can be used to redraw other types of scenes. See, for example, commons:Category:Historical images of Minsk restored by AI.

Original photo
AI-regenerated version

Of course, I do recognize (as should not be controversial) that some of the original images are of low quality, and, where possible, I would like to replace images with better versions. However, I feel that any attempt to do so using AI is, at the very least, misguided. The MOS:AIUPSCALE guideline to avoid using these images seems sound to me, for a number of reasons.

These images can be misleading, because they include details which are not part of the original historical images, distorting the historical images which should be incorporated into an encyclopedia.
These images tend to look ugly and unnatural.

Proposal

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should WP:AIGI be modified to incorporate MOS:AIUPSCALE? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following:

Since the topic of AI-redrawing (restoration, upscaling, enhancement) is closely and substantially related to the topic covered at WP:AIGI, the guideline at MOS:AIUPSCALE should be made part of the WP:AIGI (my suggestion) or, alternatively, linked from WP:AIGI as a relevant and related topic.
Based on some discussion (I am not entirely sure myself), a clearer definition (or outline) of what constitues an AI-generated version of an existing image should be devised. Preliminarily, I suggest that this would relate to substantial details present in the original image being replaced by new AI-generated details (as opposed to a small portion of a corner or in a watermark-covered area being generated by cloning or a perceptibly equivalent process).

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the proposal, although I believe that MOS:AIUPSCALE already has broad consensus. Not sure if a more specific definition of "AI-generated version" is needed, as smaller adjustments would likely also fall under the upscaling guideline, and would have even less of a need to be used as a separate version from the original. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I had thought there was consensus, a recent debate I ran into hinged on whether this was prohibited by policy (with an editor replacing/overwriting various historical images with AI versions on this basis). I think the MOS item fairly clearly falls within the same spirit as the WP:AIGI policy, serving a similar purpose on a closely related subject, so the combination could be helpful.

The main reason I bring up clarification here is because not all AI modifications of this kind are labeled "upscaling," even if "restoration" or "recovery" AI tools are substantially the same as AI "upscalers." And if we expand the definition, then we could end up being too broad, especially since many tools now are advertised as "AI" due to the power of the buzzword. For instance, I don't think that the regular noise reduction you'd find in photo editing software (which is now sometimes marketed as "AI") should be covered, because it is fundamentally quite different from AI "restoration" tools.

(All that said, I think I know it when I see it — but it would be better to have a slightly more defined standard.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be something said about uploading as a separate version of a file if something like this is used, i.e. instead of overwriting historical_photo.jpg with an upscaled (or otherwise potentially controversially enhanced version) upload it as historical_photo_(upscaled).jpg to allow editors to easily choose whichever they believe is the better image for their usecase (not all usecases are necessarily going to result the same choice). Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:AIUPSCALE was BOLD-ly added to the MOS after a brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 11#Upscaling. There was no RfC, so it should never have been added to the MOS, and there is zero consensus on a blanket ban on photo restoration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checking with the policy pump, I'm told that a full RfC isn't required to amend the MOS, per WP:PGCHANGE. The discussion you link to was open for three months on the talk page before I added the paragraph, including a month-long wait for any objections to the proposed wording. Removing the paragraph at this point would require a consensus. Belbury (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I support both proposals. I believe I was against a blanket ban on AI images last time around, but using AI to "upscale" existing images feels like a form of fabrication completely unlike asking AI to create a diagram. To me, it seems dishonest to suggest that the AI version is in any way equivalent to the original photo. I also support Thryduulf's point that upscaled images shouldn't be overwriting the original files. Toadspike [Talk] 12:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support interlinking/inclusion, the two are complementary and drive towards the same goal. A guideline might be a continuous work in progress, but as a very basic point is that we should expect that all enhanced images include such information in their description, as we would expect for example for a black and white image where colour has been added even before generative AI. CMD (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to oppose AI-generated imagery broadly, and so support the prohibition of AI upscaling as a subset of my overall position. I agree with Toadspike that it in many cases feels even more fraudulent to doctor historical works in this way than even to generate new images wholesale. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose MOS:AIUPSCALE is null and void, as it is contrary to policy (WP:CONEXCEPT). Many of our images are on Commons and there is nothing we can do to prevent them being overwritten by AI upscaled images over there. This has already happened to me this morning: Commons replaced an image with an AI upscaled one, followed by an editor placing a drive-by tag, which I have removed, since there was no discussion on the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Commons:Overwriting existing files already says that uploading a AI "restorations," AI-upscaled files, etc. should not be uploaded over original files, so, per Commons rules. So we should be able to expect that any non-AI file shouldn't get replaced by an AI file on Commons. There is no reason that the ENWP policy or MOS cannot prohibit users from using AI-regenerated images present on Commons. (As for the file you seem to be talking about — your image was not replaced with an AI-upscaled one; the original image that you uploaded appears to already be AI-upscaled, and someone was just labeling it as such. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the case. An AI-upscaled file was uploaded over the original file I uploaded. So we must expect that any file may get replaced by an AI-upscaled file on Commons. Their use is not prohibited by our WP:AIGI, because it only refers to images wholly generated by AI. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file that you uploaded is also AI upscaled. The file that was uploaded over only removes the AI-added color. Look at the two versions of the file closely and you will see that, except for the colorization, they are the same.

And, as I referenced, Commons rules already explicitly prohibit uploading AI-generated versions over non-AI files. Do people always follow the rules there? Surely not always. But that's not what this proposal is about.

If someone fails to follow the Commons rules, that has nothing to do with WP:AIGI or MOS:UPSCALE. My proposal here is to incorporate MOS:UPSCALE into WP:AIGI. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I tell if an image has been AI-upscaled? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original version is here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the high level of detail in the facial features (which is artificial — compare with the uniform), then the "halo" separating it from areas not redrawn by the AI process. The full-face depth of field (with sharp "focus" whereas the uniform is not nearly as sharp) makes the fakery obvious. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Pinging my go-to for image restoration for an opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest giveaway for me that this was retouched by AI rather than by hand was that the lips are very, very slightly pink. It becomes much more apparent you boost the saturation levels. AI upscalers often can't resist adding a little lip and eye colour to black and white photos. Belbury (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale doesn't make sense. Just because a user on Commons might maliciously replace an image with an AI-"upscaled" version, does not mean we cannot have a policy prohibiting the use of upscaled images on English Wikipedia. Elestrophe (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support a clearly-worded ban on AI-"upscaled" images, since the nature of their task is to fabricate details which were not present in the source image. The use of such images inherently violates WP:OR, and it should be explicitly worded in policy. Elestrophe (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support enforcing a ban on faked and tampered images. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on the OR concerns raised above, and for clearer alignment between AIGI and AIUPSCALE.--Trystan (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The extra information in AI upscaled images comes from the biases and preconceptions of the AI model, which is not a reliable source. Readers are better informed by what the original image looks like, not by what an upscaler thinks it should look like. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regarding the point that the nom makes about the quality of original images, it is in fact the case that the worse the quality of the original image is the more the AI will have to make up details to get (what presumably the prompter) thinks is an adequate quality. It should go without saying that the ~~point of images on Wikipedia is primarily one of decoration~~ point of images on Wikipedia is not primarily one of decoration. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the opposite of that? Images on Wikipedia are not primarily for decoration. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It should have said "not" decorative. Apologies, for any confusion Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An awful lot of the images placed in articles are purely decorative. Donald Albury 23:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for the reasons above and also because we should have as few contradictions and misalignments in our guidelines as possible. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support indefinite ban on AI-upscaled images, regarding the quality and texture of images. This violates MOS:IMAGE, and Wikimedia Commons should further discuss regarding about this. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a date preference option for 12-hour time formatting

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T7649

it's baffling to me that there's not a 12-hour time format option, even though there's an option for MM/DD/YYYY formatting for the year, and more countries have 12-hour clocks than those that use MM/DD/YYYY -jakeyounglol (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakeyounglol: I don't think this is ready for a proposal for here on the English Wikipedia. If you would like this feature to be available as a software preference, you may follow up at phab:T7649. There are some user scripts (in Wikipedia:User scripts/List) that do this, however their maintainers are long inactive. If a new maintainer would like to step forward they could propose a Wikipedia:Gadget to make this an opt-in feature for all users. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why 24 hour clock is used on Wikipedia. Its because we use UTC due to the fact people are editing Wikipedia from around the world, and its much easier to use UTC time with 24 hour clock as 24 hour is more international. 12 hour clock (at least when displayed) is only really common in the US so its false that most countries use 12 hour clock. As someone from the UK, I have all my devices set to 24 hour clock, and use UTC since that applies during the winter and its only an hour ahead during the summer.

But anyway, scripts are there to use 12 hour time, and also to adjust signatures to your time zone, such as WP:Comments in Local Time. JuniperChill (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? 12 hour time is not an Americanism. No one in the UK says "want to meet up for dinner at 20?" 206.83.102.99 (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ip-editor, spoken language is not the same as written language. I checked random articles at the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/aug/04/one-giant-leap-for-bettongs-released-into-sanctuary-as-wildlife-conservancy-aims-to-operate-on-5-of-australia "17:00 CEST" and BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9r4q99g4o "between 22:40 GMT and 23:05 GMT". Wikipedia uses written language, not spoken language. Lova Falk (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new "opt out of receiving automated messages" option

I'm getting tired of having to de-spam my talk page. I don't want to see deletion warnings and get these messages. I asked before and was basically told that I would have to put up with it. Not good enough. Can you please create something and install it as an option in preferences where you can prevent automated messages being delivered to your talk page? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we probably create a template which is recognised by twinkle to avoid auto placements? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not getting "automated" messages from the system. You are getting revisions published by other people. A "preferences" isn't going to be a fix for this. You could try {{nobots}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Twinkle respect {{nobots}}? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It hopefully doesn't and I don't know if it would be a good idea modifying Twinkle to support it. Some notices, including the kind that Dr. Blofeld is opposed to, are necessary for the functioning of the project. When editors open certain discussions, they are often required (AN/I), should (CSD, PROD), or are encouraged (AfD) to leave user talk page notices. If editors could opt out of Twinkle notices like [26] or [27], the deletion nominator could be unfairly accused of not giving the required user notice. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of no bots, what if we have a similar template for afd, csd, prod notifications only? If that is found on the talk page of the creator, then I don't think the nominator can be wrongly accused. Of course ANI ones are sent in any case, due to the mandate by previous consensus. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 01:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like {{bots}} already takes parameters for AfD and PROD notices. I don't see anything in Twinkle documentation about it, though. @Dr. Blofeld: try configuring it on your talk page according to § Message notification opt out and see if it helps. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have added to my talk page. But I also want twinkle messages blocked which seem to be responsible for a lot. I suggest something which updates the prod notice if on a twinkle blacklist which alerts the deleting admin. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle is just a client side script, revisions made using that script are the responsibility of the person publishing the revision - it says so right on the big banner describing the script. While bot edits are also the responsibility of the bot operator, they may be automated by said operator. Those could be subject to complying with nobots. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Twinkle seems to be responsible for a lot of the messages I get. I want something which prevents my talk page getting them. I suggest if Twinkle is blocked from user talk pages then something is modified to the prod template on the article so that the deleting admin knows the editor has opted out. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, other editors are responsible for these revisions, they are choosing to send these messages. When using that Twinkle script in its default configuration the editor is asked if they should notify the page creator when nominating a page for deletion. Policies such as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion specifically call out that nominators should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors / Notify interested projects and editors - so it seems that these editors are following best practices. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There really ought to be a function in which editors can opt out of receiving Twinkle notices though, they are a form of automation too and part of the ongoing problem. If we had a list of editors who opt out of receiving Twinkle messages which was known to Twinkle users and deleting admins there is a way around this if they are able to recognize why I didn't get a message. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But, if a user opts out of receiving Twinkle notices, I think they would also be opting out of the right to receive notices at all. If editors prodding articles or nominating pages for deletion have to manually place notices to other editors that have opted out of receiving Twinkle notices, that is just creating more work for the same results. I propose that editors that have opted out of receiving Twinkle notices would not have grounds for a complaint that they were not notified about prods and XfDs when notices were sent by Twinkle. Donald Albury 15:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This. Perhaps Category:Wikipedia users who prefer not to receive notices of deletion discussions or the like? With the caveat that if someone still send you a notice it's not their fault they didn't notice you were in the category. Then you could ask script developers to look for it and skip such notices. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who opt out of template messages exists. I have no idea whether it was actually ever used. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_44#h-Notification_opt_outs-2021-04-03T19:18:00.000Z Polygnotus (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support that Donald, and that would be laid out as one of the conditions for agreeing to it, no complaints later. Though I would remove "prefer" though Xao, as that implies optional if you're messaged. Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of receiving Twinkle notices would be my suggesion, and for Twinkle users, conditions of use to avoid and respect those who don't want the messages. No admin can complain about an editor not being given a warning then if they are on that list. If it is Pppery, it's not enforced! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 03:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery or Category:Wikipedians who opt out of template messages not work? Polygnotus (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note the This category is not yet implemented.. I think Twinkle should just handle {{bots|optout=afd,prod}} etc. rather than using a redundant and less specific category. See but they should be software-neutral and should not have Twinkle in their name at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 44 § Notification opt outs. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Leonard Then maybe the category should be deleted. Polygnotus (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done after the Twinkle maintainers implement some solution. If they choose to use {{bots}}, then every user's categorization can be silently switched to the right syntax and the category deleted afterward. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we do something about this, please also consider making it apply to Category:Deceased Wikipedians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and move all pages beginning with Wikipedia:Naming conventions from Naming conventions (X) to Article titles (X)

Per a successful RM on January 30, 2010, Wikipedia:Naming conventionsWikipedia:Naming conventions was renamed and moved to Wikipedia:Article titles on February 6, 2010. Using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (X) is unnecessary, pointless, and inconsistent. Using Wikipedia:Article titles (X) would be consistent with Wikipedia:Article titles and better in my opinion. 2600:1700:6180:6290:A5FD:F285:F94E:D195 (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely opposed, BUT… This needs care. Yes, many of these pages are indeed “article titling” guidelines (ie focused on article titles). HOWEVER, some are not (and focus on how to present names in running text) … AND, some are a mix of both (so would need further discussion). Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Content contradictory to other language versions

Hello,

I am the starter of this project. I would like to revive it. Kind regards Sarcelles (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were essentially the only editor of the page and it has almost no inbound links, so I think it would be fine for you to move it to userspace now, fully overhaul it, and when it's up-to-date, propose moving it back to the Wikipedia namespace. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures of living people

The option to include a signature should only be available when a death date is provided.

H signature i team, 67.1.248.11 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed to some degree on WP:SLP. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain why we display any person’s signature … even those of a deceased person? It does not strike me as being encyclopedic information.

That question asked… given the potential for identity theft, I would agree that there is a significant privacy issue here. We should never display the signature of a living person… even when sourced to reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that rule. Times change. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm… I have looked into this a bit, and OK - there are a few situations where a signature is encyclopedic (and displaying an image of the signature is appropriate) … John Handcock’s signature on the US Declaration of Independence is a good example. But those are extremely rare circumstances (and can be allowed on an individual basis per WP:IAR). Those don’t change my opinion that we should never display the signature of a living person. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a signature is encyclopedically relevant is one question. Whether it is a privacy/identity theft issue is another. I think it is clearly not a privacy/identity theft issue. Look at the people for whom Wikipedia has signatures. Heads of state and of government regularly put their signatures on public documents which are promulgated in their names. If we took your position seriously, we couldn't display signed copies of laws. In most countries, you will find signatures printed on paper money. Celebrities sign their name onto whatever people give them and often sell products with their signatures on them. This isn't a privacy issue. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need clarification on precisely what we are talking about. Are we discussing:

1) an image of something that happens to include a signature (such as a news photo of a politician holding up a law he just signed, or an image of currency).

2) an image of the signature itself.

I was assuming we were discussing the latter. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it were really a privacy issue, how could File:Proclamation 9570.pdf (or many other PDFs of signed proclamations and laws) be OK, but the signature included within it not OK? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is not an image of the signature, it is an image of the proclamation that happens to contain the signature. That said, would not use that image anyway. The encyclopedic value is the text, and we don’t need an image for that. To illustrate an article, I would use an image of the signing ceremony, not an image of the document itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a privacy/security problem for bad actors to see your signature at all, then it is a privacy/security problem for bad actors to see your signature even when it is just a small part of a larger, "encyclopedic" thing.

If we begin with the belief that a bad actor wants to copy someone's signature, then "an image of something that happens to include a signature" is just as risky as "an image of the signature itself" (assuming similar image resolution). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

given the potential for identity theft can you provide an example of a notable figure having their identity stolen purely based on reproductions of available signatures? I am having trouble understanding this as an attack vector for identity theft. Nearly all celebrities, sports figures, politicians, authors, etc. sign their autographs upon request. If this was something that could be leveraged against them, I fail to see why it would be customary for them to do so. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Celebrities who regularly sign autographs are clearly examples where there is no privacy issue caused by displaying the signature on the Wikipedia article. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we ever include a picture of someone’s autograph? Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those of authors are certainly useful if you want to check whether some scribble in a book means it is a signed copy. For many others, expressive signatures are a part of how they style themselves. The signature of Donald Trump certainly belongs in his article. —Kusma (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On The signature of Donald Trump certainly belongs in his article, going beyond the obvious relevance of a head of state's signature in representing his executive authority, Trump's particular signature style is in the news this month for how it was artistically repurposed.^[1] Having the specific design of his signature is of actual relevance to understanding this current news story. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick note - there are 275x enwiki pages that have an image drawn from Commons:Category:20th-century signatures or Commons:Category:21st-century signatures; 215x of those are articles; 50x of those are categorised as living people. So it's not a dramatic issue numbers-wise, but it might be worth having a glance down that list to see if they're all appropriate. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might estimation might be a bit too low; there's a lot of signatures on Commons that aren't in those categories. I now not all of these are in articles (or even should be in articles), but I just added about 400ish files to the "21st-century signatures" category, just by looking through a couple other (pretty narrow) signature categories. Of course, a lot of those (even the ones in articles) don't have good provenance, so some are almost certainly fakes. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The signatures of heads of state are absolutely encyclopedic information and not invasions of privacy. For pre-photography deceased people, their handwriting is often one of the few pieces of actually first hand personal information that we have. There are living people where displaying the signature is an invasion of privacy, but this is not very common. —Kusma (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not handwriting experts, and it would be a NOR violation for us to authenticate someone’s handwriting. There is no need for us to display the signature. Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your needs may be different from those of other readers. —Kusma (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research required to include a signature in an article. Bill Clinton styled his presidential website with his signature, and accordingly it has been extracted to Commons and used in his biography. Where is the original research or handwriting authentication? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come now. Not all commons images have information of where the image is from, nor who created it, nor when (although we know it was before the date of the upload, but the day before? ten years before?). So, we don't know whether they are authentic or whether they are characteristic or whether they have changed.

Also, sure you may be able to make an argument for a particular signature in a particular article, but we should require that thought, not just slap them on. And with BLP's we always have to consider privacy, so that requires individualized determination. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Individualized determination is the status quo, the OP suggested to change that to "never", even including heads of state where there is broad consensus to include. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems doubtful. Can you point to any article conversations where such individual determination was discussed? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Individual determination of what to include in an article is the status quo for all articles unless there is a policy to the contrary. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. That may be how we hope things are done. But we know they are not. Someone sees a signature field and just fills it, likely with no serious thought about many of these issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That happens with every infobox field in every article (and much more often with things like birth dates). The relevant policies of verifiability and the BLP policy say that other editors can revert problematic additions. Seems to work fine. Can you point to any articles where someone sees a signature field and just fills it and the BRD process has then failed to remove an unsourced BLP signature? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I take it you can't point to any discussion I requested. Which likely means that serious consideration of issues does not really occur. Indeed, I have never seen such serious explicit consideration occur on any article. Nonetheless, in some areas like WP:ABOUTSELF we list considerations for editors to actively consider, and this area might be a good place to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If something is original research or unsourced in an article then it can be removed, that's not at question here and I'm confused why you think I am supporting inclusion of unsourced information in BLPs. The proposal above is to remove all signatures from all living people. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an RfC, it is a conversation. So, let's discuss if restrictions/guidance should be written down. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is VP/PR, the proposal was "no signatures in BLPs", with an additional claim that they are all inherently original research, and I am refuting this claim and opposing the proposal. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to say the same thing again. Move on, and get into whether guidance should be written down, please. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my opposing the proposal is unclear about whether guidance should be written down? This is VP/PR, it is the onus of the proposers to have a proposal for discussion. I have repeatedly asked for examples of unverifiable signatures being an issue and received nothing, so I cannot concoct a proposal for a seemingly nonexistent issue and should not be expected to write guidance for an idea I oppose. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we already have suggested agreement on some considerations: evidenced authenticity of the signature; privacy for BLPs (which may vary from subject to subject); case for encyclopedic value for this signature. More difficult are whether the imaged signature is actually representative, and perhaps most difficult, whether it has changed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

evidenced authenticity of the signature see WP:V, "Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable."
privacy for BLPs see WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
case for encyclopedic value for this signature see MOS:IMAGEREL, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."
whether it has changed see WP:CAPTION, "Sometimes the date of the image is important"

Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know those policies/guidelines, the issue here is whether we need explicit written application to signatures. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is a typical infobox problem, not really a problem with signatures. We should be much more aggressive in removing unsourced content from infoboxes, and that includes unverifiable signatures. Signatures are usually less contentious than birthdates though (many BLPs fight hard to hide their actual age). Also, not every field in every infobox should be filled, again including signatures that are not relevant, for example those of random non-celebrity living scientists. —Kusma (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is in larger part. But I think we also write down what people should consider in the writing infoboxes, don't we? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum we should expect some sourcing to support inclusion of a signature. If a source publishes it, or mentions it, then it could be due for inclusion, and if it generates such discussion in sources then it’s unlikely to be very private.

A signature has to be verifiable; an anonymous upload from Commons really isn’t good enough. We shouldn’t be seeking out signatures just to round out the infobox, but when they are due, the bottom of the infobox seems a fine place to put them.

As for the privacy interest, in general I don’t see one. Many signatures will have been published intentionally as part of personal branding. In fact, without sources that justify inclusion, we should probably avoid such signatures simply so that we do not participate in that personal branding.

The use of signatures for security purposes is probably at an all time low. If we insist on sourcing, then signatures included here will already be available elsewhere, so I don’t think (re-)publishing them creates any material risk for the subject. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, perhaps 'Do not generally place personal signatures in an infobox or elsewhere. Unless:

1) It can be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source;

2) It has encyclopedic purpose for that article subject (eg. DUE);

3) It is authentic;

4) It appears the same or closely similar to other published signatures of the subject;

5) Remember to consider any BLP privacy issues on an individual basis.

Or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds mostly redundant. The points you seem to be aiming for are:

We're reasonably certain that this what the person's signature actually looked like (citations, authenticity, similarity).
The common-sense reasons to include it exceed any common-sense reasons to exclude it.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, although we I think we know by now that appeal to "common sense" is not much of any guidance. Indeed, perhaps the only reason for guidance, at all, is to guide common sense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well said.

~~COMMON~~ REASON

This user believes that "common sense" is a worthless delusion and prefers to argue using reason.

―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I just removed the signature from the article for the current Belgian king last week ([28]), I would support the removal of all signature fields from infoboxes to at the very least diminish this problem. For those cases where the signature is verified, unproblematic, and important enough to be included, it can be added outside the infobox. But it shouldn't be a default field. Fram (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That might take care of most the problems. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how you slice it, it's going to take a widely-advertised RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And in the spirit of RFCBEFORE, any thoughts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to absorb here and I'm still thinking about it. I don't think there's a one size fits all solution. Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be part of the infobox for heads of state and similar at the least. I fully agree that we should expect verifiability via proper sourcing. But we should push back on attempts to outlaw signatures. It is useful to show that Anna Blackburne, who was baptised "Anne", really signed her name as "Anna". I have no clue what Andrew Planta looked like; his signature is the most personal thing I could find about him, so I would really like to include it. —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's valuable on a case by case basis, so I would oppose that. For many writers it is just as if not more relevant as a photo of the person so it should go in the infobox, I would strongly oppose its removal. With people whose careers are wholly unrelated to politics, autograph signing, or writing, it is probably not very useful, but in those areas we have a whole lot of articles! I agree we should be careful about BLP stuff here, but we have a billion more BLP violation unsourced birth dates in infoboxes and we don't remove the birth date field. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The need for editors who know what they're doing (Group A) to have the freedom to apply their case-by-case judgment.
The need to protect the encyclopedia from editors who don't (Group B).

Bright-line rules hinder Group A and help Group B. I believe that most B's will follow bright-line rules if they know they exist. Given the length of the learning curve and the amount of personal commitment required to transition from Group B to Group A, I posit that Group B will always outnumber Group A. It follows that there will never be enough A's to counter the B's. That tends to favor bright-line rules, even with some loss of freedom and flexibility. </meta> ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But what about signatures is such a unique example of this? The Group A/B division you describe is common to all aspects of all BLPs. The bright-line rule already exists: the BLP policy. I see no reason to have a rule specific to this very small issue (signatures are in approx. 300 articles per above estimate) while we treat things like birth dates, etc. under the standard BLP procedures for poorly-sourced content. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But what about signatures is such a unique example of this? Nothing. That's why I flagged it as <meta>. I can't help myself, I instinctively look at larger issues and underlying causes, since that's where we get the greatest returns on our discussion investments. I'm just a <meta> kind of guy.

That said, it doesn't need to be unique to this immediate issue to apply the concept here. Due to the general resistance to tackling larger issues and underlying causes, this is actually the only practical way to make any progress at all on the larger issues—one smaller issue at a time. Evolution, not revolution. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does a rule inhibit experienced editors if they are already doing the analysis? But perhaps the actual situation is some experienced editors are not doing the analysis of the issues raised above, at all, instead relying on a shiboleth, that 'all signatures matter, somehow'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In most biographical articles, whether the subject is living or dead, there's probably very little value to including their signature. In a small number of cases (the examples that come to mind immediately are visual artists or politicians) there is genuine encyclopedic value to including the signature. I don't see how the death or otherwise of the subject has a bearing on it. As several people have pointed out already, if a signature is well-attested enough to be genuinely relevant for inclusion, there's limited concern for identity theft: the signature is already in the public domain and a sufficiently determined identity thief will presumably already know it. Given the small number of signatures in articles, I'm not sure that there's any great need to write a policy specifically regarding signatures: is there a problem that needs solving here which cannot be handled with reference to our existing policies? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is there a problem that needs solving here which cannot be handled with reference to our existing policies? Other than the one I described? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I don't see that creating more and more tiny rules which affect only a handful of articles will in fact solve the problem you describe: on the contrary IME the intimidating size of Wikipedia's ruleset is one of the primary reasons that most people do not transition to being editors who know what they are doing.

Even if we accept that writing more and more specific bright-line rules is in general a helpful solution to the problem you describe, I'm still not seeing any problem here. Granting for the sake of argument that editors who are capable of following bright-line rules but not applying editorial judgement are a problem, and that we should solve this problem by writing more and more bright-line rules: what evidence is there that signature inclusion or lack thereof is an area in which those editors are causing problems, which would be solved by such a bright-line rule? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures are encyclopedically and personally defining (see John Hancock, Babe Ruth, Donald Trump, etc.) for both living and deceased individuals. People usually identify their signatures as their personal mark, thus a defining characteristic. Prefer to Keep all English Wikipedia signatures, which are usually only presented in infoboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that having a signature is “defining”… everyone has a signature.

The issue is whether a specific person’s signature is noteworthy enough for Wikipedia to display it. That is a DUE/UNDUE question, and is determined by reference to reliable sources. If reliable sources discuss a person’s signature (in reasonable depth), then it is DUE for WP to discuss (and display) that person’s signature. Otherwise it is simply trivia. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and everyone has a face. It is useful to include for the same reason (perhaps the word is "representative" rather than definining). For the same reason it is ludicrous to suggest that including someone's photo would ever be "undue", for people who write. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures are certainly not Wikipedia:Defining. At any rate, you seem to be saying that they must be included, regardless of the circumstances ("all Wikipedia signatures" without reference to sourcing), which seems untenable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
without reference to sourcing I don't think you should assume Randy Kryn is making an argument in favor of unsourced inclusions in biographies. It should go without saying that unsourced and poorly-sourced biographical details can be removed from articles. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He did not seem to limit it with his argument that all signatures in Wikipedia are defining. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can safely assume other editors are not in favor of abolishing the verifiability policy unless they explicitly say so. Claiming Randy is calling for unsourced signature inclusion as mandatory (must) is a very strange reading of his comment. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have a cramped view of of the value of sources. Sources go to more than to just verifiability. So no, I was not referring to just verifiability. Indeed, in context, I was trying to understand an argument that suggested all signatures are encyclopedically defining. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Safdar, Khadeeja; Palazzolo, Joe (2025-07-17). "Jeffrey Epstein's friends sent him bawdy letters for a 50th birthday album. One was from Donald Trump". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-07-17. The letter bearing Trump's name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman's breasts, and the future president's signature is a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

WP:Wikiproject Original Research

Sorry, but that is not happening based on the comments of users below. Also, it seems highly borderline to violating Wikipedia:No original research, which is a basic content policy. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A dedicated team of people that will conduct original research, participants have to be an expert in their field. Whatever the result is can be used as a citation. When concerning media and politics, this becomes a formal debate where the person must argue for their side, whoever wins that position is set in place. This would help with WP:NPOV issues concerning conservative political figures, which are often called far-right even though they may exhibit left wing to regular right wing views. 192.184.146.53 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many many places, including in media and politics, for dedicated experts to produce materials, about conservative political figures or otherwise. There is not much value add for any such person to be producing such novel content in a WikiProject, and that is putting aside that Wikipedia is not a suitable place to produce novel research. CMD (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is a university. I think we've enough on our plate without getting into that business. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Update messagebox module with new Codex icons

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the icons in the message box module be updated from the current Ambox ones to the Codex ones? 13:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Module talk:Message box § c-Waddie96-20250810120600-Update icons to Codex

Proposal to update the icons in Module:Message box/configuration from the current Ambox ones, to the new icons from Codex Design System for Wikimedia. (See below.)

The swops I'm recommending

ambox.speedy .delete
ambox.content
ambox.style Not Codex, but is the OOUI for style icon...
ambox.notice
Option 2 ambox.notice

The UI on Wikipedia employs Codex components/design tokens/icons (see Special:Version) such as the message system with the Message component. These messages employ CSS and JavaScript, which we can't do yet in wikitext, see T401186. Instead, the icons have to be uploaded to Commons and used from there, as was the case with OOjs/OOUI on other wikis. We missed the 2019 update to OOUI icons unlike MediaWiki's mw:Module:Message box/configuration.

The license for Codex icons is MIT license, the entire package is GNU Public License. I believe the license might be an issue, as I was informed by @Redrose64 that MOS:PDI states one cannot remove image link= for attribution reasons, the only mention of this is this line:

For CC BY-SA, GFDL, or similarly licensed images, blank |alt= and |link= attributes should not be used. It is Wikipedia's policy to link those images for attribution...

Contrary to that point, Codex is already widely implemented on wikipedia.org: Codex icons and its components are used extensively in the Wikimedia ecosystem as its default UI system. So it makes me wonder if GPL is considered similarly licensed images. I don't see us able to maintain a consistent style and appearance (one of Wikimedia's architecture/guiding principles) with the Wikimedia sister projects, if we don't implement this workaround until the Codex-Wikitext extension (T357463) is released. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Codex icons)

Oppose No actual problem is being solved here, just pointless style changes for the sake of style changes. The current icons are fine. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Style changes are a necessary part of wiki, in order to modernise. For instance, the padlocks for protection changed in order to fit the theme of the wiki better. This is another example of that. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that was a good idea either. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that style changes are pointless, and that no problem is being solved when visual appearance is improved. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note the padlock discussion was about images displayed at 20×20px and significantly depended on changing from using color as the only distinction to including symbols as well for improved accessibility. This discussion relates to images displayed at 40×40px where the existing icons already differ significantly in shape (more so than the proposed replacements!) and are supplemental to the text of the box itself. Anomie ⚔ 16:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: consistency is always a good thing, and it's always a good idea to match what MediaWiki's doing. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 17:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pppery. It's also unclear what File:Merge-split-transwiki default.svg is replacing or being replaced by given it is the same icon used for requested moves currently. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenshi Hinanawi: It's not replacing anything. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't see any value in including it here when discussing changing icons between Codex and existing icons. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it for your convenience, but I thought it important to point out as at my edit request I would like to make it clear that those icons were to remain the same and not be replaced with any other ones. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed it, as you could see it was in the lower quadrant as simply carried over as it already exists in its latest format. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – it ain't broke. The new icons are also hard to interpret and, well, ugly, as the broom doesn't look like a broom at all, and the other ones follow the hideous trend of having icons look more and more like letters. Let's not make things more complicated for our readers to understand. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the format brush from MS Word, which is just as a good as a broom. In fact I personally abhor that old motherbleeping^[Joke] broom. It may have looked good and trendy in 2005 but since my (wiki)birth it's always looked aesthetically absolutely horrible, low-contrast, and at small sizes unsightable. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the format brush from MS Word thanks, I didn't know that... and I expect many others didn't either. We shouldn't expect our readers to know the icons from a word processor. Also, a brush is not a broom. That looks like a paintbrush. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the Word format brush, because the paintbrush has the same although less specific connotations either way. ambox.style is for stylistic issues. Brooms shift that meaning to "cleaning up the lint", while a paintbrush continues the meaning of "lick of paint" or "dressing it up", which is how style tags are resolved. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with the horrible, low-contrast, and at small sizes unsightable waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally, I find these new icons ugly and would rather keep the existing ones. ~~Not going to fight over that though.~~
As far as the license goes, the Expat (MIT) license states The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. For uploaded images, we've interpreted this as meaning that we need the link to the file description page where the notices are "included". The CC BY-SA license has similar language for notices about copyright, license, and attribution. Images included in the software may not be subject to those terms in the same way, since "all copies" might be taken to refer to the distribution of the software as a whole rather than the rendered HTML. Find a lawyer to try to figure that out. Anomie ⚔ 20:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although most of those seem like they'd probably be {{PD-simple}} anyway. The stylized paintbrush is the only one that's not a plain shape with a single text character on it. Anomie ⚔ 21:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the paintbrush licensing would be a major issue. However, I would expect WMF legal to somehow square it in the end, given the broom icon was created by the WMF itself and for a project to display amboxes on mobile as indicated by the broom image's source field. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After giving it more thought, switching to "oppose" as I find the new icons to be distractingly harsh and soulless. They might be ok at small sizes, but 40×40px in amboxes is not that. Anomie ⚔ 13:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, considering how board this is, is it worth making into an RfC? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 21:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I'd Template:Centralized discussion it even. And notify the users who previously discussed a similar discussion from @Awesome Aasim; to lazy to find the list right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't open the RfC... I didn't think it was at that stage yet either. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, what matrix said, I'm not a fan of the current iconset since it makes things needlessly busy. -- Sohom (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If feasible, I have Strong Support in Vector 2022 only: V22 uses the Codex design system. I get that a lot of people hate that skin in general too because it wain't broke, but I'm fairly sure these people would not be using Vector 2022. Technical musings: This might be feasible if we output both images and do a conditional-CSS thing to hide one of them, and unlike JS approaches loading CSS will block the display instead of creating a content flash. For when CSS doesn't load, the page would already look broken enough anyways.
Otherwise, I support the original proposal We've had a flat site interface design for a very long time; the time to prevent that has long passed. Now, most of our users do see the new flat design. And unlike the last flat-design proposal, there's no possibility for confusion of the content and notice icon among colorblind users (unless we go with Option 2, which I oppose) and the subtle improvements between the OOUI and Codex circle symbols make it actually look good now. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Was there ever really a "time to prevent that"? Paid designers are going to make trendy new designs whether we want them to or not, and their work falls under WP:CONEXCEPT unless they give us the option or we stage a major revolt. Anomie ⚔ 12:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The time to prevent that was Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022), WP:RBV22, and the lead-up to the rollout before those. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  There's a whole lot more going on there than "flat design". Discussion there seems to have been far more concerned with the functionality changes. Anomie ⚔ 16:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support but note that Codex icons are identical to OOUI. There are several reasons behind this including supporting dark mode, ensuring visual consistency and improving accessibility. I came up with this list a while ago to identify icons that can be replaced with flat design with little problem.

I'd replace with but otherwise everything else looks good. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 04:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the former is more readable. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Laughably bad. No reason given for change other than ILIKEIT and a claim that enwiki should change its style to match some other style (why not the reverse?). Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aasim. Consistency is good and the new icons look more modern. WP:BROKE is an unconvincing argument given the low effort that is required to make these changes. Sam Walton (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the broom change, that new icon is clearly a paintbrush, which brings to mind very different connotations. CMD (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pppery. We shouldn't radically change appearances without having demonstrated a real benefit. I don't see how icons that blend into text are a benefit -- they are harder to notice and can be skimmed over easier. They're less 'in your face', which is what we want from warning notices. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency and style reason. WP:BROKE isn't a good argument if there is a specific issue with the existing icons (in this case, a striking lack of consistency with the surrounding MediaWiki interface). The first option for ambox.notice is preferable as it is closer to the original intent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the broom being replaced by a paintbrush, I agree that it is a major change in meaning that might not be ideal, and would prefer having a broom icon in a matching style instead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never noticed the ambiguous meaning. It looked like a broom to me. Must this be another ambiguous image illusion? Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support most, oppose broom. Whatever that is, it's not a broom. But otherwise, consistency is good. More generally, even if nothing is broken, changing icons every 10 years or so helps prevent a website from looking too stale, even if the change is totally cosmetic. The likes of Apple and Google make sure to include some pointless style changes so you can "tell" that this is the latest version of IOS or Android. While we aren't a business, we also don't want to be TOO boringly consistent in style. SnowFire (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I support switching to Codex when the changes are small, such as in this case, where the icons basically look the same. The whole point of having a design system such as Codex is to get everything on the website to have a unified look, which is more professional and is (usually) easier for maintenance purposes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Theres nothing wrong with the current icons. And this proposal doesn't account for maintenance templates that don't use these icons such as {{more citations needed}} and {{update}}. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EDFB:7835:FC79:242D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't want the modernization of icons, which may somewhat be unclear, especially the broom one. We don't need consistencies in icons especially in maintenance templates. Consider use the old icons. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Codex icons function better in dark mode. Neutral on the broom change since in the new icon isn't Codex. – SD0001 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support most, oppose broom WP:ILIKEIT arguments seem fine in discussing our aesthetic presentation, but beyond that, Aasim and Aaron Liu have shown that the new icons are clearer than the status quo in dark mode. Disagree with JackFromWisconsin, as the existing icons were not intentionally designed to be garish, nor would the new icons be ignored on a primarily text-based site only using black text and blue hypertext. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 06:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. Like it or not, Codex is the common design system of all Wikimedia projects so the decision to eventually standardise on it has already been made (and so IMO !votes on the basis of WP:NOTBROKEN are invalid here). Consistent style is an important part of any professional publication and we are no exception. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis of consistency as other users have pointed out, and I personally find the new icons easier to read. Note also that the mobile website already has different icons following this style, and a substantial proportion of users now view Wikipedia on mobile. novov talk edits 07:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mobile website does all sorts of really stupid stuff. Pointing at it hacking in different, often poorer icons doesn't seem like a good argument to me. Anomie ⚔ 10:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed icons are all worse — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Codex icons)

I think ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT are going to be themes in this discussion. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT really apply to deletion discussions mostly but they are also bad arguments for other kinds of discussions. I brought up my reasons for preferring it including dark mode compatibility, consistency with other aspects of Wikipedia (including the protection icons), and accessibility (although I did suggest one change). Arguments on principles on visual design are probably going to be themes similar to the Vector 2022 RfCs. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 05:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra, Pppery, and Tenshi Hinanawi: my strongest critique would be that much of the discussion relies on subjective perception and analogy rather than user research or accessibility testing.
I'm also just going to point out the fallacies in the invalid construction of your argument as comments expressing support or opposition if they are going to represent the community’s position should surely be reasonably substantiated with relevant reasoning, evidence, or examples.
- Status quo bias: assumes that because something currently works (or isn’t perceived as broken), it shouldn’t be changed — without addressing whether improvement might be possible or beneficial.
- Subjective aesthetic judgment without objective criteria: While personal preferences are valid in casual conversation, as arguments they are weak unless tied to objective usability, accessibility, or design standards.
- Personal dislike: This is an ad hominem toward the design, not the proposal. The focus shifts to personal feelings rather than the proposal's functional merits.
- False analogy: like the format brush from MS Word comparison assumes visual similarity equals functional equivalence, without establishing that readers will interpret the icon the same way
- Overgeneralisation: We shouldn’t expect our readers to know the icons from a word processor. This may or may not be true, but it’s stated as a certainty without evidence of actual reader familiarity. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existing designs are clear and easily identifiable, whereas the new Codex designs are thinner and can be confused. Accessibility needs to be taken into account here, not just ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this. The new icons are less accessible; it is your argument that amounts to ILIKEIT. By definition flat designs with less information are more likely to be confusing, and they should be avoided. Why not have the cleanup icon be File:Broom (PSF).jpg, perhaps rotated 45°? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how they are more easily confused with each other. The key to distinguishing between icons is their differences, not their total size. The added skeumorphic lighting in the Tango icons cancel out as that's something all of them have.
I don't see how .content and .notice are any less distinguishable; they have the same amount of differences: color, "direction" of symbol, and an alteration to make it clear the i is a letter. You could I guess say the serif is bolder than just shortening the height but they're already far past the differentiation-baseline for me to dent my subjective differentiation index. Same thing goes for the speedy icon's white inside vs no white inside. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the new icons are less accessible. What I do know is that the original icons don't look good in dark mode. See this as an example:

Status quo:

Light mode	Dark mode

Codex:

Light mode	Dark mode

OOUI:

Light mode	Dark mode

Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the message boxes will likely have a the -subtle series of background colors instead of just outright light or night. It's subtly different.

Light mode	Dark mode
Tango (Status quo) Codex (Proposed)	Tango (Status quo) Codex (Proposed)

Aaron Liu (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but putting the icons in black background is incorrect, they actually flip to white on skin-invert on MediaWiki.org waddie96 ★ (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't, or at least the tags at mw:Extension:Graph don't. The boxes here and there do not have the skin-invert class and the current icons don't get inverted in dark mode either. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in dark mode and all the icons under #The swops I'm recommending have light backgrounds. As do all the examples above in both the light and dark mode columns. CMD (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, that doesn't happen even logged-out for me in the light/dark comparisons; they only happen in the gallery from Waddie for me. If you click on Extension:Graph and enable dark mode, does the same thing happen? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the default dark mode gadget. In light mode there is no square around the Dark mode column, but it's there in actual dark mode. CMD (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "default gadget". I was talking about Vector 2022's built-in dark mode from the appearance menu, which looks like an incognito icon when hidden. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Dark mode (gadget). Interesting that it functions differently to the appearance menu version. CMD (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't flip, even though IMHO they should. This is because MW renders SVG icons in the backend and then throws out a simple PNG image that is supposed to be appropriately scaled. It would be better to instead have the SVG code spat out to render in the frontend, then stuff like changing the color based on the current theme can work. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have the cleanup icon be: @Cremastra As always, your argument ~~synthesis is derogoratory and your 'discussions' are 'win' or 'lose' mentality—~~not constructive. waddie96 ★ (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Waddie96 What‽ That was uncalled for and I do not see your reasoning. I would advise you strike this WP:personal attack and focus on the arguments instead. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay waddie96 ★ (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have the cleanup icon be File:Broom (PSF).jpg

I wanted to add on to the icon you recommended for the "broom".

First, it is grayscale, not colored in. Second, it becomes invisible in dark mode. I am pretty sure the second one can be fixed by inverting the broom, but it does not solve the first problem. This is not being displayed on a grayscale CRT, it is being displayed on a variety of screens from television sets (because yes some people hook their computer to their 4K OLED TV) to HDR monitors to smartphone screens. It should look good on almost all of them. And all the problems as well with the image not being an SVG.

Here is how that icon looks like for the record: . Not good. Even rotating it 45 degrees doesn't really fix the issue:
Aasim (話す（はなす）) 07:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~The swops I'm recommending. What's a swop? Is that a typo for swap?~~ –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a typo, but a valid British English spelling variation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae Why is this an insult competition? Are most the readers in this discussion from the USA? waddie96 ★ (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see reason to not Wikipedia:Assume good faith of Novem simply not knowing that spelling here. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and struck my comment. Should have googled first to see if this was ENGVAR. Thanks for letting me know. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few people above are mentioning "consistency with the MediaWiki interface", by which I'm guessing they specifically mean Vector2022. Personally, I really don't see it. Looking at some random pages in a private-browsing window, I see a whole lot of nothing to be consistent with other than the Wikipedia logo in the corner, which these new icons don't match, and whatever we have in the articles themselves, which these new icons don't really match either. I guess "whole lot of nothing" kind of goes with "harsh and soulless", which is the vibe I get from the new codex icons. Anomie ⚔ 22:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a triple-dot menu, the entire top bar, the sticky top bar and user dropdown (only accessible when logged-in for some reason), everything to do with discussion subscriptions, everything to do with notifications, Recent Changes/the Watchlist, the graphic for empty talk pages and editing onboarding, the mentor dashboard, newcomer homepage.... There's also built-in dialog boxes somewhere, beyond the reference previews gadget we have. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, a bunch of stuff that only shows up when logged in, and changing icons to match logged-in Vector2022 would cause them to mismatch for logged-in users of classic Vector, Monobook, and other skins. I can't say I find that terribly convincing. Anomie ⚔ 13:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, as a classic Vector user, I also have Codex/OOUI icons in the interface, like the notification icons. If anything, that change is also an improvement for us. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I look in classic Vector, I see icons that are less harsh than these. If only because they're not 40×40px. Anomie ⚔ 14:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm surprised that no one has commented on what I said about making them only show on V22. Secondly, a quarter of this shows when logged out too. In fact, the Codex warning sign for "You are not logged in" only shows up for logged out users. It's also in all of the editing interfaces. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO embedding both and hiding one or the other with CSS is not a very clean solution. Looking at various other places you mention, I again find that 20×20px or smaller icons have a different impact compared to 40×40px ambox icons. I also find the Codex warning sign for "You are not logged in" is oddly truncated, FYI. Anomie ⚔ 14:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a bug, error messages from Codex have truncated icons too. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Codex icons getting cut off is probably phab:T398529. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of a brush or a broom, maybe we could go for a color version of the more inviting (File:Codex icon edit.svg), to indicate issues that editors can solve?
Other ones I like are (a generic tag icon) or (yes, it's officially the recent changes icon, but simple icons like this are very polysemic). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pings (Codex icons)

From the original padlock discussion

User:SoWhy User:John Cline User:Boing! said Zebedee User:Amorymeltzer User:Frayae User:Rehman User:MarginalCost User:SemiHypercube User:Sandstein User:Ferret User:Pkbwcgs User:Funplussmart User:Zchrykng User:Ammarpad User:Alsee User:Jayron32 User:Barkeep49 User:Feminist User:JC7V7DC5768 User:Wugapodes User:Ruslik0 User:Headbomb User:Reywas92 User:Tazerdadog User:Mandruss User:Mz7 User:Ajpolino User:ElHef User:GermanJoe User:Cabayi User:Cthomas3 User:Tom (LT) User:Spintendo User:Teratix User:Abelmoschus Esculentus User:L235 User:weegaweek User:MichaelMaggs User:Kirbanzo User:Axisixa User:Alanscottwalker User:FenixFeather User:sp User:Thryduulf User:Elmidae User:LindsayH User:PointyOintment User:Pretended leer User:MusikAnimal User:Kudpung User:QEDK User:28bytes User:William Avery User:Theinstantmatrix User:Jonathunder User:Insertcleverphrasehere User:Ahecht User:Jéské Couriano User:De728631 User:-sche User:Patar knight User:Renata3 User:KCVelaga User:TheDragonFire300 User:Galobtter User:Ivanvector User:Tryptofish User:BrandonXLF User:CASSIOPEIA User:Dreamy Jazz User:Joshualouie711 User:Shoy User:344917661X User:pythoncoder User:Jc86035 User:Nosebagbear

FYI this section did not actually ping anyone because you have to sign your post in the same edit as you added the user names, and you can't ping more than 50 users in the same edit. I really don't think pinging 76 people was necessary here, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trout to me I guess —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 15:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for file patrolling revamp

The current state of file patrolling/NFUR review is broken at best and nonexistent at worst. We have ~162,000 files currently awaiting NFUR review, and the only reason there aren't more is because there's no edit filter preventing users from added |image has rationale=yes to the license tag, so people can just do it anyway which defeats the point. Plus, there's no system to review free media, so copyright violations posing as free media slip through the cracks. Therefore, I am proposing the following changes:

Get rid of the current system of |image has rationale=yes/no, assume all current files as patrolled (we can't go back and individually review all 162k files)
Create a new right called "file patroller" (since file patrolling is a lot different to article patrolling), and require all new files to be patrolled, unless the author meets conditions below. It can be applied for at WP:RFR if the user has knowledge of copyright, has participated in WP:FFD, etc. Admins get it by default.
Every extended confirmed user gets "file autopatrolled", which can also be applied for in WP:RFR (in exceptional circumstances where we can't wait for 30 days/500 edits, similar to the confirmed group)

This would make it a lot easier to monitor files and check for inappropriate use of WP:NFCC/copyvios by using tools like RTRC. Whilst uploading is restricted to autoconfirmed, being autoconfirmed doesn't mean you don't understand the intricacies of copyright and the fair use exemption doctrine. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 2, by "author" do you mean file uploader? isaacl (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl yes —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up! I've thought about similar ideas on the occasions that I've gone file patrolling. Before I provide any opinions, though, it's worth considering how these workflows might be technically implemented. I don't think MediaWiki currently supports splitting the patrol and autopatrol permissions by namespace, and any changes to that would need to be assessed for impacts on PageTriage. (Novem Linguae and Sohom Datta, any chance you have thoughts on this?) Autopatrol could be worked around using a bot, similar to the redirect autopatrol list.

The other issue is the apparent lack of editors who are interested in contributing to this area. Making improvements to the procedures will definitely be a step in the right direction, but it will not magically generate the community effort needed to keep a project like this running — there will need to be an organized, broader push to get this off the ground. (Kudpung, I'm sure there were similar conversations around NPP when you revamped it — do you perhaps have any suggestions on this point?) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the file namespace wouldn't be hard for PageTriage (actually I wonder if we already kinda/sorta have code that does this?) However, I think creating a separate patrol group for files is going to take a fair amount of development work and maybe some amount of WMF buy-in (tho it is not completely unfeasible). Sohom (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sohom. That was my guess as well, since something like that would mean a big change to the MediaWiki core codebase. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix, @TechnoSquirrel69: As far as I recall there was never any discussion about files, neither when I co-initiated the development of Page Curation in 2010-12 nor for any later iterations nor when I had the NPP user right created in 2016 (creating a new user group in MediaWiki and the local part of the process are fairly straightforward), so this is very much a new proposal. Copyright is a minefield for the average user - me included - so I think there is scope for a discussion particularly as I have personally had a recent brush with the |image has rationale=yes/no file policy for re-using an existing photo in an additional mainspace article on the same topic, although I am meticulous about respecting copyright issues and err on the side of caution.

Novem Linguae and Sohom Datta are certainly the best go-to people to provide the first answers to the technical questions and the cost/benefit viability of pursuing the proposal before it goes much further because it would probably mean adapting the mw:Extension:PageTriage. I will point out however, that based on the experience with actual New Page patrolling (which includes the 1,000s of redirects) , it has proven to be a huge challenge to keep the massive backlog (see chart) within acceptable parameters despite there being around 700 NPPers, less than 10% of whom are truly active. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: We did add the AfC queue to the live feed UI at Special:NewPagesFeed a couple of years ago, but that links to AfC's proprietary system and its helper script which is a local solution (or was when I last used it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that file patrolling here would require significantly less effort. Only about ~50 files get uploaded every day, and 5-10 of those are from established users we can trust. About 2-3 motivated users could easily clear that.

As for the "Is this technically possible" point, I think it's important to get consensus first, and worry about technical implementations later - we can't implement it unless we have consensus. We could always scale down to a simple template (like {{Needs patrol}}) with an edit filter to enforce it if it proves too technically costly. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 10:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: I did know about the page at Special:NewFiles. As this list exists, and as the daily number of new files is low and each file has a ' Mark this file version as patrolled ' button, setting up something locally with an edit filter should not complex. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change all "Chinese Communist Party (CCP)" references to the official name, Communist Party of China (CPC)

I've read a lot of Wikipedia articles about politics and I think they can be really helpful. However, it is undeniable that Wikipedia is dominated by liberal ideology and analysis, with a strong bias towards it. I believe Wikipedia should do more to consider outside perspectives, and a good way to do that would be using the official English name for the ruling party of the People's Republic of China, the Communist Party of China (CPC). Most articles on this wiki refer to the party using the name preferred by western media, which is incorrect and serves only to further the impact of these media outlets' ideological bias on the content of the English Wikipedia. Just because liberalism is the dominant ideology of the imperial core does not mean that liberal analysis is always correct. I would love to see more proper materialist analysis and better representation of diverse views on Wikipedia, and removing content indicative of liberal bias would definitely help us get there. Bunabyte (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a liberal vs. other ideological worldview has any real bearing on the decision to use CPC or CCP. Have you tried reading the prior discussions that we've had on English Wikipedia about this? From Talk:Chinese Communist Party: The name "Chinese Communist Party" is more commonly used by reliable sources in the English language. Consensus on the current title was reached on 23 July 2020 (see discussion). As of May 2024, there have been five failed proposals to revert this decision due to a lack of policy-based arguments (i.e. pertaining to WP:MOVE) on the part of the proposers. You should review those discussions and see whether you have any novel arguments to present. As one might say, if you have not investigated, you have no right to speak. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idea lab

Revisiting WP:INACTIVITY

Of the 7 WP:RECALL petitions so far, at least three have some concerns at least adjacent to WP:INACTIVITY - Master Jay, Gimmetrow and Night Gyr (ongoing).

Currently admins are desysopped procedurally if they haven't made any edits/admin actions for 1 year OR have made less than 100 edits in 5 years. According to WP:RESTORATION, adminship is generally restored at WP:BN unless there were 2 years without edits OR 5 years since last tool usage.

Clearly, many editors believe we need to update WP:INACTIVITY but there has been no RFCs attempted on how.

This is a preliminary RFC to ask two main questions -

Q1: Do the thresholds for procedural desysoppings ( WP:INACTIVITY ) need changing? If yes, to what?
Q2: On return from inactivity, when do they generally get the tools back? ( WP:RESTORATION )

I'm hoping this narrows solutions down sufficiently that a future yes/no proposal can gauge consensus later.

Soni (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment. This is an RFCBEFORE but it has the {{rfc}} header template. Should it be removed? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. Somehow I had misparsed RFCBefore all these years. I think it's best described as a "preliminary RFC" than RFCBefore, and should retain the RFC tag. This discussion will likely involve wide community input, even if I'm not presenting multiple options for !voting. Soni (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's not an RfC. That's not how RfCs work. It's a terrible idea to do an RfC at this stage without work shopping anything. There's no rush and adding an RfC tag, which ultimately will lead to a demand for a closure, is more of a waste of time at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly confident I have seen multiple RFCs over the years that are effectively "Let's workshop here". Therefore I believe an RFC tag is appropriate, but I may be mistaken. I have no strong feelings on an RFC tag either way, the main intent is just to ask the "Do the thresholds need changing" question. Soni (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if half of the editors say "yes increase" and the others say "yes decrease", all with equally valid arguments, twe'll have gotten precisely nowhere. It's alwaus better to have concrete proposals to !vote on IMO. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I think that if we find the community evenly divided on increase vs decrease, that the reasonable conclusion is that we're doing things just about right.

The bigger risk is a multi-way split (e.g., change rules to X, change rules to not-X, change rules to X+Y, change rules to not-Y...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a trend of being very bureaucratic about how a request for comments discussion should proceed. Yes, it's true: requests for comments are time-consuming. But so are discussions amongst a select group of people all in agreement about a certain direction, which fails to take into account broader concerns when a larger group of people are involved. We shouldn't force all discussions into one progression. Sometimes it's better to get broad input at a preliminary stage to stake out the scope of further discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And FTR, at last check, we've been running only two new RFCs per day (it was usually three new RFCs each day ~pre-pandemic). So we probably have some capacity for the occasional "unnecessary" or "premature" RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soni, thank you for stepping up and starting a discussion on this (many people have lobbied for a discussion but nobody's actually carried it out). I don't have an answer to Q2 (I don't neccesarily think an RfA should be needed, though), but the minumum edit threshold for procedural desysopings definitely needs upped, although I need to see other's opinions before forming my own on what the exact number should be. — ^EF⁵ 17:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

many people have lobbied for a discussion but nobody's actually carried it out See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 203#Admin inactivity rules workshopping from two months ago. Anomie ⚔ 11:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal was mainly centred around WP:GAMING and WP:RECALL, neither of which are the emphasis of this discussion. I do not plan to use this discussion to inform what changes, if any, RECALL should take. I do want us to get a better idea on what we want our procedural policies on desysopping to look like.

So far we have a promising idea from User:Patar knight that can probably be workshopped further. Reduce the edit count criterion altogether, and focus on how to effectively use just admin tool usage. It probably needs proper wording from someone who understands this well. Soni (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that discussion was focused on GAMING. ^EF⁵ 12:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that all three things were being discussed there. The second bullet in the initial post specifically targeted WP:INACTIVITY. You also brought in WP:RECALL from the start, and gaming has also been mentioned here (although without links to WP:GAMING yet). Anomie ⚔ 13:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that discussion led nowhere because it was not focused enough. Which is why this one mainly focuses on WP:INACTIVITY. RECALL was mentioned primarily to explain the initial context, but I very much plan for this workshopping to be centred, above all, around what our activity standards and expectations should be. Soni (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, while we both support some kind of tool usage requirement, it was Levivich who suggested removing the edit count altogether while I merely suggested a possible system for doing so. Personally, I think requiring admins to have community involvement beyond just using the tools is a good thing and would keep the edit activity requirements, which had broad community support at WP:ADMINACTIVITY2022. For exact numbers, it would probably be useful to have stats similar to what Worm That Turned did for the 2022 RFC at User:Worm That Turned/Admin activity to see what has changed since 2022, with perhaps an additional query for how back 5/10 logged admin actions go back. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the discussion I think 150 edits (#2) and fewer than five admin actions yearly (#1) would be a good compromise for Q1. ~150 yearly edits shouldn't be hard if they are active. 5 admin actions would show that admins still use, and have a need, for the toolset (although whether five admin actions is "having a need" is debatable). I also like Patar knight's idea below of using a sort of yearly "resume" of admin actions so admins can prove they are still active. — ^EF⁵ 14:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than some editors kvetching about the "unfairness" of desysops of some admins who haven't used their tools for several years, is anyone else calling for change? To those editors, I say: get over it. Being an admin is a privilege, not a right, and if you don't use it, you should lose it. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts, I think that what's missing – and what I think you might be able to supply – from these conversations is a description of the practical benefits to Wikipedia when we remove the tools from inactive admins.

Imagine that an admin reliably makes one edit per month. In five years, that will be 60 edits, and they'll fail the five-year rule. This is the rule we've set, and I'm okay with it, but how does Wikipedia benefit from having one fewer person who could take an admin action?

I think an agreed-upon idea about the benefits would help us match our rules to our goals. If we say, "Look, the principle is that completely abandoned accounts are at risk for getting hacked, and low-activity accounts are corrosive to community spirit because they make some non-admins jealous (even though very few of them would admit to that very human emotion)", then we should be able to get this settled a little more firmly. But if we don't identify (or can't agree upon) a purpose for the WP:INACTIVITY rules, then I don't think these conversations will ever stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many many many editors have already supplied rationales for inactivity rules, including the security one you cited and that those admins quickly become out of touch with community norms. The burden of persuasion here is on editors who want to change policy, not those who are fine with the status quo. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the security one, and it makes sense to me. I've seen the "out of touch" one (e.g., in this discussion).

But – are those the real reasons? Because humans often begin with "Ugh, no!" or "Obviously yes", and then later seek out rational-sounding reasons to make them look smart when they're really just dressing up their intuitive or irrational response.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone that the policy needs to be changed (or kept the same). I'm trying to figure out whether the policy achieves our goals.

Consider the idea of "admins aren't out of touch with community norms". Is that best measured as "doesn't surprise people by taking admin actions that don't match the formal, written rules"? If so, then inactive admins are fine, because they're taking no actions, and therefore no actions that disagree with the written rules. Maybe it means "if taking an action, makes the same decision as 90% of other admins would". If so, we need to get rid of some active – and IMO some of our best – admins, but most inactive admins are fine. Maybe it means "Is a person who is familiar and active, because emotionally if I have to be rejected by my community, it needs to be done by someone whom I can respect and who feels like they're really part of the community, instead of someone who feels like an outsider or an unknown person". In that case, we might want higher activity levels, or at least to tell admins to avoid emotionally laden or socially fraught admin actions (e.g., blocking "the regulars") until they've been highly active again for months.

But without an idea of what that phrase means to people, and whether that's their genuine reason or just the one that's socially acceptable for public consumption, it's impossible to know whether what we have works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The recalls listed above as relating to inactivity were all closely tied to accountability (or lack of) in different ways. Procedural inactivity desysoppings are set at a very low bar deliberately, being technical and explicit, and adjusting the bar (even if it is merited for other reasons) would for the purposes of the diffuse concept of community discussion likely shift the grey area to whatever the new technical bar is. A change in requirements would further catch lower-activity admins who are engaged with the community, which is not something that I've seen expressed as desirable by any editor in discussions surrounding these Recalls. The recalls are not the best place to base a new discussion on inactivity from, as many of the suggestions that WP:INACTIVITY be updated were coming from those in opposition to these Recalls as something others may want to do, and so themselves don't represent belief that INACTIVITY needs changing/updating. CMD (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I know for sure is that this gives weight to the idea that ADMINRECALL may need to eventually raise the signature threshold if it's going to be used as a place to get around community created activity guidelines, that's simply not what that venue was created for. I'm not advocating for any of those who lost the tools to keep them, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we're using recall for a purpose I'd argue it wasn't intended for. Also noting that the Master Jay case was about more than their activity. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not necessarily disagree with any of those points, just that this discussion is specifically to judge whether the activity thresholds currently are sufficient or not. What precisely should RECALL change, is a separate question. Either we believe the current procedural thresholds are strong enough, or we'll raise/lower it accordingly. Soni (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

used as a place to get around community created activity guidelines I think that's an unfair assessment of what's occurred in these cases. The inactivity policy is one thing. Making a token edit once in a while to keep the user right and then going back into dormancy is another. You could increase the length of time or change the requirements, but they'll always be game-able. Also, all of those petitions were swiftly completed. Increasing the signature requirement would have a negligible effect IMO. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Master Jay case was about more than their activity As was Gimmetrow, whose single (and last ever) admin action to avoid being ineligible to automatically get the bit back after their incoming 100/5 inactivity desysop was to block a vandalism only account that used an anti-LGBTQ slur for 3 hours, which is far outside community norms. They later failed to response to a query that mentioned that block and their inactivity on their talk page, which led to the recall. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(To clarify: The part about "far outside community norms" is that the block was only for three hours; it was later extended to an indef by someone familiar with the particular WP:LTA.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are re-litigating this: The edit in question (admin-only) added the text Fucķing [r slur] to a mainspace article, and told an LGBTQ editor to fuck off [anti-LGBTQ slur] in the edit summary. I don't blame anyone for not knowing it was an LTA. But ignoring everything else, that one edit is indef-able many times over. They intentionally placed the three hour block to allow time to look at other edits, as if you need more evidence to indefinitely block an account. (I very much hope the search was not for mitigating evidence; what would possibly make that acceptable?) All in all, I'd call that "far outside community norms". House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I said. The problem wasn't blocking the account; the problem was only briefly blocking the account instead of an indef or at least a very long block. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Q1, I'd propose a revision to Criterion 1 of Inactivity and change Has made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period to Has made no administrative actions for at least a 24-month period. Thoughts? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit this page, the edit notice says:

This Village Pump is for developing ideas, not for consensus polling. Rather than merely stating support or opposition to an idea, try to be creative and positive. If possible, suggest a better variation of the idea, or a better solution to the problem identified.

That has not been done here. In addition to this, not enough background has been provided via links to previous discussions (where some of the changes being proposed above were rejected and arguments provided for why it was a bad idea). When was the most recent RfC on this issue? 1 year ago? 5 years ago? Having said that, I agree with CMD who said:

Procedural inactivity desysoppings are set at a very low bar deliberately, being technical and explicit, and adjusting the bar (even if it is merited for other reasons) would for the purposes of the diffuse concept of community discussion likely shift the grey area to whatever the new technical bar is.

I disagree with CMD in the last part of what he says here:

A change in requirements would further catch lower-activity admins who are engaged with the community, which is not something that I've seen expressed as desirable by any editor in discussions surrounding these Recalls.

In my view, some editors really do want to cut a big swathe through admins and get rid of the inactive ones. There is demonstrable opposition to that, but recall (unfortunately) allows for persistent drip-drip actions against individual admins. Over and above that, in my view, what needs changing is the dynamic between WP:INACTIVITY and WP:ADMINACCT (admin accountability). Simply remove the ability of people to demand that admins respond to people who come to their talk page to complain about their activity levels. Let INACTIVITY deal with activity levels, and let ADMINACCT deal with responses to actual admin actions. I am sure that a properly phrased wording could separate these two concepts so that they don't conflict any more (arguably, they don't conflict at the moment, but clearly some people need it spelling out). On a personal level, as someone who has been more active and engaged with the community than I have been in years (though that activity will likely tail off, as I will (need to!) be very busy with other matters again soon), I would like to see INACTIVITY remain stable. I will also repeat what I have said elsewhere. Try and make this a positive thing about retaining inactive admins rather than fiddling with the paperwork.

That said: Q1: No change (current thresholds are fine). Q2: No need to change the current provisions of WP:RESTORATION. Carcharoth (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there is a faction of editors that want to cut a big swathe through admins, please provide evidence. Recall has generated a lot of hypothetical concerns, but as for the "persistent drip-drip actions", the supposed persistency has resulted in just 3 (and it is likely one third of those won't even be certified). CMD (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Soni: Please don't hold policy RfCs in VPI. As it says at Wikipedia:Village pump, Idea lab is where we incubate new ideas before formally proposing them; and as the editnotice also states, this Village Pump is for developing ideas, not for consensus polling. Basically, draft up an RfC here, open it up for amendments, then once people agree that it's ready to put to the broader community, transfer it to WP:VPP observing WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah today's been a bad day for reading comprehension for me, my apologies. I think the simplest solution is for this discussion to be moved to WP:VPP, but I will let others actually make these changes. Soni (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, activity level doesn't have anything to do with ADMINACCT. If someone comes to an admin's talk page asking what their favorite color is, does the admin have to explain that too? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused: Is this an RfCBefore discussion or a big RfC discussion? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in a previous discussion, I feel the community wants its admins to have some ongoing connection with the community, and uses recent edits as a metric to determine this. However, I also previously stated that the community has desired to balance the volunteer nature of the role against this, and to allow for healthy breaks in activity. Thus if there is a consensus to change the activity thresholds, I think the best way to avoid increasingly fractal discussion on how much activity is enough is to shift the emphasis to one of security: remove administrative privileges with a much smaller inactivity threshold (such as on the order of a few months) to limit security concerns, but make it very easy to restore on request (as it is now, but perhaps with tweaks to make it even simpler, particularly for those who have recently been active). If someone has concerns about admin accountability, or with ongoing familiarity of community norms, they should make a case based on specific evidence, not just levels of activity.

Regarding accountability during hiatuses: I don't think the admin role should be one that locks editors into perpetually being active on Wikipedia. I think it's reasonable for questions to be answered upon a return to activity. If administrative privileges are removed based on a short period of inactivity due to security concerns, then there is only a limited time when issues of misuse of privileges may occur. isaacl (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the primary reason to (at least temporarily) de-sys-op admins who have been inactive is that the policies, guidelines and procedures they are supposed to be familiar with may have been amended while they were away. Thus they will be prone to making mistakes. They will need time to get up to speed on these changes. That said… once they are “up to speed”, there should be a quick and easy way to re-sys-op them. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I understand this point of view, I do think that part of trusting an editor sufficiently to grant them administrative privileges is to trust them to reacquaint themselves with community norms as needed. Some admins with lengthy absences have commented in these recent discussions about their returns. Perhaps we need to do more to impress this upon all administrators. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am doubtful of this "policies might have changed" rationale. After all, we see highly active admins (and non-admins) who are apparently unfamiliar with the rules they're enforcing. Admins, being more experienced editors, tend to have a good grasp of the long-term community POV on something (e.g., science is good and altmed is bad), but they don't actually track the drip-drip-drip of changes to policies and procedures with any more assiduity that anyone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the format is a bit unclear, it is best to workshop what we really want to ask here before moving on to a full RfC at WP:VPP. One aspect I've seen brought up during recall petitions is the question of how WP:ADMINACCT applies to low activity admins, and that is something that should be discussed in an RfC on activity thresholds. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it still apply? If you are an admin and you do something using your tools, you need to answer for it. If you use your tools once every few years as a token edit, then go dormant again, and someone questions you on it and you aren't either watching your watch page or decide not to answer, those are both conscious choices. Why is giving a break to people who haven't been a part of our community in any meaningful ways for years so pressing? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it shouldn't apply, and, to the contrary, I do think that it should apply in full to any admin actions. However, I've often seen it brought up (and criticized) as an argument in recall petitions, and I was surprised it wasn't discussed here. Since we're still in the workshopping phase, I figured it would warrant a mention. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key question to me is should administrators be able to take a complete break from Wikipedia? If the community consensus is yes, then it's reasonable for them not to respond to questions during their break. If no, then I think that administrative privileges should be removed based on a relatively short threshold of inactivity, since that matches community expectations (no administrative privileges for someone taking a break), with an easy restoration of privileges upon request. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the story here something like "If Alice Admin usually only makes one edit a month, and she deletes an article today, then she might not check her User_talk: page for another month, which would violate the ADMINACCT requirement to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly, although the cases brought up in recall petitions usually focused on specific issues about which admins didn't respond, rather than the possibility that they might not due to their activity level. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, I'm pretty sure that we had a rule saying that if an admin knew that they weren't going to be available for a few days (e.g., the day before leaving on a trip), they shouldn't take any admin actions, or if they did, they should try to leave a note to help other admins with appeals ("Any admin: It's okay to overturn this without talking to me first"). I wonder if that rule still exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding like Captain Barbossa, I don't recall it being a "rule." I think it was more of a guideline or suggestion. Joyous! Noise! 23:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion, Soni. I'd support just dropping the edits part of the inactivity requirement (100 edits in 5 years) altogether, and instead just require the admin actions part (1 in a year... but not necessarily just logged actions). I think that change, alone (dropping the edits requirement, but not changing the admin action requirement, at least at this time), ought to be put to an RFC. If that's approved by the community, we can skip a long discussion about how many edits are enough edits. If it's approved, the community can later decide to increase the admin actions requirement if 1/year turns out not to be enough for whatever reason. Levivich (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that non-logged actions can be very difficult to measure. Closing a TBAN proposal at ANI is pretty clearly a non-logged action that we can check for, but what about, say, looking at deleted edits to identify patterns of abuse? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no logged action in a year, the admin could be prompted to edit some new subpage of Wikipedia:Inactive administrators to provide an example of edits that show use of the tools, perhaps with a short explanation if necessary, for bureaucrats to assess. If say an admin says they looked at deleted edits in the context of abuse, it's not unreasonable to require them to point to an edit in which they comment on the user being investigated/discussed or a revert of that user. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a great idea, and it would also help with WP:ADMINACCT! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, great idea. The automatic inactivity notice that's already posted on admins' talk pages could be modified to say something like "if this notice is in error and you have made an admin action within the past year, please post at [link]". Crats can review that page before the switch is thrown. I bet this would be a very, very rare occurrence and result in very little additional work. Levivich (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, we could do with having some additional work. Useight (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with just a "1 logged admin action per year" requirement. Keep it simple. Levivich (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good idea Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sign up for that idea. Buffs (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels much more in spirit of admin accountability without too much emphasis on arbitrary thresholds. I definitely prefer this as a lighter weight "Adminship is easy to remove and restore" than any alternatives. Soni (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never found non-logged actions can be very difficult to measure to be a strong argument. If we have a user making so few administrative actions that they can only point to edits exercising administrative authority requiring the use of non-edit user rights to retain their tools (our current inactivity rules not being particularly onerous), it remains pretty questionable to me that they should need the full kit. Izno (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if we ask for admin actions, we should ask for logged ones (perhaps including editing protected pages). Admins using the tools in a hidden but beneficial way without ever doing anything logged are probably a myth and not worth making the process more complicated, even by a tiny bit. —Kusma (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the initiative. However, I think it's not a well-formed question for Q1. Q2 is fine as it's a yes/no question. I would recommend an RfC along those lines, but give some new thresholds like:

Change the thresholds
1. Desysop at 1 year with no edits/admin actions or 100 edits in 5 years (0/1, 100/5)
2. Desysop at 0/1, 50/2
3. Current thresholds or 0 admin actions in 2 years or 10 in 5 years
No change

etc

Set up some sort of threshold to assess from. Admins can make the assessment regarding whether people want a change and roughly where that consensus lies. 90% of the people could choose something in 1. showing there is significant desire for a change or conversely 60% of the people could choose option 2 and, regardless of the debate within the options under 1, no change should occur. Buffs (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before we can have a reasonable discussion about whether we should increase the activity requirements, we need to have some clear comments/proposals, etc detailing why they should be changed that clearly set out what the problem that changing the requirements is intended to solve, what is the evidence that this is actually a problem, and how changing the activity requirements will solve that problem. I don't recall seeing any of that in the recent discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For example, @Levivich has an interesting idea. It makes intuitive sense to me (if you're not using the tools, you don't need the tools). But what problem does this solve? Is the problem it solves the same as the (social/emotional) problem that the community has with inactive admins? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INACTIVITY should be amended to make it clear that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law (just like with all other Wikipedia procedures), and that rights gaming is applicable to retaining admin rights. Admins should have the tools if the community supports them having the tools and they should not have the tools if the community does not support them having the tools. Right now, the barometer for whether the community supports tool-possession is RfA or AELECT. If someone can pass those, there is consensus for them to have the tools. If they cannot pass those, there is not consensus for them to have the tools. The problem here is that the tools are seen as a permanent entitlement of status rather than a tool for service, and that not being an admin is some kind of downgrade or lower class. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that there are some comments here without bullet points or indents, which is messing up the formatting of the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable to use a new paragraph for comments that aren't a direct reply to a previous comment. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

rights gaming is applicable to retaining admin rights is something I do not think has consensus, but if we want to make that part of some question it seems reasonable.

We set a number deliberately. If we want to change that number to some number that we actually believe indicates real activity, we should (and I would personally welcome an adjustment to the numbers, but ~consensus gathering activity~). Taking potshots at admins who aren't here all the time isn't the way to do that. NB that I don't think all three of the admins above even fall into the category of "sent to admin recall solely because of inactivity", and I think we see the results of that with how quickly (or slowly) the admins have reached 25 signatures at recall.

Another approach to stopping what is perceived as gaming is to remove the "next month you're being desysoped" messages. Those are likely to be the primary cause of the once-a-year / couple-a-month edits. If people really want to keep their tools, they can do their own homework.

An appropriate change the opposite direction might be to forbid admin recall solely on the basis of inactivity directly in WP:RECALL. There's got to be something more than "the hard rule you've been provided for keeping your hat is the hard rule you're meeting". Our default position should be to trust administrators, because they earned that trust via RFA.

But I'm sure all of this was all argued in the last RFA review mess that has now spawned this growing pain. Izno (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soni, I think it would be useful at the top of this discussion to have links to previous RFCs and discussions we have had on this subject. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and I think this discussion would benefit from seeing ideas that have already been proposed in the past that didn't pass a vote. We are not starting from scratch here, we've gone through other RFCs on this matter. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Do you have a list of such RFCs and discussions you think should be listed? Soni (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's the two RFCs in the footnotes from WP:INACTIVITY. There's some failed RFCs here in 2019 [29] and 2015 [30] from what I recall. Not sure if there were other RFCs here in the archives, elsewhere, or other discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was another attempt at "workshopping" just two months ago at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 203#Admin inactivity rules workshopping. Anomie ⚔ 12:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Q1: In my opinion, yes. Change criterion #1 from: Has made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period to Has not made any logged administrative actions for at least a 12-month period. Change criterion #2 from: Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period to Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 30-month period. Some1 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. I would support having only one requirement for INACTIVITY, and that would be for admins to make at least 25 logged admin actions within the past 12 months. If an admin completes those 25 actions in one day and does not edit for the rest of the year, I think that would be fine (though if they know they will be inactive for an extended period of time, they should voluntarily relinquish their tools for security reasons, etc.). If the admin appears every January, for example, to make 25 logged admin actions then goes inactive for the rest of the year, repeating this editing pattern for several years, I believe that would fall under GAMING. Some1 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, only 364 admins made 25 logged actions in the year from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025. Donald Albury 15:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Q1: no. Q2: whenever. Think of this, instead, as being in a volunteer organization in a leadership role. If you've put in the time to be trusted as a "lead" in something, typically speaking, you've been filtered for sanity and dedication to doing the right thing. There are obviously exceptions (and sociopaths exist in any org). But you're not going to make someone re-prove themselves from the ground up if they step away for a year or two. Life freaking happens.
Sure, you'll expect that they get back up to speed with current procedures, but that's something that "leads" are already used to doing, and know if they make a mistake, they apologize and fix it. That said, you probably should be cautious when someone comes back from absence; "trust but verify," because egos are a thing. And that could (and should) factor in. But the amount of assuming-bad-faith from some of the commenters here is incredible. When someone steps away from the project, it's not someone "cheating" on the project. It's someone doing something else to help the world. Or perhaps getting their crap together in real life. Or perhaps landing a new job. Or having a baby. Or just a really long bout of depression. Anything other than, "Well, they forgot everything about how to Wikipedia. Now we have to assume they're an idiot that can't be trusted." That's just not generally how people work. That's not how volunteer-driven orgs work. In fact the ones I work with now specifically carve out at least a year of inactivity before you're truly considered inactive.
And just like in volunteer organizations, if someone's inactive, the assumption is that anyone can undo their actions. And I get where people are coming from: the faceless immediatism of the internet creates a bias toward seeing other editors as faceless while expecting of them the same immediatism. Giving into that fosters a situation where, eventually, only those truly dedicated to being an admin will be admins, and that should scare the living daylights out of anyone who pays attention to business or politics in the real world.
--slakr^\ talk / 06:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slakr, I hadn't thought of comparing it to real-world/face-to-face volunteer work before, but I think you're entirely right. Orgs that depend on volunteers don't treat those who come back after a break like they are ignorant, untrustworthy or like they have been unfaithful to the group. A return to activity is really treated as a situation that should be celebrated. You make sure their old friends know. You introduce them to the new folks. You brief them on any important changes and if there's something that might sound like any sort of reflection on them, you explain ("Oh, we got a new accounting firm, and they insist that two people always be present when the mail is opened. It's a bit of a pain, but they said that they always recommend it after discovering a thief stealing checks from one of their other clients..."). You don't treat them like they need to prove themselves again, unless you actually want them to quit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- As someone who has both volunteered and managed volunteers, I cannot think of many meatspace volunteering positions where you have the power to kick out other volunteers and tear up their work, and where those exist they generally don't get handed to people who have just returned to the organisation after a long absence. In my experience working with volunteers, that would be an absolutely terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Any organization that is entirely volunteer-run will have other volunteers who can "kick out other volunteers and tear up their work". This can be done explicitly (volunteers can get "fired") or implicitly ("Oh, we've already got the schedule set for next month, thanks").
  
  Very few of them will think that taking just 12 months off is "a long absence". You're hardly going to tell a trusted volunteer "Thanks for 20 years of service. We really missed you, and I'm so glad your cancer is is remission now. Oh, by the way, you can't be in charge of the volunteer schedule/re-join the Board/on the fundraising committee again, because of your 'long absence'." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slakr: Thank you, this is a good way to think about returning admins. But we do see a huge amount of bad faith displayed towards admins returning from inactivity and asking for the bit back. There is strong feeling in parts of the community that they should prove themselves first. I think those parts of the community have got it wrong and that their attitude is making it harder for people to volunteer to do admin work again, but I don't think we can just ignore them. See the NaomiAmethyst resysop discussion we had a few months ago. Perhaps it would be easier to have formal criteria for resysopping (but we'd still need a way to deal with the people who consider meeting the formal criteria to be WP:GAMING). —Kusma (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q1, maybe?, Q2, no, outside of a clause for recall for WP:GAMING As a person who has spent a fair bit of time working in security (simply out of the principle of least privilege), I'm always for make the desysop window tighter but allow for restoration with some activity. That being said, I'm not going to strongly advocate for desysopping faster since I do recognize that folks do take extended vacay, and often drop away from time to time. I think our priority there should be to build robust pathways for folks to reintegrate back into the admin corp, something that we severely lack at the moment. I don't necessarily think our WP:RESTORATION policy is bad, but I would advocate for enshrining recalling for WP:GAMING into the admin activity metrics, purely since I see it as a "I will follow the letter of the law, not the spirit" activity that Wikipedians just should not engage in. Sohom (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly against any addition of admin actions to the activity requirements. There was a conflict admittedly quite some years ago now where people tried to line up content creators and admins as separate groups. Part of the counter to this is content focused editors who just happen to have admin bits.©Geni (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see the benefit of requiring more admin actions. An editor who is almost completely focussed on other things and only uses the tools when they stumble across something -- and is up-to-speed enough to recognize that and know how to appropriately deal with it -- is useful. I think every active, experienced, well-intentioned, temperamentally-fit editor should be an admin. And probably would be if RfA wasn't seen as such an obstacle. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using the tools when I stumble across something is how I function as an admin. If many more editors could become ~~editors~~ admins of that type, it would spread the work around a little more, and hopefully reduce the "them vs. us" attitude that has crept into so much of the community dynamics. I think we have seen, though, how hard it would be to get back to that old idea that adminship is "no big thing". Donald Albury 13:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I always planned to be that type of admin. I said as much in my RfA. Very rarely do I go out of my way to focus on admin work specifically. That said, I do think that even with that style of adminship, one can easily make 25 admin actions over the course of 5 years. I can understand why people would want some sort of basic minimum for a toolset that can be quite powerful if misused (even if it's not out of malice). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not worried for now about the inactivity rules. However, I have taken long breaks in the past, including a 5 year period with a little under 850 edits and just 6 logged admin actions, and if I had had the admin bit taken away during that break, I wouldn't have bothered trying to get it back if I had had to go through an RfA. I'll leave it to others to decide how much of a loss that would have been for the project. Donald Albury 14:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The recall petitions in question don't just focus on inactivity, they focus on WP:GAMING. No matter what the criteria are, they'll be gameable (unless we set them to truly punishing levels solely to make them ungameable, which seems undesireable.) Any system can be gamed and, thanks to the existence of WP:RECALL, the community is now capable of stepping in in situations where gaming seems obvious; another advantage of relying on recalls is that it allows the community to consider other factors (both the successful recalls had other concerns come up during the discussion; and, conversely, if someone had few edits but they were high-impact ones that clearly showed they were keeping up with changes to policy and the community, a recall presumably wouldn't be attempted and would fail if it was.) In short, it seems like the community is handling this fine and that we don't need to change anything. If there was a massive flood of such recalls it might indicate that we should adjust the criteria to avoid wasting everyone's time with obvious cases, but that doesn't seem to be the case - three recalls isn't that many. Plus, RECALL is pretty new and most of the gaming involved happened before it existed; it's reasonable to assume that administrators will be less likely to blatantly game the activity requirements now that the community can do something about it. I would expect a small flood of such petitions focused on an accumulated backlog of admins who were gaming the requirements but who there was previously no easy way to do anything about get recalled, after which they'd rapidly dry up. That doesn't really require any changes. --Aquillion (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's punishment to set activity thresholds at a much higher level when there is an easy path to have administrative privileges restored. It does mean that there is a delay between wanting to perform admin tasks and being able to do so. I appreciate this can discourage spontaneous activity, but I think most editors can find another similar opportunity soon afterwards, upon re-obtaining admin privileges. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Q1 yes, and I'd support any range of increased edit requirements starting at the status quo and ending at something like 200 edits per year average. I do think we should add an admin action minimum to both the 1-year requirement and the rolling average, and I'd support most reasonable numbers there as well. Q2 status quo is fine with me. I don't support the proposal to remove edit count fromt the 1-year criteria. In general, I think we're looking for admins to be active members of the community. Even with increased minimums, it would be possible for an admin to check out for 18 months or so and get the bit back. I'm strongly in favor of the "fix problems as I come across them" style of adminship, but I think those admins should have their "admin brain" turned on enough to hit the minimums easily (see clovermoss). My concerns with inactive admins are the same as those who initially set up the activity requirements and later increased them: compromised accounts and bad admin actions due to a lost sense of community norms. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Q1 yes. I believe that the criteria should be changed to Has not made any logged administrative actions for at least a 24 month period. Let's face it: what sets administrators apart from non-admins are the fact that they have special tools. If they're not using those special tools... well, what's the point? IMO an edit threshold doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since 1) it opens up to a whole lot of WP:GAMING (which has happened, more times than appreciated) and 2) as previously mentioned, admins are admins since they're supposed to use the tools they have. At least people attempting to game this new criteria would be bringing in some benefit to the place. Not being an admin anymore isn't the end of the world, and I think it's fairer to the community to let old ones go. You can still edit if you're not an admin. I made the limit higher, 2 years. Q2 yes, since again, I don't think the edit threshold is all that useful for determining whether an admin gets to stay. I'd just swap out edits for administrative actions: Has made fewer than 100 administrative actions in the last 5 years. Imo these requirements should be changed as admin is a really important role, and it's definitely a risk for users who have not contributed meaningfully in years to have it. Yes, sad to see established users go, but everyone's gotta leave at some point, and delaying it through simple gaming and standing on the edge of the boundary really isn't constructive. I completely get that some people need a break and step away for periods of time, but years without administrative action should warrant some action being taken. It's not a kind of punishment to have adminship being taken away, it's just for the safety of the community. People who really want it back can apply for admin again, and if they still meet the criteria, they can receive it. I think my time period is fair enough to account for this. My 2 cents. jolielover♥talk 12:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100 admin actions is way too high. It's very easy to meet for admin who primarily works anti-vandalism tasks but tricky for one who focuses on bigger, slower, more considered tasks (e.g. controversial discussion closures). Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True... maybe like, 50? 25? Not sure. jolielover♥talk 12:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of removing adminship for inactivity?
- There's a security question for compromised credentials, although this materializes very rarely, especially now 2FA is well-used
- Inactive admins may return and make bad decisions based on out of date policy knowledge
Are there any others? Because neither of these two issues (a) arise frequently enough to make a difference, or (b) would be fixed by changing the requirements. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Admin Activity Stats

Someone suggested that we should have an updated version of User:Worm That Turned/Admin activity for 2025, to get an idea of how many admins would currently be hit by "Last admin action" rule, among other things. Is there someone who can generate such a table relatively easily? I don't know what kind of querying will allow that. Soni (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was @Patar knight who suggested it. I re-ran my old scripts and added a bit. User:Worm That Turned/Adminship term length/new for anyone who wants the data. Worm^TT(talk) 10:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just noting - ~100 of our admins haven't made 50 edits in the past 2 years, ~200 haven't made 50 edits in the past year, and ~250 admins haven't taken any admin action (defined as appearing in delete / protect / block) in the past year... we have about 850 admins. Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these stats, but I think there is an error. Looking at my entry, it states my most recent admin action was 2025-06-25, 5 actions go back to 2025-06-25 but 10 actions go back to 2025-07-15. The relevant dates should be 2025-07-16, 2025-06-25 and 2025-06-17 respectively. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the data in a spreadsheet, there doesn't appear to be a problem with the edits but there are 548 entries where the most recent action is older than the 5th and/or 10th most recent and/or the 5th most recent action is older than the 10th most recent. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Thryduulf I'll have a look Worm^TT(talk) 12:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, I see the bug, will regenerate. Though I will say I get slightly different dates for you, as 5 events in this log go back to 2025-07-04, and ten between the three logs go back to 2025-06-25... so those will be the numbers that should come out the other end. Give me a few mins. Worm^TT(talk) 13:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully all correct now :) Worm^TT(talk) 13:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is great. Would it be possible to add other logged admin actions such as User rights/Edit Filter Modification which are already options at Special:Logs? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's way less activity than I imagined. I'm now thinking like 100 edits and 10 admin actions per year. The people who have the power to sanction me need to be at least as active as I am. The idea that I'm at constant risk of being sanctioned by people who make less than 50 edits a year is upsetting. Levivich (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you aren't at constant risk of being sanctioned by people who make less than 50 edits a year. Sure, there are lots of people who have the technical ability to sanction you, but if they have less than 50 edits a year, they do not have the social standing to block you and make it stick; if they wrongly block you they are probably going to be desysopped. Your claim The people who have the power to sanction me need to be at least as active as I am is also obviously nonsensical. In practice, you are far more likely to be blocked by an active power user than by a near-inactive one. —Kusma (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow "don't worry, it won't stick" doesn't make me feel better :-) As for being desysopped for bad blocks? Think about admins who have been desysopped for bad blocks (anyone), and then ask yourself: how many bad blocks of how many editors over how many years did it take before they were finally desysopped? It was never "1", was it? Yeah, no, people who make like 50 or 100 edits a year shouldn't have access to these tools. They should be pulled for inactivity and they can get them back when they regain activity levels. I am now also thinking that WP:RESTORATION should require compliance with activity requirements before restoration (rather than just the expression of an intent to comply). Levivich (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have been desysopped after a single bad undelete that showed they were out of touch. The people who aren't desysopped for bad blocks are usually highly active and their blocks are against newbies, not against noticeboard regulars. Desysopping people who never use the block button has no effect on the number of bad blocks at all. But forcing people to make admin actions will mean more bad admin actions. Not really seeing the benefit there.

We need less suspicion towards returning admins, not more. If asking for activity before resysop helps to make it a more friendly process, we can try it. —Kusma (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of one admin who was desysopped (by arbcom) over one undeletion and that's the only example, I think, in at least 5 years? Is it more common than that? But I don't want to get sidetracked by that; I think we'd both agree that it should take more than one bad undeletion or one bad block to be desysopped--everyone makes mistakes.

I do share your concern that upping the minimum tool use will cause bad tool use. Part of me thinks "yeah, let it happen so we can desysop those people." As a side note, I'm shocked to see there are admins who apparently have used the tools less than 5 or 10 times ever, and I think that's concerning. I do strongly believe admin tools should be "use it or lose it." I'd support a two-prong requirements: minimum edits and minimum logged actions, rather than one or the other.

These lines in the sand (20 edits/yr or 50 or 100) seem very arbitrary. It's not like if you make 100 edits in a year you'll be great but if you make 50 you'll be totally out of your depth. It's hard to find a logical place to draw a line, although it has to be drawn somewhere. One logical place to draw the line is at the same place as some other suffrage or similar requirements. WP:TWL requires 10/month, which is 120/year. Maybe it'd be good to have one site-wide line for "active" that applies everywhere: RFA/AELECT, ACE, TWL, and admin inactivity. 120 edits/year or 10/month seems reasonable to me. Maybe admin req's should be 2x that, the logic being that an admin should be more active than a regular editor?

And then having return-to-activity-first-then-restoration I think would help eliminate some of the drama we've seen surrounding return to activity predictions. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are trusted with the tools so they can carry out admin actions. How is it that there can be any admins that have not carried out a single admin actions in the last 5 years? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: Because our current admin inactivity requirements are mostly about edits and not admin actions. From what I remember reading discussions about this in the past, people opposing admin action requirements will mention there's uses for the tools that aren't logged (like viewing deleted edits). I do think that the hypothetical situation where someone is only using the tools for that for multiple years to be a fairly extreme edge case, though. Obviously we don't want to discourage people going through normal ebbs and flows in their lives (parenting, seasonal workers, grieving, health issues, etc) from contributing when they feel ready to get back in the swing of things but there has to be a way to be considerate of those needs while also increasing the pre-existing requirements. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An admin whose only use of the tools in the last five years is to check deleted edits isn't using the tools to be an admin. The tools aren't there to allow editors greater access than they would usually have, they are given so admins can carry out admin tasks. There are limitations to the data presented by WTT, but having admins who have not carried out a logged admin task in a half a decade is somewhat absurd. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: I wasn't disagreeing, simply explaining what I understand to be the reason for why things are the way they currently are. Something like 100 admin actions over 10 years would be better than nothing and be considerate of people's varying real life commitments. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vary life commitments are one thing, but every admin on that list has made at least one edit in the last 15 months. If they are not carrying out admin tasks they have no need for the admin tools. When regaining the bit only requires making a request, admins who are not using the tools have no need to retain them. As well as 1000 in the last decade there needs to be a 10 in the last year minimum. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: My suggestion would work out to 10 actions a year (100/10=10) but I do think an annual cut off like that might be too stringent to pass an RfC (life can easily get in the way and people too tend to be concerned that raising the requirements at all will cause harm). I think there's a difference between someone being less active for a year vs it being an ongoing phenomenon. I think that's why the recent 100 edits over 5 years criteria passed. 50 actions over 5 years would still be ten a year and is more likely to get enough support from the community. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about 20 admin actions over 2 years? The problem I have with 5 years is that if someone makes 50 admin actions this year, they can keep the admin bit while inactive for four more years before it's pulled, and I think that's too long. A 2-year window would allow people to take breaks of over one year but not over two years, which seems reasonable to me. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 2 year window would probably be best. Long enough that people can take breaks as necessary but not long enough that consistency can become an issue. Also, having a lower threshold over a shorter period means that if there are edge cases where submitting diffs to show non-logged actions, it would be easier for both the submitter and a reviewing bureaucrat. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though I appreciate the desire of a short period, I actually prefer the current longer period. Life changes like (particularly) children are a sizeable bump on time expenditure on non-wiki things.

I would also prefer to avoid adding to 1-year related inactivity as a result. Some count ~= 1 of admin actions seems fair in that time frame like currently. Izno (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I suggested the five years was for simplicity's sake. The more time based activity requirements we have, the harder it will be for any one person to remember (I have to do x per year, y per 2 years and z every 5 years gets a bit messy). A 2:1 ratio for edits vs admin actions seems a bit high, so something like 25 admin actions every 5 years might be more comparable. Alternatively, one could raise the current 100 edits over 5 years requirement to something higher. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The stats are interesting. Thanks, WTT. I was having a quick look over them, though do not have time to comment in any detail. I did want to pick up on Levivich's comment about wanting admins to be as active as they are. Forgive me for asking, but do any of these feelings come from the quote on your user page (which I looked at today)? And as another comment, the activity numbers you are coming up with for other areas are interesting. I wonder why, historically, they are so different? Is it possible to see how many admins would fail to meet your increased requirements (e.g. the Twinkle ones)? Carcharoth (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the quote on my userpage has nothing to do with inactive admins. Levivich (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I am trying to tie up a few loose ends where I asked questions and did not want to miss this one. Carcharoth (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned Is the script you are using something that can be widely shared? I don't know if there's any info in there that shouldn't be leaked, but otherwise having the script be open source/editable by others seems like a positive. Soni (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to spend a bit of time converting it into a form that doesn't just run on my computer. It's based on an old java wikibot and just scrapes the logs. Nothing clever, I'm sure anyone techy could do it, and probably much more efficiently that I did. Worm^TT(talk) 08:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks WTT. How many edits that can only be made by an admin don't make the logs, I wonder? Valereee (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots. In the past 30 days there have been 211 edits to pages in the MediaWiki namespace for example. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who in the past moved a lot of preps to queue in DYK, I feel that. I'd certainly hate to see an admin desysopped for admin inactivity who was actually making such edits. But maybe that's not really an issue? Valereee (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it would be possible to include the edit histories of certain designated pages like DYK queues, the major mainspace templates, and the main page itself in whatever automated check there is. Also to cover what can't be easily automated, I think my suggestion of a subpage at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators where admins could post diffs showing their non-logged activities would probably be fine for all parties as long as the threshold of actions/year isn't too high. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re your last sentence, if we go that route it needs to be very clear to everybody, including not-very-active admins and especially those who are care about inactive admins, that that page exists and must be consulted before determining whether an admin is or is not inactive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I imagine it would be integrated into the existing notification system for inactivity and the relevant bureaucrat/process pages updated. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an edit filter that tracks edits to protected pages, but I forgot where it is. The only non-logged action I am aware of is viewing deleted edits. I don't really see the point of an extra page where inactive admins claim to have looked at deleted pages. —Kusma (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under my proposal, it would have to be tied to an edit that could be directly linked to view delete (e.g. “I looked at the revdeled contributions by X and think they should remain banned” at a notice board, “Looking at the previous version, I don’t think the G4 was appropriate at DRV before a restoration is requested). I wouldn’t expect this to be the bulk of non-tracked actions though. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, so moving prep>queue is tracked there? The reason I ask is that at one point there was an admin whose only admin actions were that, but they did it regularly. Valereee (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, back when the queues were fully protected, this was tracked. See your log of editing fully protected pages. —Kusma (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always something new. Or something I once knew but forgot. :) Valereee (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The filter does not seem to track all edits to protected pages though: pages protected via cascading like the TFA blurbs are excluded. —Kusma (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may have got lost above, but is it non-trivial to find out how many current admins would fail to meet the proposal by Levivich to raise the activity levels to the Twinkle-permissions one? 120 edits/year or 10/month? And for those who have trouble counting... How many admins fall into each of the columns in WTT's table? Carcharoth (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe the Legend from User:Worm That Turned/Admin activity? And by numbers, I mean the numbers of yellow and red instances. And how much has this changed since the previous snapshot? Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some stats to User:Worm That Turned/Adminship term length/new#Stats based on the latest figures, I have not attempted to capture change. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um. My eyes glazed over when trying to interpret those stats. Any chance of an example in words? E.g. XYX admins have made less than N logged actions in ABC years? An example would be 18 admins have made 5 logged actions in the past five years. And am still trying to work out what the last five rows mean... Carcharoth (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last five rows are there to help answer that sort of question, e.g. sum >1 means that it's the total number of admins whose last e.g. logged action was greater than 1 year ago. To use some words though, 107 admins made their last logged admin action more than 1 year ago, 89 more than 2 years ago, 74 3 or more years age and 58 5 or more years ago.

507 of the 835 (61%) of admins made 10 or more logged actions between 18 July 2024 and 18 July 2025. 94 admins made fewer than 10 logged actions in the 10 years to 18 July 2025.

Nine accounts have made fewer than 10 logged actions total:

User:DKinzler (WMF) (WMF developer, exempt from activity requirements)
User:Edit filter (role account of some sort, has never edited or made any logged actions)
User:EvanProdromou
User:JSherman (WMF) (WMF developer, exempt from activity requirements)
User:Lustiger seth (from their user page: In this request for adminship, the community entrusted me for adminship for the sole reason of taking care of the SBLs (spam blacklists, spam whitelists, spam revertlists, spam spamlists, spam spam spam, eggs and spam)., that activity does not appear in the admin logs)
User:Nixdorf
User:Pinkville
User:Robin Patterson
User:Sethant

Using this list as the basis for recall discussions would be highly inappropriate as it is devoid of any context. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Just as an additional note: I also use the edit filter to combat spam, e.g. month. i guess, this does not show up in the logs either.

Nevertheless, I am indeed very rarely active here in the enwiki.

If my case complicates things, then it might be better to revoke my admin rights. I don't think the enwiki community would notice the change given my low participation.

However, I would be happy to keep my admin rights. It's nice that I'm allowed to help - even if only rarely - with the maintenance of the SBL or similar.

-- seth (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's often more efficient for one person do deal with cross-wiki spam. @Lustiger seth, you might consider becoming a m:Global sysop, if you haven't looked into that already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, you've consistently done good work here since your RfA without issue, so if there is no way to automatically track the work you do, you would be the prime example of why a manual review component like I suggested should exist in the event of an admin action requirement being implemented. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nixdorf will be desysopped in a few days and seems ok with it according to his talk page. —Kusma (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse filter role account (User:Edit filter) is a system account. It is used by the extension if blocking abuse filters are enabled. (It currently does have 1 log entry). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. I am shocked that we have over a dozen admins whose last logged action was over 10 years ago. Toadspike [Talk] 13:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That people have not noticed earlier probably means they have not actually caused any problems. —Kusma (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that the stats on this page are inaccurate. It does not include all logged admin tasks. It was flagged to me because someone thought my own stats looked wrong - and they are. Most of my admin actions are permission changes - an admin-only logged task - and it makes me wonder how many other admin tasks aren't included. I think this could easily be fixed by having this page managed by an automated process that includes all admin-only logged actions, and I have no doubt that someone reading this section is perfectly capable of doing this. Risker (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I mentioned above, and will make clearer on that page - that it's simply based on "block / delete / protect" admin actions. There are significantly more areas that admins work. I can (and when I get a chance will) extend, but these numbers are meant to give a rough idea of how busy our admins are. Worm^TT(talk) 08:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be helpful to see this full list generated before afull RFC on this. Mainly because it'll give people a good idea of exactly how many admins meet the proposed activity requirements. What's the usual place for such requests? Wikipedia:Bot requests doesn't feel right for a one time job Soni (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty common for WP editors to display their edit count. For editors who don't display their edit count, it's not uncommon for other editors to check out what it is, if they are working on an article (or wrangling about an article). Reading the above, I'm not sure if this kind of scorekeeping -- whether it is healthy or not -- goes on with admins. Do admins display their "admit action count"? Do other admins or editors poke around and look to see what the "admin action count" an admin they have encountered has to their credit? I've never seen anything like this and the fact that folks above have had to do some work to pull up lists of admins who haven't done many admin actions recently suggest that this kind of scorekeeping and these kinds of counts are not routinely done. I'm asking myself if the world at Wikipedia would be a better place if this were a routine part of life at WP and my intuition is "no". Novellasyes (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do display my personal admin stats on a sub-page User:Donald Albury/Useful links, which is rarely, if ever, viewed by other editors. I also look at the Admin stats every once in a while to see where I stand compared to the admin corps as a whole, but, no, I do not look up the stats of other admins. Why should I? Donald Albury 20:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a vital admin action that isn't logged is participation at AE. I would also consider an admin who spends a lot of time on administrative tasks like closing AfDs to be performing admin actions even though such things can also be done by a non-admin. Zero^talk 03:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin ease of return

Some editors have expressed some sentiment of "We should also make it easy for admins to return". From the discussion above, I saw @WhatamIdoing, Carcharoth, Isaacl, Slakr, Kusma, and Sohom Datta:

If we make changes to alter inactivity criterion, it seems prudent to also do this. How can we make things for returning admins easier?

Soni (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All they have to do is make a request at WP:BN (unless the have been inactive for more than five years), or did I miss something? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally drop a note to a friend to say that it'd been a few months, and they might want to make an edit. (Even correcting a minor typo reassures me that you're alive and probably well.) A couple of the admins have made and edit and written back that life's incredibly busy (babies, two jobs, serious illness, that kind of thing) and thanks for the note, because if they lose their admin bits, they will never reapply. I think that they weren't thinking that a simple request at BN is all it takes.

However, even a simple request at BN requires a willingness to take a social/emotional risk. Some admins have dedicated enemies; what if you ask to be re-sysopped, and someone shows up to try to re-re-re-litigate a decision you made "against" them five years ago? Mud sticks, even if it's unfairly thrown. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just in terms of editor motivation/dynamics and even sociology if you stretch the definition, this is incredibly interesting that people actually say this to you (I assume these are real examples): "thanks for the note, because if they lose their admin bits, they will never reapply". As is the fact that you email Wikipedia friends to check in on them. I think I have only ever done that once. Well, maybe twice. Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're real examples. Sometimes people reach out to me; somewhat more often, I contact them, or I hear from a third friend about them. Since I'm not on any anti-social media platforms, I don't have the "check their Facebook account" option. I wouldn't be surprised if that approach were more typical for editors. I don't carefully track editors' activity levels. Usually, what happens is I see a name in a page history or old discussion and realize I haven't seen them around for a while, so I drop them a note.

(In case you were curious, I avoid mentioning anything about RFA, because I don't want to influence people's thinking. I've had a two or three admins volunteer this, unprompted. RFA's reputation is really that bad.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have said that their participation on English Wikipedia gets triggered by seeing something they want to fix. The smoother the path to put this desire into effect, the more likely it will happen. Personally, I agree with the idea that administrators ideally would be willing to delay their participation and follow the current process. But I appreciate that in practice, people are motivated in different ways, and it may be helpful to accommodate a variety of considerations. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few ideas off the top of my head:

If an admin voluntarily relinquishes administrative privileges and states an intention to return to editing within N months (the maximum sabbatical duration; for purposes of having an initial number to discuss, say 6), at the time of relinquishment, have bureaucrats determine whether or not they can have privileges restored without an open viewpoint request for adminship or election. If they make a request to have privileges restored within the maximum sabbatical duration and are eligible for restoration upon request, they are exempt from the 24-hour waiting period.
If the inactivity threshold is changed to something shorter than the maximum sabbatical duration, then exempt any admins whose inactivity duration lies between the inactivity threshold and the maximum sabbatical duration from the 24-hour waiting period. However if the bureaucrats have not already determined that privileges can be restored by simple request, they retain the ability to remove privileges after they complete their determination. Alternatively, make this the standard rule for all admins whose privileges were removed due to inactivity.

isaacl (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We kind of need that 24-hour waiting period to make sure the request isn't the first step in a wave of account compromises. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered compromised accounts (I think concern about one is enough, even without a wave). Unfortunately, I can't think of any good ways to quickly confirm that an account remains under control of the original user. (Two-factor authentication is one possible mitigating approach, but it's still vulnerable to the scratch codes being stolen, and the current implementation on Wikipedia doesn't scale up well.) That being said, that's still true with a 24-hour waiting period if the returning account hasn't yet made a significant amount of edits. To really improve the probabilities, the account would have to resume activity for a sufficient enough time to see if their communication style was consistent. Perhaps the risk is acceptable in cases where the admin has voluntarily declared a sabbatical period (below the maximum sabbatical duration), and acknowledged they are following appropriate security practices. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thus making accounts with declared sabbaticals the hackers' next target.

The point about multiple account compromises is that if you get a request for re-sysopping, followed by other, seemingly unrelated reports of hacked accounts, the crats might want to be slow to react to the request for re-sysopping. The story we want in that unusual situation sounds like this:

Admin: "Hi, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, I'm back! Please re-sysop me after the 24-hour delay per standard procedure."
WP:VPT: "We're getting reports about a possibly compromised account...there's another... Okay, guys, it's red alert time!"
Crats: "Yeah, um, nothing personal, Admin, but this is going to take a bit longer than usual. Also, any editor who knows this admin in real life or can reach them through other channels, please get in touch privately."

The story we don't want sounds like:

Admin: "Hi, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, I'm back! Please immediately re-sysop me, because of course I'm me and of course I follow good security procedures."
Crats: Here you go.
Admin "Mwah ha ha, I'm going to replace the Main Page with spam!"

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's about tradeoffs. Sure, there may be occasions when Wikipedia admins and bureaucrats might need to be extra-vigilant about potential compromised accounts, but in general, I feel high vigilance is always needed, as I think there are always ongoing attempts to steal accounts online. So I don't think the 24-hour delay offers much additional security in practice. That being said, I acknowledge so far there hasn't been any other interest expressed in paring down the delay period.

Regarding the risk of inactive admins being targeted, I don't see a 24-hour delay significantly changing the risk. In the end the problem is authenticating the user, and waiting time doesn't change the problem. Requiring significant participation in tens of discussions might help, to provide enough writing samples for comparison. isaacl (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you target a benefit (e.g., low scrutiny re-sysopping) to a certain set (e.g., "in cases where the admin has voluntarily declared a sabbatical period"), then you can expect the accounts with the desirable benefit to become more interesting to hackers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the benefit of attacking an unattended account is sufficiently attractive on its own that a 24-hour delay is just noise. For better or worse, be design, wikis are designed to make all activity easily traceable, so I can't think of a good way to try to hide when an account for an admin (whether or not they are currently have administrative privileges assigned to them) hasn't been active for some time. isaacl (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am not proposing an exemption for bureaucrats to evaluate whether or not the requesting account has been compromised. (As I recall, the 24-hour period was introduced to allow time for anyone to raise concerns about eligibility for restoration on request, but I appreciate that it also allows non-bureaucrats to examine patterns of behaviour, if there's enough to evaluate.) isaacl (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now WP:RESTORATION's assessment of a return to activity is subjective: A bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. As Levivich mentioned upthread, we have multiple definitions of inactivity, some of which are more stringent than others (e.g. Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active defines "Active" as 30 edits in the last two months). We could do explicitly noting that if the WP:INACTIVITY thresholds are met at the time of the request than they are automatically considered to meet this criterion, though failing to do so is not an automatic fail. Otherwise people who might be able to return and help out a bit but not to the extent of the 180 edits/year required at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active might be put off if they think the have to maintain that instead of something closer to the actual inactivity level which is 1/9 that. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea that if an admin already meets the thresholds, that's an automatic "yes" for WP:RESTORATION, and if they don't, it's not an automatic no but it's left to the crats to determine (as per current policy). Levivich (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also presents a very easy checklist to meet as opposed to thinking that they need to go review past BN discussions to see what precedents there are around activity. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...of course that won't work if the activity requirements are changed to require admin actions only and not just edits. Levivich (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight, this particular line is just documenting reality. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Even the crats are volunteers. There are only about 16 crats. Nobody can get (re)sysopped unless one of those 16 people agrees to push the necessary buttons. If all 16 of them refuse to do so – even if you think their reasons are wrong, and even if you think they are 😱Violating Consensus!!!!11!! – then the fact is that the account isn't going to have the sysop bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. I'm just saying that for someone who is already somewhat not engaging with the community, having an explicit "do X and you don't have to worry about the return to activity requirement" is a lot easier to understand and start them on their return journey if they want to pursue it. There's considerable friction in de facto forcing someone to search BN archives to find what the precedent is and many people might walk away thinking the activity requirements for returning are significantly higher than they already are. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see admins be able to return easily, but with a period of activity. Maybe 1 month of active editing (whatever that is) for each year inactive (whatever that is), to encourage getting up to speed. So someone desysops for five years becuz: toddlers. Toddlers go off to school, former admin starts editing again, and five months later the crats flip the switch. Valereee (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. You do realise you are making all the active admins with toddlers feel guilty? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lol...I can remember not having time for a shower before it was time for bed. Valereee (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While personally I don't have an issue with a resumption of a minimal level of activity being a precondition, note by design it would make it harder to return to administrative duties compared with the current process, not easier. That aside, it would provide an opportunity for the editor to re-establish connections with the community, and to demonstrate through their communication style that the account was not compromised. Perhaps it could apply for admins who have been away for more than some maximum sabbatical period. isaacl (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
by design it would make it harder to return to administrative duties compared with the current process, not easier: Feature, not a bug. If an admin is actually becoming active again, this doesn't make it harder. Just makes it take a few months, which seems like no big deal. If an admin isn't actually becoming active again, this makes it harder. Valereee (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said, I personally agree that it's a feature. Just noting that it falls into a different category than making it easier to return. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but people are getting genuinely confused by this tangent. Collapsing Soni (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Valereee says, a feature, not a bug. Let them produce a featured article before restoring the admin bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let them produce a featured article before restoring the admin bit. does not seem to me to be the best predictor of fitness to be an admin. Donald Albury 13:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, content creation and administration are different skillsets and requiring administrators be featured article writers would simultaneously deprive the community of skilled administrators and deprive the community of featured article writers by forcing them to do admin work rather than write featured articles. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If ever I were to need an FA before resysopping, I'm out of luck. FA does not heart my work. Valereee (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion was about making it easier, not harder. :P --Super Goku V (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not harder for anyone who actually does want to return to active editing. For them, it just takes a little longer. It's harder for anyone who doesn't want to spend any time actively editing. Valereee (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Super Goku V was responding to Hawkeye's comment about producing a featured article. That would be very significantly hard for a great many of even the best administrators, because it simply does not align with their skills or interests. I know I'm far from the best or most active as admins, so it wouldn't be the biggest loss to the project, but if you told me I couldn't be an admin until I'd produced a featured article then you've lost me as an admin because my skills and interests lie in improving the encyclopaedia in different ways. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry! Yes, it would be nigh impossible for me. I could probably get a GA for almost anything I've written recently, but I just do not produce FA content. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, but I cannot, because I am not an admin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it needs to be as "easy" as "no effort", but it should be clear what there is to do (if anything). I would like it to be unnecessary to make a fuss like I did at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_50#Resysop_Request_(NaomiAmethyst): we should have clear criteria, not come up with ad hoc hoops for the returning admin to jump through. —Kusma (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think as long as there's a minimum "in the last year" activity level, then the resysop should be as close to "no effect" as possible. The only real issue should be in the admin is inactive, asks to be resysop'd, does nothing with the bit, and repeats. Any other concerns with an admin can be addressed at ANI, XRV, Arbcom, or with initiating a recall. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a newly-resysopped admin to ANI, Arbcom or recall is something we would want to avoid. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that recall would be a problem. I believe that a user who is re-given their admin status is immune for a year. The petition may not be created within twelve months of the administrator's last successful (...) re-request for adminship (...) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the resysop for inactivity should be as easy as possible, e.g. issues other than inactivity bouncing (being desysop'd for inactivity, asking for resysop, doing nothing and being desysop'd again, asking for resysop, repeat) shouldn't be handled as part of the resysop.

As to recall a 're-request for adminship' is a specific thing (WP:RRFA), being resysop'd after inactivity doesn't immunise an admin from recall.

If editors believe that an admin is problematic they have routes for highlighting that, and for calling for action. It doesn't need to happen as part of the request for resysop at BN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFCBEFORE on WP:INACTIVITY

What do we think of an RfC asking these three questions:

Should WP:INACTIVITY require edits AND admin actions?
Should the edits requirement be changed, and to what?
Should the admin actions requirement be changed, and to what?

Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should also be discussion on expectations for responding to questions. Are admins expected to remain continually available to respond to questions quickly, or can they respond after returning from a sabbatical period? Specific circumstances can of course override the general rule – other than routine cleanup actions, admins are expected to be respond in a timely manner for their most recent administrative actions. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how the other RFCs have gone for the last year, I am now in favour of a specific proposal being given than an invitation to bikeshed. This is why we are discussing this in Idea Lab right now, because I want to float ideas and get community feedback already, and collect stats on "Who would be currently affected by this proposal" before the proposal. I would not like to effectively repeat chunks of the Idea Lab again. My plan was to put a very straightforward proposal for yes/no/yes but modify.

And my current leaning is just "1 admin action in the last 12 months" (no edit requirements). And to set up a dedicated space for Admins with 0 actions to log unlogged admin actions (like viewing deleted edits). It's simple enough and gets the core concept that enough people desire. Soni (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What other RFCs from the last year are you referring to? Levivich (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think #1 is pretty much ready to go, with a little though maybe needed on "what counts as an admin action" and "should we explicitly name an admin action count or ask that participants list their preferred number"? We should also say that it's INACTIVITY criterion 2 that's at stake. For 2 and 3, I think it's necessary to propose specific options, and I'm hoping this broad discussion will be useful in revealing some trends in what numbers people prefer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think all three should be asked in one RfC, or should we have three (or two?) RFCs? For specific options, should we do a straw poll here to figure out what to propose? Levivich (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest #1 by itself and the other two bundled. Waiting for #1 to conclude will better inform #3, since there'd then be an admin action requirement in both INACTIVITY criteria. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support running #1 first, and then when it concludes, talking about #2/#3. Levivich (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni (ye olde OP), what do you think of this idea? Levivich (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer all questions at once, but I won't stop anyone who prefers otherwise. Both have their merits (Long drawn discussions vs clear consensus/outcomes) but I always am in favour of the good over stalling for perfection. You and FFF both agree on #1 before #2/#3. I disagree. It would be perfectly cromulent if you ran only #1 next. I prefer having an RFC than not. Soni (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer the three specific questions I posed all at once, or a different set all at once? I know you mentioned a preference for a specific proposal e.g. 1 admin action/past 12 months. I'm wondering if there is an alternative to my/FFF's idea of just running the "and" question alone, which alternative might get more support. (I'd also prefer having an RFC than not and my attempt to move this forward has, so far, only gone sideways.) So for example, another option might be to run all 3 questions at once, but change 2 and 3 to be specific proposals vs open ended questions. Levivich (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as an admin action? Most obvious ones are present at WP:MOPRIGHTS. Should any of those be excluded, like viewing deleted pages or editing fully protected ones? There are some admin actions that are not present, like closing community TBAN discussions at ANI or unban requests at AN. Can we entrust bureaucrats with judging the edge cases? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first response would be: what counts as an admin action for current WP:INACTIVITY requirements and how do the crats (or the bot) measure it? I don't know the answer to that.

My personal definition would be "any action that requires admin perms," so that would include editing through full protection and closing discussions that only admins can close. I'd be hesitant to include viewing deleted pages as an "action," although I suppose it might be, but I really don't think "I looked at deleted edits" should count towards meeting any activity requirements.

I'm not sure that "what's an admin action?" is something we need to address though. We've had these inactivity requirements in place for 3 years now. Have we had any problems with regard to what counts and what doesn't count as an admin action? The notion of an admin who performs only unlogged admin actions seems more hypothetical than real--has there ever been an inactivity problem resulting from unlogged admin actions? It seems our current vague definition might be working just fine?

With all that said, I'd be fine with specifically requiring logged admin actions. I'm just not sure that's a requirement that's needed, given the apparent lack of any problems arising from the logged/unlogged issue. Levivich (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The qualitative difference with the new proposals is that now admin actions will actually be required, since the status quo only desysops those who have "made neither edits nor administrative actions". My assumption here is that the "what is an admin action" question hasn't been tested because everyone tends to edit more than take admin actions. I'm not desperate to have this conversation now, but if it ends up being a sticking point at least we have a starting point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good point, I think you're right that "what is an admin action" will become relevant under the proposed change in a way that it wasn't before. (Although I was surprised to learn from Worm's updated stats that there are admins who meet the admin-actions requirement but do not meet the edit requirements. That's one of the things that persuaded me that we need "and" rather than admin-actions-only.) Levivich (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What might be needed in an RFC is a discussion about whether the inactivity requirements are intended to be as they are currently written essentially an automated security feature that is "reversible" and "never considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools", or as seems to be a common interpretation, a target to be achieved that by itself justifies the toolbox. CMD (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin actions are currently part of the requirements, but only when assessing the eligibility for resysop after handing in the tools, or for asking for the tools back after an activity-related auto-desysop. For admins who have always kept up with the editing requirements, there has never been a need to assess number or frequency of admin actions. If this change (to require admin actions as well as edits) is brought in, there will be a need to consider how to transition from the old requirements to the new ones, otherwise you will get people returning after a lengthy break to find the requirements changed in their absence and the point at which they needed to become active again changed without them knowing. Does that make sense? In other words, try to only apply the new rules once the relatively inactive admin has become aware of them. And/or allow a grace period or allow the bureaucrats discretion to judge such edge cases. Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was handled fine in WP:ADMINACTIVITY2022 via notifications and delayed implementation; no reason to think we'll have a problem here. Levivich (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still best to make those provisions clear at the outset, otherwise people might object on that basis. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a list of questions is the sticking point. What you need are well-articulated reasons for changing the activity requirements, and reasons why the current policy is insufficient and how your changes will remedy that. The first RFC, establishing the 12 months with no activity at all, was a security measure that passed handily. The second was ostensibly about admins "losing touch with the community", but also had a strong sideline of people dumping on "legacy admins". Recent attempts (e.g. December 2024, May 2025, this, and an even newer attempt) seem to be much more of the same, with the ones this year being strongly pushed by some people using WP:RECALL to pick off individual admins who aren't active enough for their tastes but are meeting/gaming the letter of the existing inactivity policy.

So what are your reasons? Security? I don't see it. "Losing touch"? Present evidence that the existing requirements aren't good enough. WP:RECALL abuse? Maybe you need an RFC about that instead. Just dumping on "legacy admins" and/or admins who aren't as active as you'd like? I suppose you might win with that, if you can rouse enough of a rabble. Something else? What is it. Anomie ⚔ 23:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The time for sharing reasons for changing the activity requirements is in the RFC, not the RFCBEFORE. The RFCBEFORE is about developing the RFC question, it's not about developing the RFC answer. You can read my reasons when the RFC launches and I vote; whether those reasons will be well-articulated, I can't promise. But to give you a preview of what I'd say in the RFC on #1 (requiring both edits and admin actions), we have recently learned that there are dozens and dozens of administrators who haven't made a single administrative action in over 5 years. Dozens who have made less than 10 actions in the last 10 years. Nine admins have made less than 10 actions ever, and eight have made less than 5 actions ever. And that's just crazy. People who haven't used the admin perm in 10 years, or 5 years, or ever, should not be admins. And I don't want to take those people to RECALL one by one, it'll take too long and require too much editor time; we should just up the standards for everyone at once. Similarly, there are a number of admins who have recently taken admin actions, but have made like less than 100 edits in the last 5 years, or less than 300 edits in the last 10 years. That's also crazy: people who barely edit should not be using the admin tools. Both editing, and using the tools, should be a requirement for keeping the tools. Levivich (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing from that all that is why. Why should people who haven't used the admin tools in X years be desysopped? Why do you believe that "both editing and using the tools should be a requirement for keeping the tools"? What problems are inactive admins causing? I'm not implying you don't have answers to those questions, but unless you can and do clearly articulate them, an RFC to change the activity requirements will just be a waste of community time. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the question I'd most like to see answered. Lots of the discussion seems based on a notion that the issues are self-evident, but they aren't. "Use it or lose it" is a slogan, not an argument. The only thing that makes sense to me is that an admin should have bulk experience of editing so that they understand the problems that ordinary editors face, but that doesn't have to be recent. Zero^talk 02:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does have to be recent, because things change. Just because someone knew what they were doing 10 years ago doesn't mean they still know what they're doing today.

And it's not like we're asking anyone to pass RFA to prove they still know what they're doing, all an admin has to do to regain their bit after an inactivity desysop is be active again--not even that, just say they intend to be active again. It's so easy to restore that I'm comfortable erring on the side of high activity requirements.

What I'm not comfortable with is people who make a few edits for a decade having the power to block editors and delete pages. The risks of bad adminship are great: one block that drives off a good editor might mean we lose thousands or tens of thousands of good edits. So it just takes one admin, out of almost a thousand, to make one bad block (or bad unblock), that will result in significant loss. The chances of that happening are relatively high. I've seen it happen more than once, and as recently as the past year (specifically: an inactive admin returning and making a bad block or unblock). (And before anyone asks, no, I'm not going to name names.)

Whereas, on the other side of the scale, what's the worst that's going to happen if our inactivity requirements are higher than they need to be? More admins might have to say they're active before regaining their bits? The crats might get more such requests than they otherwise would? These are minuscule trade offs to ensure the admin corps -- all of them -- are up to date, active members of the community, to reduce the risk of bad blocks (and unblocks and other bad admin actions).

The other part is that I don't think it's fair that current admin candidates are rejected for failing to meet certain criteria, while dozens or hundreds of admins also fail to meet that criteria.

Finally, the no-two-classes-of-editors, it's-not-a-lifetime-title thing. Adminship shouldn't be something that you achieve once and get to keep for the rest of your life as long as you don't break the rules and make 100 edits every five years. For security reasons, competency reasons, trust-of-the-community reasons, equality reasons...lots of reasons...it should be use it or lose it. Not just a slogan: it's a whole philosophy :-) Levivich (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that recent editing experience is better than ancient editing experience. But I don't find the rest convincing. Consider A = an admin who blocked 10 people in the past year, B = an admin who last blocked someone 5 years ago. Who is the most likely to make a bad block in the next year? If you think it is B, I think you are wrong. Someone who rarely uses their admin powers is less likely to misuse them. I'm not going to name names either, but I'm sure you can think of some active admins who did bad in the not-distant past. I also believe, but don't ask me for stats, that most complaints are about active admins. Zero^talk 07:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if so, if I desysop A, I prevent the bad blocks but I'll also lose the good blocks. If I desysop B, I prevent the bad blocks and lose nothing. Levivich (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody suggested defrocking A. You also seem to have not considered the possibility that admin B blocks rarely because they are super-cautious and only block when they are sure it is necessary. Personally I prefer that approach rather than someone who blocks on a whim, wouldn't you? Zero^talk 07:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So cautious they haven't taken an admin action in 10 years? :-) Levivich (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I often find that while I am considering whether an editor should be blocked, another admin blocks them. So, an admin more cautious than I am will not place many blocks. You may think that makes them a bad admin. I am not so sure. Donald Albury 15:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin's approach to adminning results in them not taking any admin actions for years (whether due to extreme caution or whatever reason), then yes, that's a bad approach to adminning. An admin who doesn't admin for a long time isn't an admin at all, just like a person who hasn't edited in years isn't an editor anymore. They might have been, they might be again, but no one is good at something that they don't do at all. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree that an admin who did nothing for a long time isn't an asset. But you have not established that they are a liability. To me it seems solidly in the "who cares?" column. And moving the goalposts is not good argument; you are suggesting a much tougher rule than "nothing for years", are you not? Sorry if I misunderstood, this debate is very messy. Zero^talk 05:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair that current admin candidates are rejected for failing to meet certain criteria, while dozens or hundreds of admins also fail to meet that criteria. RfA is indeed broken, but that is a poor argument to break other things. If you want to fix intergenerational fairness, why not make things better for the newbies instead of kicking out old hands? Given the state of RfA, admins returning from inactivity are still one of our better sources for active admins.

Your argument about the risk of adminship applies much more to highly active admins than to inactive ones: an editor making thousands of blocks can easily cause significant damage, as seen in some of the recalls of active admins. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich says "we have recently learned". My understanding is that all the points he raised were either raised in the previous discussions, or those who participated in previous discussions were aware of this already (the activity stats were used back then as well). Mostly the same legacy admins and levels of legacy activity were present at the previous discussions. Why is it more of a concern now then it was then? What has changed? Is this a case of "did not like the previous result, so now attempting to right this wrong" or is this a case of "X has changed since last time, so we need to revisit this issue" (in which case, say what 'X' is)? The other consideration is stability in the requirements. It might be a good idea to get a clear and overwhelming consensus and then leave it alone for a good while. Otherwise there is a sense of the goalposts shifting every few years. One option (to see how much support it gets) maybe should be: "stop fiddling with the requirements, and leave this alone for the next five years." Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the exact same set of statements could be said about WP:RFA2024 as well. Several of the passing proposals were in fact perennial proposals. WP:Consensus can change and so I don't think your arguments hold as much merit.

What has changed in the last half decade, in my opinion, is that the culture of accountability has grown. And I see it as a clear positive, not treating adminship as a lifetime privilege. We are nowhere near WP:NOBIGDEAL but we are closer than we ever have been over the last 10 years.

An option to provide stability might be a solid call regardless, you have very valid points about clear expectation setting. I just want to rebut the other arguments, because these changes have several very logical reasons behind them, even if you don't accept them. Soni (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've gotten several useful replies from others already. I'll just add that maybe I'm out of step, but IMO unless everyone likely to participate is familiar with the background then just a bare question is liable to attract votes based on bias and emotion rather than to bring about reasoned discussion of the issue and solutions to it. Anomie ⚔ 11:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will also draw some oppose votes "because no reason for change was given". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be out of scope of the RFC you envisioned here, but I would like to see consideration of what happens at the other end of inactivity when a user asks for the tools back. Currently we have a hard jump from "no problem, standard 24 hour hold" to "No can do, RFA is that way". I'd like to see an intermediate standard where someone returning from a lengthy inactivity (total or partial) should have to re-engage with he community meaningfully before the bit is flipped back on. My spitballed proposal would be that an admin should be required to return to earnest engagement in the project for 1 month per year they were inactive/mostly inactive. I get that this is a little fuzzy for the crats, and also that it might be out of scope for the RFC, but I'd rather bring it up now than risk trainwrecking or being drowned out of the full RFC. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to throw this out because there are too many concurrent discussions happening about admin activity, and sorry but I'm not going to read them all to see if this has already been proposed (though I'm pretty sure I've proposed it before). The problem that WP:ADMINACTIVITY2022 was meant to address was inactive admins whose only activity is logging in once a year in response to the notification that they're about to lose the bit due to inactivity, and by doing this some admins retain the bit for many years without meaningfully participating in the community and are out of touch with current expectations when they do return. Of course the 2022 RFC failed to solve that problem because we're still talking about it. We've already spent hundreds of thousands of words in many discussions over many years getting to the requirements we currently have, and talking more about tweaking the requirements is bikeshedding as somebody else aptly put it. The issue isn't the requirements, it's a matter of simple human nature - holding onto the bit is easy, asking for it back after it gets removed is also very easy but just a tiny bit harder. Instead of informing an inactive admin that they're about to have the bit removed for inactivity, we should instead inform them that it has been removed and that they can request it back at WP:BN when they want it back. If we simply change the process from "easy to keep when you're not using it" to "easy to recover when you haven't used it", we will likely find that many inactive admins who are no longer invested in the project will simply not bother. I mean, it's worth a try. As for recall petitions started by editors who invent their own criteria for admin standards, that's literally what the community asked for, a downside that many of us warned about, and a consequence that we now have to live with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but to address the questions that were asked: per past discussions, many "admin actions" are things that aren't logged or technically can't be logged, especially viewing deleted content, and it has been pointed out before that there are a few admins who only do things that aren't logged. And the activity requirements are about a desire for admins to be active participants in the community, not just button pushers. My opinion is that the activity requirement should be edits only: we can presume that an admin who actively edits is engaging with the community, but the reverse is not true for logged actions. As for questions 2 and 3: no, the requirements should not be changed, per WP:BIKESHED and my comment above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been opened for nearly a month now... is anyone going to start the RfC? I suggest asking one simple question, something along the lines of Should the WP:INACTIVITY requirements be changed? Y/N or Should the requirements in WP:INACTIVITY be more strict? Y/N. If the RfC outcome is No, then we have our answer and nothing further needs to be done. If the RfC outcome is Yes, then we can have further discussions about what needs to be changed. (And if the RfC outcome is Yes, then the editors who voted !No in the initial RfC would be considered disruptive if they attempt to claim in these subsequent discussions that nothing needs to be changed.) Some1 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if the RfC outcome is Yes, then the editors who voted !No in the initial RfC would be considered disruptive if they attempt to claim that nothing needs to be changed That's not how things work around here. And let's not set up a requirement for a politician's fallacy. Anomie ⚔ 22:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder if the RfC should have separate sections for admin/non-admin !votes (similar to how there's separate sections for participants/non-participants or involved/uninvolved). Some1 (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with starting an INACTIVITY RfC any time. There's a segment of the community that feels the RECALL question needs to be settled first (not me), so maybe we'd be more likely to reach consensus if we wait? If we do start an INACTIVITY RfC, I'd strongly prefer more specific questions. I still like Levivich's 3-part framework, and I'm coming around to Soni's side on running all three at once. My condensed, tweaked, and fleshed-out suggestion would be:
WP:INACTIVITY criterion 2 currently says that an admin who "Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period" may be desysopped. If you support a change on either of the two questions below, please indicate minimum and maximum numbers that would be acceptable to you.
1. Should it additionally require admin actions, and if so, how many?
2. Should the edits requirement be changed, and to what?

Hopefully, !votes would then look something like "Q1 Yes, between 1 and 100. Q2 Yes, between 150 and 500. Reasons reasons reasons." I believe a closer would be more likely to assess some consensus there than if some people say "'Yes, 20" and others say "Yes, 100" without indicating how they rank those options compared to the status quo.

I'm also interested in Soni's proposal. He say below he's working on some stats. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with RECALL

Any such RfC should include wording that rules out the use of Recall as a backdoor way to implement stricter requirements. Otherwise I don't see a point in having numerical standards at all. Make admin recall about tool misuse, not about edit count. —Kusma (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this. If we want to have objective inactivity standards then we need to have a single set of objective inactivity standards and enforce them consistently, which precludes the use of recall for activity-related issues. If we want to have inactivity-related recall petitions then we need to deprecate the objective inactivity standards (optionally replacing them with guidelines that are explicitly not minimums) and do all enforcement via recall petition. My very strong preference is for the former. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a bad idea to raise this question at all and an especially bad idea to bundle it with other INACTIVITY reforms. I think existing PAGs prevent recall votes based on obviously inappropriate bases (like racism) and that pretty much anything else should be fair game. I still see procedural inactivity procedures being useful in a world where some community members view low activity levels to be recall-worthy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, any proposed changes to WP:RECALL (or WP:RESTORATION) should be handled by separate RFCs; this one is about WP:INACTIVITY. Levivich (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a waste of an RfC then. —Kusma (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I am very much against hijacking this proposal with any RECALL reforms, and have been consistently phrasing the current "RFCBefore" question accordingly. That is a separate discussion and a separate set of RFCs; anyone who prefers them is welcome to start them off, separately to the the INACTIVITY focused RFC. Soni (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recall is the central point of contention here. It is where admins meeting the activity criteria are desysopped for inactivity, making the activity criteria worthless. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put an end to this misinformation here and now: nobody has ever been recalled for inactivity alone. The three recalls where inactivity was a factor were based on communication problems and/or gaming. Had there not been communication problems and/or gaming, those three would not have been recalled. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity has not been the sole reason for recall, but it has been a significant and (depending on individual perspective) in some cases principal, factor in recall. Had inactivity not been a factor then the petition against Night Gyr would not have been initiated and multiple supporters made it clear that inactivity was the reason they were supporting. Kusma's comment is not misinformation and I'd ask you to withdraw the accusation that it is. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor gets their XC pulled for gaming XC, we don't say that they got their XC pulled because they reached XC. That would be inaccurate bordering on dishonest. When an admin is recalled for gaming inactivity requirements, we don't say "desysopped for inactivity," for the same reason. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has been desysopped for "gaming inactivity requirements" because they were not "gaming the inactivity requirements", they were meeting the minimum activity standards set out by the community in a manner that a small number of editors disliked. I have never seen a case of someone getting their XC pulled for gaming where it was not objectively clear to everyone involved that the editor was actively and purposefully editing with the intent to game the restrictions - which is very dissimilar to the editing those deysopped for not being active enough for some editors' personal taste were engaging in. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a way that you can look at this recall or this recall and claim that nobody has been desysopped for gaming inactivity requirements. Just because you disagree that they were gaming, doesn't mean they weren't desysopped for gaming. 25 people thought otherwise and signed within 24 hours. You have a right to disagree with the outcome, but don't misrepresent the outcome. It's dishonest, Thryd. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's fair, Levivich. Some of those "25 people" thought the behavior met their personal idea of "deliberately misusing Wikipedia's policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community" (Hmm, another candidate for WP:UPPERCASE?), but that doesn't mean that those 25 people were right. Thryduulf doesn't think that compliance with the written rules meets his idea of "deliberately misusing Wikipedia's policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community". He could be wrong, just like the people holding the opposite opinion could be wrong, but he could also be correct (just like the people holding the opposite opinion could be correct).

If you want to find out whether it's a case of "deliberately misusing Wikipedia's policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community", then you need to collect some facts:

Was it done "deliberately"?
Was it "misusing Wikipedia's policy or process"?
Was it done "for personal advantage"?
Did said personal advantage come "at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community"? (What exactly did it cost those other editors to have a barely active admin? Is there any actual cost you think the non-admin majority in the RECALLs would publicly admit to? I assume that they'd like to say something that makes them sound better than being green with envy that this slacker got to keep his all-powerful admin bit for another year, when they didn't get it in the first place, or that the pack perceived a weakness in someone near the top of the dominance hierarchy and decided to attack.)

I am really interested in what you said above about if you get blocked, you want it to be done by someone who is at least as active as you. I think there is an important social fact buried somewhere in there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich's understanding of the history matches my own. I'll add that the suggestion that RECALL invalidates INACTIVITY is also falsifiable using the record. RECALL has been in place since last November, and since its establishment there have continued to be procedural desysops for inactivity. About 20 admins have lost the bit through the INACTIVITY process during that time, with 7 of those happening since the mid-March Master Jay recall, the first of the ones where activity was a major concern listed by signatories. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It invalidates the expectation that if you are more active than the inactivity threshold, you will not be desysopped for inactivity. So the threshold is now completely unreliable. —Kusma (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are more active than the inactivity threshold, you will not be procedurally desysopped for inactivity. The current threshold is reliable for determining procedural desysopping, and every new proposal I'd support will similarly be reliable. Admins who are using the criteria for procedural desysopping as a minimum for retaining the trust and support of the community are welcome to continue doing so, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that myself and would discourage it generally. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the point. Either meeting the inactivity thresholds mean you will not be desysopped for inactivity, procedurally or otherwise, or they are worthless. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a way to state my disagreement with this without repeating myself. I'll leave a final restatement that I oppose trying to bundle INACTIVITY reform with RECALL reform, and I'll anticipate with some mild dread that arguments of this type will eventually be presented in the RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why this thread was specifically focused on INACTIVITY and not RECALL. I've repeatedly stated it, only to be bludgeoned by the same few editors, all of who seem to be admins. At this point, I suspect we'd be all better off if these side tangents are collapsed or otherwise split into a section so they don't keep trying to derail this discussion over and over. (I have now split this tangent) Soni (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the two are, at present, inextricably linked because whether admins can be recalled for inactivity or not impacts what the inactivity requirements should be. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin who has been less active in this discussion - I basically agree with Thryduulf. The live controversy around admin activity is around recall. The only real discussion of whether our admin activity standards are appropriate prior to this is within the context of a recall petition. I don't think calling recall as out of scope is practical for this discussion when it goes live. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, the fact that RECALL will inevitably be mentioned in any RFC about INACTIVITY is IMO the reason to address this directly.

If you'd like to deal with it preëmptively, then you could start a RECALL-focused RFC that either says "Don't use RECALL if your primary complaint is inactivity – we'll get there soon enough without wasting community time" or that proposes the addition of a couple of short lines to INACTIVITY: "There are two ways to get de-sysopped for inactivity. One is a semi-automated process if that desysops anyone who doesn't make X edits/Y admin actions over Z time period. The other is if anyone decides that, in their personal opinion, you are too inactive for their taste and opens a successful RECALL". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That second way is not about inactivity, but Recall. You'd achieve a similar effect noting you can IAR on every policy page. CMD (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second way is absolutely about inactivity. It is entirely about some editors being dissatisfied with someone's possession of an admin bit despite their lack of activity, and deciding to band together to remove the sysop bit. Consider some of the comments in the two RECALLs linked above:

"they have been quite inactive"
"An account this inactive with the tools is a security risk"
"I would expect an admin to be far more active"
"lack of activity"
"has not been contributing"
"currently gaming the activity requirement"
"Clearly inactive"
"Sparse activity"
"their low activity level"
"Inactive"
"not an active editor"

Sure, some editors gave multiple reasons or a different reason, and some editors gave no reason at all, but when I skim down the list, some variation on inactivity or its results was the most common reason given. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. CMD (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:

Petition	No reason	Inactivity only	Inactivity primary	Inactivity equal	Inactivity secondary	Other	% inactivity relevant
Bbb23	1					25	0%
Fastily						25	0%
Gimmetrow	5	13	5	2			100%
Graham87	1					26	0%
Master Jay	9	9	3	2		3	82%
Night Gyr	1	7	3	6	2	6	75%

I've interpreted "No reason to use the tools because they aren't using them" and "Gaming the system" as comments related to inactivity because in context they are. The final column is the proportion of supports who gave a reason for supporting who indicated that inactivity was relevant to their supporting. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick quip, but I'd recommend pinging those whose votes were analyzed; I've had issues before where I've misinterpreted other's votes and they couldn't explain their own vote as being unaware of the discussion. I get that'd be a ton of pings, though, so just a thought. Although I don't know which categories my votes fall into; it seems like a fair assessment. — ^EF⁵ 00:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Those whose votes were analysed" is everybody who signed one of the petitions. I haven't recorded to what categories I analysed individual votes (only the totals above) so if I (or someone else) did it again the numbers wouldn't necessarily exactly match as there were some borderline ones, but it would be very similar. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good table and stats. Maybe include links to the six recall petitions that were analysed? Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements. I know we disagree there's a difference, but to me that difference is valid and crucial. I'll even let slide the ones who clearly are simply reacting to alerts with a flurry of edits. But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want. That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFCBEFORE on RECALL

I think there's been a lengthy enough (in words and time) dispute over the use of RECALL for inactivity that we should proceed to an RfC. I'd propose a question like Should Wikipedia:Administrator recall include guidance that "Recall should not be used if the primary concern is inactivity. Signatures added with rationales based primarily on inactivity may be removed by any extended confirmed editor."? I'm hoping that I'm doing an ok job of representing a view that I don't hold, but I would gladly support an alternative question formed by someone who does support adding guidance like this to RECALL. I believe the best place for this RfC is at WT:RECALL, and I'd suggesting posting notices at WP:VPP, WT:ADMIN, and maybe at WP:CENT and WP:AN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a wording something like "Recall may not used for concerns regarding inactivity. Signatures added with rationales based primarily on inactivity may be removed by any extended confirmed editor." I agree with the desire for an RFC and with your comments about venue and notifications. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaningful when just tacking on "# ~~~~" is treated as valid. —Cryptic 16:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think whether supporting rationales should be required is probably a useful question to ask, but it's a different question to this one. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a "per nom" so as valid (or not) as the opening rationale. But if the rationale given by the person opening the recall petition is invalid, we should close the petition, not worry about individual signatures. —Kusma (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures on a recall petition are votes in support of the admin making a re-request for adminship (either via the open viewpoint process or standing for an election). The process intentionally doesn't provide a way to strike signatures based on others deciding that the reasoning of the signatories is invalid. isaacl (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It currently does not provide a way. If this or a similar proposal passes that will change. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was with respect to Kusma's comments on "per nom" for plain signatures, and invalidating a petition based on someone determining that an initially expressed rationale is invalid. With the current process, an unadorned signature does not implicitly refer to rationales expressed elsewhere. As the current proposal says "Signatures added with rationales", it doesn't cover the case of plain signatures, and Cryptic was raising the possibility that the change may just prompt signatures without rationales. isaacl (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, what if the signer is telling us it's not about inactivity, it's about gaming requirements, which they believe means the person will behave disingenuously to get what they want and as a result they no longer trust the editor with the tools? Are we going to call that a "concern regarding inactivity"? As we've discussed at length, I sincerely disagree that's about inactivity and is instead about gaming. Valereee (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See below for more detailed comments on gaming, but in a nutshell accusations of gaming activity requirements is a concern about activity. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Thryduulf. It's a concern about trustworthiness. Valereee (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to you below to keep this all in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this would require signatures to have explanations, which is a fundamental change to RECALL that would arguably turn it into a mini-RFA and create incentives to argue the "primary" reason behind every single signature. I don't think such a change will pass.

I think it would be better to pass something like "The opening signature of a recall petition must present an argument that is not solely grounded in the activity level of the administrator." This would require the petition to start with a substantive, non-activity related concern while not imposing a burden on future signers.

Looking at the past three recalls, all had signatures that would meet this criteria, so I don't think this would be particularly burdensome. Obviously Levivich's unfortunately late comment in Night Gyr's [31] and HouseBlaster's opening signature for Gimmetrow would qualify, but I think even Extraordinary Writ's comment for Master Jay [32] would suffice. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any more feedback on this. We currently have Thryduulf's draft and Patar knight's. We could agree on a single option or we could present a multi-option RfC with both options and option C being "no change". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should never be "can be removed by any extended confirmed editor". That allows an incredible amount of strife in RECALL that we are not equipped for. If it needs to be a provision, it must either be only by uninvolved administrators or something stronger.

Additionally, the current wording from Thryduulf does not specify whether it enforces "every signature" to have a reasoning, or just the initial signature, or something else. It should be explicit in either case, especially if there's a new "Every signature on a RECALL petition must be accompanied with reasoning" added to the process. Soni (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, some feedback on your draft opener. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend my suggestion to be seen as requiring all signatures to be accompanied with a reasoning, just that the opening signature must not be based (in whole or in part) on activity levels and that all subsequent signatures that do give a rationale must give one that is not based (in whole or in part) on activity levels. That said I would happily support a requirement that either all signatures must be accomplished by a rationale, or a requirement that none of them are with the latter accompanied by an explicit note (instruction?) that by signing the petition you are endorsing the opener's concerns and agree that desysopping the admin would an appropriate and proportionate response to those concerns.

I also firmly disagree with @Aquillion below that alleged gaming of activity levels is a suitable use of recall: someone either meets the minimum activity levels or they do not. If they do meet the minimum activity levels, regardless of their manner of doing so, then they should not be subject to recall based on their activity levels. If you think someone is gaming the activity requirements then demonstrate some way in which their actions are actually (not theoretically) harming the project and recall them over that. If you cannot demonstrate that an administrator is actually harming the project in some concrete manner then recall is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would hard recommend you also more explicitly make the distinction between "Allowed" and "Disallowed" reasonings in your RFC. How you see GAMING is clearly not how everyone else does, therefore there will be a lot of problems using the current wording as is. If you intend for the proposal to imply "No proposal should be started with INACTIVITY as the only reason. GAMING does not apply to INACTIVITY as long as the procedural pre-requisites are met." then you should say the second line as well in that proposal. Soni (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair (although I didn't intend my wording above to be final). I don't see how one can logically regard "gaming the activity requirements" being about something other than activity, but people do. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a second draft, how about:

Recall may not used for concerns regarding inactivity, this includes allegations related to gaming inactivity
Petitions started with a rationale based, in whole or in part, on inactivity (including gaming inactivity) may be speedily closed by any uninvolved administrator.
A new petition to recall the same editor may not be made within 7 days of a speedily-closed petition.
Signatures added with rationales based on inactivity (including gaming inactivity) are not permitted and may be struck by any extended confirmed editor.
Signatures added without rationales are permitted. These are taken as fully endorsing all parts of the rationale provided by the editor who started the petition.

The last sentence of the final bullet (at least) needs wordsmithing and may be better as a stand-alone question. The second bullet is new, the intent is to prevent a knee-jerk renomination with a spurious rationale while the temperature might remain high, but allowing for genuine concerns to be addressed without too much delay (if matters cannot wait 7 days then recall is the wrong process, regardless of what happens with this proposal - it is an emergency matter that arbcom need to be made aware of so they can take action if required). Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% disagree that concerns about gaming = concerns about inactivity. Concerns about willingness to game are concerns about trustworthiness. Valereee (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more. I can understand how, in some situations, an editor saying "I'm going to become active again" and then not subsequently becoming active might be relevant to trustworthiness, but that is not gaming. An editor meeting the minimum standards in a way some editors disapprove of is not relevant at all to whether that editor is or is not trustworthy, it is a matter of their activity levels. If you do not trust an editor, then you need (per AGF, aspersions, etc) to be able to identify some particular reason why you do not trust them and that reason needs to be relevant to trust. Meeting or not meeting the minimum activity standards is not a matter of trust. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you aren't seeing this from my point of view. I don't know how to emphasize more clearly: the lack of trust is not about meeting inactivity standards.

The lack of trust is about gaming to get what you want and in some cases lying -- or at minimum doing the opposite of what you say you'll do and never bothering to explain, even when questioned -- to get what you want, which makes me think the person will do other underhanded things to get what they want, which makes me think I don't trust the person with the tools.

I really hate to talk specifics here. It feels mean. But what I saw, with the petition I brought, was an editor who had done just enough to keep the tools. Then the requirements changed, and oops, desysop for inactivity. Request for resysop. Then again just enough to keep the tools. Then the requirements changed, and oops, desysop for inactivity. Then request for resysop saying they were becoming active again. No evidence of becoming active again, no explanation for not becoming active again followed. On their user page, they refused to discuss further. This is not someone I trust to use the tools. I do not effing care that they're inactive. I care that they don't appear to care whether we trust them or not. Valereee (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, your problem is that their activity levels do not live up to your personal standards, despite meeting the minimum requirements and despite satisfying the 'crats - who are the people we have explicitly empowered to make decisions about someone's return to activity. Please can you articulate what harm they are actually causing to the encyclopaedia. Note I'm looking for evidence of harm, not of things they might theoretically do or not do in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. My problem is they're gaming to get what they want. My problem is they are willing to be duplicitous to keep their tools. My problem is that someone willing to do that is not IMO trustworthy. They've done something underhanded to get what they want. We can all see this. IMO allowing an admin who has shown they're willing to do this to retain the tools already causes harm. Thry, I get it that you don't agree with me here. I respect it. Can you please respect my opinion? Valereee (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please can you articulate what harm they are actually causing to the encyclopaedia. Sure. Allowing admins to game harms the trust we expect/hope non-admin editors have for admins. We need non-admins to trust admins. If an admin has proved themself untrustworthy, IMO we admins should support desysopping. If an admin games, IMO they've thrown their trustworthiness into contention, and it's not unreasonable to ask for RRfA. Valereee (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Valereee that being concerned that someone is circumventing the intent of Wikipedia guidance and norms on engagement with the community is a valid reason to lose trust in an editor to hold administrative privileges. While personally I do not feel that simply meeting the minimum activity standard is a circumvention, absent other factors, I appreciate there are community members who feel that way. I'd rather there be a request for comments discussion directly on this question, rather than implicitly asking the question by proposing a restriction to the recall process. isaacl (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: any thoughts on Thryd's second draft (above), and on FFF's question above as to whether we should work on a single-option RFC, or whether your suggestion (something like "The opening signature of a recall petition must present an argument that is not solely grounded in the activity level of the administrator.") should be run alongside Thryd's in a multi-option RFC, or something else altogether? (I assume no one else has any options to propose for a WP:RECALL-and-WP:INACTVITY RFC, but if someone does, I think now is the time to propose it.) Levivich (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't like bundling the question of whether a plain signature should be interpreted as having the same rationale as the person who started the petition. I feel it has a broader effect beyond the scope of the introductory paragraph about inactivity, and thus should be considered separately. (I also think it's unduly constraining, compelling anyone who has different concerns to express them under certain circumstances, but that's something to cover in an actual request for comments discussion.) isaacl (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, based solely on procedural concerns—not my opinion on the merits of your proposals—I think the RfC will be more successful if we drop the fourth bullet point. The first three are strongly thematically connected, but the fourth would have much wider consequences. If we're just considering recalls based primarily on inactivity, we would get a speedy close based on your proposal anyway. The fourth bullet point would never really get a chance to kick in.

All that said, I'd be happy to get an RfC going with your draft as is, if that's what it takes. I'm trying to balance patience against the diminishing returns of continued discussion, and I think we're getting close to the limit. It would be helpful to get feedback from Patar knight (hope you don't mind the second ping on this), Kusma, and Tazerdadog, all of whom have (loosely speaking) endorsed raising the question of recall and inactivity. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be 2 thresholds for admin activity. We have the first one, which is a threshold below which you are going to have the tools removed, but does not imply you're sufficiently active just because you meet it. The missing threshold is a higher one where if you meet it, you are active enough for all practical purposes, and anyone going after you for inactivity is out of line. Edit warring has these 2 thresholds well defined. The 3 revert rule is the threshold where if you fall short of it, you're almost certainly edit warring. BRD is the threshold where if your conduct is at that standard you have nothing to worry about from an edit warring perspective. In the context of recall, I think that there should be a "fuzzy zone" just above the minimum requirement to avoid an automatic desysop, and a recall based on gaming that threshold is appropriate. There should, however, be a higher activity standard above which any recall petition that cites inactivity is not entertained. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Say the "higher" standard is 100 logged admin actions per month. If someone protects 150 user subpages with an expiry of one month, repeating each month, that's clearly gaming but is still meeting the higher threshold. So then you try to get more specific with just what counts. But will you really be able to get to an https://xkcd.com/810/ style requirement? I doubt it (and check the title text on that comic too). Anomie ⚔ 17:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting idea, though I'm not sure if it could fit into an RFC that is already set to discuss potentially raising inactivity levels, creating new admin activity requirements, and imposing inactivity restrictions on recall. I would probably save this for a second cycle. If implemented, I think for simplicity's sake, the higher threshold should just be meeting whatever the inactivity thresholds are for 5 years in a single year. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers if we're droppuing the 4th bullet (which I'm OK with) then I think the third needs to have an addition sentence saying something like "this does not affect the admissibility of signatures left without a comment" (but much better phrased than that). That way it makes things explicit so we don't cause the issues someone identified with the first draft, but also it allows for changes to the admissibility of such signatures in the future without needing to change this at the same time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, for phrasing, how about "Signatures added with rationales based on inactivity (including gaming inactivity) are not permitted and may be struck by any extended confirmed editor. Signatures without reasoning are still permitted."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine as long as we note that it will need to changed should signatures without reasoning be prohibited or restricted in the future (not part of this proposal, but I recall it has been mentioned in some of the other discussions about changes to RECALL), which I was going for a "this doesn't change" rather than "are permitted" so we don't have to open up any more fraught discussions of inactivity in an unrelated future proposal regarding signatures without rationales. If you think that's not a big deal, then we can go with the simpler option of just saying "still permitted" here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's not a big deal. Assuming there's a future RfC on sigs without rationales, I don't imagine the presence, absence, or specifics of this proposal (if enacted) will have much of an effect. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a proposal barring any consideration of inactivity levels by petitioners would pass and wouldn't personally support it. History has shown that activity levels is a valid factor in determining if an admin is WP:NETPOSITIVE or not. Only requiring a non-inactivity basis for the initial petitioner would also largely avoid the issue of policing comments, since RECALL is a petition and it seems very unlikely that any signature would entirely dissent on the non-activity issues of the petition.

I'm not convinced that a 7-day period is required as the inactivity-focused recalls haven't really been problematic or heated is required. Having a clearly defined group who can do the clerking on invalid petitions (or comments) seems fine to spell out. Maybe in terms of structure, something like a ranked ballot of three choices:

Option 1 barring all discussion of inactivity by petitioners
Option 2 only requiring a the initial petitioner to include a non-inactivity reason
No change (everything allowed)

If there's enough support for classifying gaming inactivity as a non-inactivity reason, then perhaps there could be a separate question to clarify the definition of "gaming" such as:

If 1 or 2 passes, should a well-articulated WP:GAMING argument (i.e. with reference to the frequency, utility, and complexity of edits; the level of engagement with the community; as well as past inactivity and promises) be allowed?

-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, though, the recalls focused on inactivity also accused the administrators in question of WP:GAMING the existing inactivity requirements. I'm of the opinion that gaming is very different than just being inactive - an administrator who is intentionally gaming the activity requirements is abusing policy in a way that is, at least, clearly valid basis for a recall. Any restriction on recalls or petitions for inactivity would IMHO need to have a clause that it doesn't apply to accusations that an admin is gaming the activity requirements; such concerns are clear WP:ADMINCOND violations. (And since, so far, all the concerns about inactivity have focused on gaming, I don't think this change is necessary at all - this isn't about editors trying to backdoor through tighter activity requirements; it's editors pointing out what they believe to be conduct violations. Gaming the administrator activity requirements is no different than eg. gaming extended-confirmed, and we shouldn't let it pass just because the people in question are administrators.) If you want a fixed version of your proposal I would append This restriction does not apply to any case where an admin has been accused of WP:GAMING the activity requirements, which is a legitimate basis for a recall - but as I said, this makes the entire proposal moot because I suspect "inactivity"-based recall attempts will always actually be about misconduct due to gaming the activity requirements. --Aquillion (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with Thryduulf on this, those who want stricter inactivity requirements should do so by getting consensus for a change, not by demonstrating that they have 25 supporters of that stricter criteria. After all there could be hundreds who disagree with the stricter requirements, but that would be irrelevant if there were 25 who didn't have consensus but had found a way to act without consensus. I'm in a slightly different position though in that I think there could be instances where people game the system. For example if someone only met the activity requirement by creating some pages in their userspace and then immediately deleting them U1, then it would be fair to accuse them of gaming the system. But that would involve not just doing the minimum but creating the work that required that minimum. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is doing something like that, and talking to them about it hasn't achieved anything, and an AN(I) discussion has not resulted in them changing their ways and you cannot point to some actual (not theoretical) harm their having the tools is causing (if you can point to that, you can use that harm as the basis for recall) then you can always initiate an arbitration request as it will be a problem the community cannot solve. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a repeated strawman, none of the recalls have been about getting 25 signatures for stricter procedural inactivity criteria. If you think there should be stricter procedural inactivity requirements, or perhaps inactivity requirements that are related to something other than procedural rights expiration, then please raise that in the positive case, but it wouldn't really affect any of the recalls that have happened so far. CMD (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If hundreds disagree with the stricter requirements, then the RRFA will fail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it gets that far given what happened with the only RRfA so far. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm coming to this very late and there's a lot of discussion to read. But as a suggestion for an approach that could be taken in an RfC: when their recall petition was filed, Night Gyr hadn't used the tools at all in 11 years. I doubt that there's a single person who considers that to be an acceptable level of usage. If so, we can approach the question of "How recently should an admin have used the tools?" in the style of a Dutch auction and work down from that figure until we collectively hit upon an answer. What degree of weighting should be applied to that in combination with their use of regular edits can be examined separately. — Hex • talk 14:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there's a single person who considers that to be an acceptable level of usage. I don't care how often an admin is using the tools, as long as they use them correctly and appropriately when they are used and their account remains secure then everything else is irrelevant. The activity requirements were intended only to be a proxy for ensuring that someone remains in touch with community norms about correct and appropriate use of tools and for reducing the chances of account compromise, and we need to get back to that rather than all this hand-wringing and moral panic about gaming the system and appropriate activity levels. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care how often an admin is using the tools

Thanks for the insight. — Hex • talk 21:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good summary. If you have not used tools in 11 years, one you don't need them anymore, and two I would not trust you to use them within current community norms. That is textbook the reason why we even have activity requirements. I would strongly support strengthening requirements to help prevent gaming. It has been the standard understanding until recently when some have tried to argue that it should be as written, instead of the normal intended. We need to bring the current wording in line with the current community understanding. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that anything has changed, other than a small number of vocal users suddenly getting upset that some people are less active than they would personally like. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a lot of pearl clutching that we shouldn't enforce the spirit of the rule vs rule lawyering away from how it's always been treated. PackMecEng (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that the spirit of the rule is anything other than what is written, despite all the evidence-free assertions to the contrary by those who want to enforce something other than what gained consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thryd, I'm insulted and disappointed that after months, and thousands of words of discussion, this is how you summarize the position of me and others. How disrespectful. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read all those thousands (if not more) words of discussion. Despite all of the grand claims made to try and justify enforcing your dislike, I am unconvinced that my summary is inaccurate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as you're unconvinced that your disrespectful summary is inaccurate, then it's fine. Levivich (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how stating my sincerely held belief is at all disrepectful either. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as you sincerely believe that I'm part of a vocal minority making grand claims to try and enforce a personal preference I like, how could saying so possibly be disrespectful? Levivich (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it’s a gross misinterpretation of our viewpoints. Don’t try to generalize an entire group/viewpoint if you unironically can’t understand where we come from when voicing our concerns. ^EF⁵ 22:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite all your protestations to the contrary, literally every explanation for your viewpoints has boiled down to either "I don't like how active this user is" and/or "I don't like the manner in which this user is meeting the activity criteria" (I've explained this in detailed rebuttals to the arguments when they've been made). Unsubstantiated accusations of gaming the activity are a dislike of the manner in which someone is active. It is not a mischaracterisation to summarise your desire to interpret the inactivity policy in a way that allows you to enforce that dislike, despite never having attempted to get consensus for that interpretation, as exactly that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thyr, I recommend stepping away from this subthread. Multiple editors, including myself, agree that your comments are a mischaracterisation. You have a right to disagree, just not to badger.

In the interest of not beating dead horses for the 10th time this discussion, I strongly urge you to step away and let your current comments speak for themselves.

I have the same request for others as well, we have clearly articulated our takes on GAMING so far, there is no need to argue again and derail the rest of proposal building.

Apologies for my otherwise spotty activity, I plan to finish my coding of these stats and start the RFC I planned to, sometime in the next couple weeks. Soni (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hex, and welcome. We are considering holding an RfC on increasing the activity requirements, and one option on the table is some requirement for admin actions. Many people feel that consideration of those activity questions was inappropriate while we sort out a related matter: how should recalls based (at least in part) on activity levels be handled. That, rather than tweaking the activity minimum, is the purpose of this section. The discussions above that were more focused on INACTIVITY have gone a bit stale, but I still anticipate we'll revive the discussion at #RFCBEFORE on WP:INACTIVITY eventually. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you. I've not had a lot of time to be present for policy discussions of late, so hoping I can participate more in future. — Hex • talk 22:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic IP block exemption

I am thinking about this because I am currently on a family trip and I have found that in the country I am in right now there are all sorts of problems from inability to access Wikimedia Commons (which yes is a separate project) to slow speeds when accessing Wikipedia.

In addition, almost every browser has an in-built or promoted VPN including Microsoft Edge Secure Network, iCloud Private Relay, Mozilla VPN, etc. And there are free VPN providers such as ProtonVPN that are extremely handy on trips.

I am wondering if we can maybe discuss automatic IP block exemption and potential criteria for automatic, indefinite grants. Maybe:

Having a confirmed email address that is not in use on another account;
Account at least one year old;
Account has made at least 10,000 edits;
Not more than 10% of all edits within the last year being reverted;
No history of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or misuse of VPNs for nefarious purposes on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project (which probably there should be a way to cancel the autopromotion).

Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2 criteria are completely useless. Apart from that you've probably roughly described one set of criteria that admins should be using to grant temporary IPBE (we often grant IPBE using lesser criteria). An admin should still be looking over the details, like they do for pretty much every other user right. Once you meet the threshold you're automatically good forever? Not a chance. "No history of sockpuppetry", "nefarious purposes", and dodgy logged out editing, are all impossible to detect automatically. These are judgment calls, for which admins and checkusers are paid the big bucks. I also maintain that we should only be granting permissions to people who actually need them. You can define 'need' in various ways, but 'going to use the permission' would definitely fit in there. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the case of "I hit a block" - bypassing the block isn't always the right solution. Blocks can be bad, underlying block reasons can change -- as such fixing the block may be the best solution. (That doesn't cover the case of I should be allowed to use any VPN or Proxy I want because I've been around a while but is another factor.) — xaosflux ^Talk 20:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the current IPBE process isn't good enough (while promoting security against proxy vandals). Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is going to be very difficult to WP:GAME 10,000 edits as rate limits make it all but infeasible save for bot accounts (which are already IP block exempt from all but Tor exit nodes). And those 10,000 edits have to be either 1. while manually IP block exempt or 2. via non-proxies or open proxies that have not yet been blocked. If we are really concerned about gaming we could measure account age from first edit. Self reverts would count towards that 10% limit. The more edits and older the account must be, the less likely we will have serious gaming of existing processes.

We can lower the revert threshold to 5% or 1% if we are concerned about gaming. Or double the requirements to 20,000 and 2 years old, at which point fewer than 10,000 Wikipedians would qualify. The fifth point would be a matter of enforcement.

We could also have procedural revokal based off of inactivity, so that there must be a minimum activity requirement to maintain the automatically granted role.

This is just a brainstorm to try to address a legitimate issue with browser VPNs (which many may be unaware that they have them on, yet alone how to turn them off). Aasim (話す（はなす）) 12:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The legitimate issue with browser VPNs is already solved by linking to instructions in the proxy block message template, which everyone sees when they encounter this form of block, for how to disable almost all of the popular ones, or how to whitelist Wikipedia. We don't need to make holes in our security features for people who won't read instructions, and for the editors who have a legitimate use case for proxy use, listen to the functionaries here telling you that it is practically no administrative burden at all to review IPBE requests. Automatic IPBE grants are a solution in search of a problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also trying to figure out how VPNs are a unique problem to Wikimedia projects. I am not saying that open proxies aren't problematic, I just think the approaches to them might be a little draconian. VPNs have only gotten more popular in the past decade, because they are extremely useful. I also understand security is important but there has got to be a more intelligent way that doesn't require widespread human intervention where bot downtime potentially leaves hundreds of IP addresses that are currently being used for coordinated disruption open (as many other websites that are not MediaWiki wikis do).

A verified email and phone number can make things really hard; with filtering out of VoIP and throw-away email/phone number services it can be very hard to circumvent account bans. But that might also raise privacy concerns.

Another thing websites and forums do for anonymous users is collect email addresses (that again are not from throwaway providers) and require verification codes to protect against abuse. This might work well for temporary accounts as Wikimedia eventually moves to phase out IP addresses entirely for most purposes. Apple and Cloudflare have been trying to introduce private access tokens to try to encourage legitimate users, and maybe MW can recognize private access tokens and allow the user through despite a VPN block (but then the edit would be attributed to the access token).

I do wonder if this could become a major problem in the future if certain browsers make VPNs mandatory, but that is the discussion happening on m:Apple iCloud Private Relay. If we want to kick the can down the road sure but then there might be entire ecosystems unable to edit Wikipedia. IP addresses might always remain useful especially for autoblocks and non-VPN use cases, but for VPNs something more intelligent to identify different users is needed. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe the linked expression is very overused, I agree with Ivanvector and the usage here. We should wait for the problem to arise first because the security benefits against sockpuppeting are much higher than the bits of convenience automatic IPBE might provide. If things gets to the point where we should have automated granting, we'd see a far cloggier IPBE request queue. I'd rather not risk having the very rare 10k-edit sock elude us than satisfy the rare active editor who can't wait to get their request approved until we see a mensurable need for this thing.

The additional things you propose in this comment won't add anything as they're reusable. Many sockpupeteers used to be legit editors who would've needed to pass anything required of that account, and nothing stops a sock from being verified with the same phone number. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a verified phone number on most services is to make it harder to ban evade. Discord already does this; server bans are by username and by IP, but Discord also says that requiring a verified phone number to be granted the role can make evasion very difficult, presumably because we can make it so. Discord does filter out phone numbers that belong to VoIPs and we can do the same thing as well. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 13:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think automated detection of using the same phone number as another account is a good idea as phone numbers are very much transferable; i.e. one can hand in their phone number back to their carrier, which can give that same phone number to me, which is how I end up confusedly replying "new phone who dis" to my inbox.

So if you want to do that you would have to expose phone numbers to CheckUsers. Which is an even bigger security thing whom I do not see the rare convenience of this proposal eclipsing. Yes, we trust CheckUsers, but still I doubt it's something Wikipedians are comfortable with, especially in places like China where WMF office-actioned a dozen trusted users for possible governmental collusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to remember that the United States is not representative of the whole world, not all phone numbers work the same as they do in the US, and not every editor (let alone every potential editor) has a mobile phone of their own.

In the UK I can eaisly get a working, second-hand phone for less than £5 and PAYG and no-contract sim cards for the same or even lower price. If I spent more than 1 minute looking I could probably get it even cheaper than that. It's not free and there is hassle involved, but the barrier for me to be able to verify with multiple phone numbers is extremely low at the same time the identical restriction places an (almost) insurmountable barrier on some people verifying a single account. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that changes anything. Is pay-as-you-go supposed to stop you from reselling the sim card to someone else? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, PAYG it makes it easier to resell the the SIM card as there are no contracts involved. You just buy the SIM card and put credit on it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So that makes the situation I described more common. I don't think you understood, so I'll repeat what I said:

Transferred phone numbers can cause one account to have the same phone number as another, meaning you can't rely on just detecting duplicate phone numbers to find block evasion. And blocked users will just bypass this measure by verifying all their accounts with the same phone number. Unless you give CheckUsers access to phone numbers, which I doubt is a cost the community will accept just for the sole convenience of allowing some editors to access their accounts faster. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're arguing the same thing (against the proposal) but from opposite angles.

Your argument seems to be that accounts legitimately operated by multiple people could have the same phone number, and I don't disagree with that but it isn't directly relevant to my argument. I'm saying that (a) for some people getting a single phone number is a barrier high enough that requiring a phone number to edit would prevent their participation here; and (b) for other people getting multiple phone numbers is such a low barrier that requiring each account to have a unique phone number would prevent almost no barrier to socking (especially if backed by corporate resources).

The proposal only works if there is a 1:1 relationship between person and phone number. You are (I think) arguing against it because a single phone number could relate to multiple people. I'm arguing against it because a single person could easily have multiple phone numbers. Together that means the relationship is actually many:many. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm curious - why would someone want to sell a SIM card second hand? Also aren't eSIMs making traditional SIMs obsolete? It is not like you can't get a phone that has no SIM tray unless you are talking the US model of iPhone. But given that most phone numbers are semi permanent (my phone number has not changed since my teenage years, and my parents' have not changed since they got cell phones in California) blocking by phone number makes it really difficult to evade a block as it would necessarily mean going through the costs of acquiring a second phone number.

If there is a way to identify pay as you go phone numbers we can block those as well and have human review based on the circumstances. Nowhere am I suggesting that we don't eliminate the existing channels for manual grants of IP block exemption. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want it anymore—because you're moving somewhere, because you don't like how it looks, or because everyone's blocked you, etc—and you want to get back some of your costs.

eSIMs can be resold too.

I know that manual grants will still coexist. My point is that introducing phone number verification for this is a very bad idea because they touch the private information nerve and far from guarantee uniquely identifying the person behind them. I've also talked about giving CheckUsers phone number access already. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... okay, the instructions are in {{blocked proxy}}, but not in {{blocked p2p proxy}} where they're more relevant. We should fix that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what problem this is intended to solve, and how it is in keeping with core security policies. No open proxies has been a global policy since 2006. It is not just an English Wikipedia policy. I do a lot of IP block exemptions (it is probably the largest percentage of my logged admin actions), am probably more liberal with it than most people, and I cannot remember the last time that I granted indefinite IPBE. If people need it, they will likely get it. It is not really a hardship to make their case. I've been working on some guidance for admins deciding whether or not to grant IP Block exemptions, and pretty much the first line is "don't grant it indefinitely". Risker (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remain convinced that all automatic rights grants are a bad idea, with the exception of autoconfirmed (I have complicated opinions about extendedconfirmed). They invite permission gaming, and yes we absolutely have bad actors dedicated enough to wait out these arbitrary conditions so that they can keep using their open proxies. It really takes no time at all to evaluate an IPBE request, and as Xaosflux said sometimes granting the permission is a less ideal solution than modifying an overly-aggressive block, or one where there is too much collateral. I pretty much grant IPBE to anyone who bothers to ask - it shows they can read instructions. I also never grant it indefinitely, I thought that was already forbidden by policy. Even my own alt doesn't have indefinite IPBE. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the desire behind this, but I don't think this is warranted. VPNs are security theater and it doesn't really matter if Wikipedia doesn't allow it. Seeing as its been global policy for nearly 20 years (with good reason--would make Checkuser useless) I don't see a strong need to locally reverse it. Its already open to all editors who ask, and its not very hard to ask. Just like with all rights, if you don't need it, then you don't have it. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with others that this seems unnecessary. The only time it would be useful would be if a long-term, active editor editor is unaware of the proxy policy until the first time they try to edit using a proxy (plausible), and that first proxy edit attempt happens in a context where they are unable to disable the proxy briefly while they request a block exemption (less plausible). So it's a rare situation to begin with, and even in that situation, we only lose a few hours/days/weeks of their editing until they get to a context where they can request an exemption. It just seems like the auto block has large benefits and small costs, so it's unnecessary to change it. -- LWG ^talk 18:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LWG Or the much more common scenarios of a long-term, active editor needing to edit from a mobile device away from WiFi coverage, only to discover that they subscribe to one of the many mobile operators whose entire IP range is blocked, or they move to an area only serviced by an ISP that is subject to a rangeblock, or they need to edit from a corporate network that run all traffic through filtering software hosted on AWS, Google Cloud, or Azure. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahecht right, but how often are those edits going to be so important that it's a big deal to take a wiki break for a couple days while you request a block exemption? -- LWG ^talk 22:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:IPBE, "Administrators and bots are always exempt from such blocks..." and so it's quite reasonable that other long-standing trusted users should also be exempt. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are aware this is the idea lab. If you think it is a good idea maybe you can help work it into a proposal that has a chance of passing. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 22:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The people with power – the admins – don't want to pass this because they are already exempt, it would weaken their power a bit and so there's nothing in it for them. I expect that it would have to happen as part of a WMF initiative affecting user accounts like the new Temporary Accounts. Don't hold your breath. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, as an admin I am offended that you think so little of me. Donald Albury 23:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence at all for this assumption of bad faith of all administrators? Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does that address what you replied to? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read from the top of this page This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them. Others have stated potential problems with the idea that might need to be addressed to have a better (albeit very low) chance of passing. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 12:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Why everyone should use a VPN for further evidence that this is a normal and respectable way of accessing the Internet. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are paid VPNs blocked as well? I was under the impression that "open proxies" in "No open proxies" only meant relays anyone could access for free.
The policy isn't because Wikipedians find VPNs non-respectable either. Wikipedia also blocks T-Mobile cellular users and T-Mobile is a perfectly normal carrier. It's solely for protecting against sockpuppetry. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we know the WMF hands over editors' IP addresses (among other things such as email addresses) if they lose a lawsuit (per this comment [33]; discussion: [34]), maybe this idea isn't so bad after all. Some1 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that changes things. The downsides of sockpuppetry still outweigh the benefits, benefits which are far smaller than you might think as we do have a working manual review system. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distinct styling for Simple Wikipedia

When I stumble across a Simple Wikipedia article on mobile it is not easy to realise I am viewing the "cut-down" wiki.

I Google searched vulkan wikipedia, scrolled down by habit as I often do to skip the Google AI summary and ad nonsense, saw the Vulkan (API) result with the Wikipedia logo and started reading. I was surprised by the lack of breadth, quality and outdatedness of the article. I was inadvertently reading the Simple Wikipedia version.

On Chrome mobile you can't see the start of the url, the logo bar is the same as regular Wikipedia and even Simple's Main page gives no clear indication of the difference.

This isn't the first time I have been caught out using Simple Wikipedia via a Google search.

I suggest that Simple Wikipedia gets a distinct logo bar or tagline on mobile. I will mention this discusiion on Simple's Village pump. Commander Keane (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing we can do or meaningfully say about this here. We do not (and should not) have any influence over the appearance of other projects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For sure it is a Meta issue. I am just noting it here (and at Simple Wikipedia) as participation at Meta is generally limited. If someone has the energy to persue the situation please ping me at the relevant discussion. Commander Keane (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IF you are soliciting input to discussion elsewhere, then please be explicit about that and provide a link to that discussion. Your initial message reads to me as though you will be inviting editors at the Simple English project to contribute to the discussion here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could change your skin here or on simple, then you immediately notice when you are on the other page. (Also makes getting logged out more noticeable). —Kusma (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the occasional random logouts would again make it undifferentiable since MinervaNeue simplewiki looks exactly the same as MinervaNeue enwiki. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the similarity between Simple and En wiki can be confusing, especially for casual readers. Making the tagline "From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" more prominent can help. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's alright on desktop and the problem's pretty much just on mobile. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A userscript to detect WP:OWN behaviour - it would be nice if it was built into MediaWiki

I wrote a Tampermonkey userscript to detect WP:OWN behaviour: User:Félix An/Who dominates your article?

It would be nice if this feature was built into MediaWiki. Félix An (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pick a random article, click on history, and at the top you have "page statistics". This includes both the top editors by bytesize and by edit count. Neither of these indicates WP:OWN though. Number of reverts might be a slightly better indicator, but even then it is most likely an editor protecting a page from vandalism. Fram (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Own is really about other offenses that are rooted in a sense of ownership of the article. It isn't about being the most active editor/contributor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical perspective this doesn't have to be a *Monkey script. MediaWiki has its own way of loading userscripts; see mw:Manual:Interface/JavaScript and/or Wikipedia:User scripts#How do you install user scripts?. It also provides far better interfaces: for example, to access the API, you can use wmdoc:mediawiki-core/master/js/mw.Api.html instead; to add a subtitle, you can use wmdoc:Wikipedia:User scripts#How do you install user scripts?; and to get the page title, you can use mw.config.get, which is documented in the Interface/JavaScript page I linked above. Nice to see another editor interested in scripts here! Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what other editors have said, we also have XTools which is pretty helpful for that stuff, and which you can incorporate into your script with mw:XTools/API. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One limitation I noticed is that your script seems to only look at the 500 most recent revisions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(A side note on byte/edit counts: there does have to be an upper limit to the number of revisions processed, because processing takes time. The 500 here is probably mw:API:revisions's max rvlimit; at XTools we can do 50k because we directly query the replicas; but everything has to stop at some point. — Alien 3
3 3 17:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks a thanks

Sometimes I want to show appreciation for a thanks but obv messaging people is a bit much, maybe you could thanks a thanks, like a mini high-five Kowal2701 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People should lessen spamming appreciation messages on talk pages and focus more on building articles. See WP:NOTSOCIAL. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not on talk pages, it’s the thanks tool. Efforts to make a friendlier and more collegial environment are conducive to building articles, quality ones at least Kowal2701 (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you got the impression of thanks spam from what Kowal said. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw a "thanks for your thanks" template once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Because you thanked me}}. DMacks (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think messaging people is appropriate for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Liu (talk • contribs)

I definitely know what you are getting at Kowal2701 and have occasionally wanted to acknowledge a thanks with a quick headnod, smile or "you're welcome", much like in the real world. However, as Aaron Liu suggested, a talk page note is probably best and you may strike up a conversation around quality article building while you are there. If editors find the process of visiting a user's talk page, starting a new section and saving is too onerous, a quick-reply feature might be useful?--Commander Keane (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a quick button to let them know that you saw the thanks and are now happy is a good idea. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah that’s what I had in mind, rather than another full on thanks Kowal2701 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would be any better than the original idea. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

better tools to revert

Twinkle may sound good, but maybe a tool that has a more friendly UI, stricter criteria, and better features should be added to detect more efficiently and revert more efficiently. DallolEthyoppiaFan (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What specific features are you thinking of? We do have Twinkle alternatives (I'm sure there's more but WP:Ultraviolet comes to mind for me). GoldRomean (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a new gadget, called UltraWiki. It can work on most devices, uses JavaScript, and very efficient at referring vandalism. But we need a New Gadget called UltraWiki, ok Graspbony (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The stricter criteria is mostly extended confirmed criteria Graspbony (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UltraWiki the new gadget is easy to use and has customizable watchlists. I think this is why a new gadget called UltraWiki should be made by someone Graspbony (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What doesn't Ultraviolet and Antivandal already have? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need a unique notification for this new gadget. It is called Warning, and it describes the issue, timestamp, date of vandalism, and offers in-depth communication of why vandalism is bad for Wikipedia Graspbony (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new gadget Ultrawiki stricter criteria

• Must have 500 edits

• Account at least 30 days old Graspbony (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UltraWiki also has to have semi - automation. You remember ClueBot NG, right? Well, the automated part of this gadget has machine learning to catch vandalism faster. Now thatd helpful Graspbony (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is so confusing and so seemingly large that I think the best way forward for your idea is to code it yourself! Aaron Liu (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember ClueBot NG, the automated bot on Wikipedia. If so, machine learning is study of algorithms that improve automatically. And you remember Huggle, the diff browser, right? Well, this gadget is going to be more lightweight, making it like a "data saver" version of Huggle. I will explain simply

Extended confirmed means you have at least 500 edits and your account is at least 30 days old.

JavaScript is a programming language,right? Yes. Graspbony (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most anti vandalism tools are just on English Wikipedia. We need cross - wiki tools, like on German Wikipedia or Kirundi Wikipedia or Arabic Wikipedia. We need to fix vandalism across Wikimedia projects, and we also need to stop vandalism. Now I see Huggle in this sense and Twinkle as not catching subtle or "sneaky" vandalism, and now because of this, UltraWiki 's features help catch all types \ variants of vandalism. Graspbony (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even the name UltraWiki has a meaning. Ultra implies it is a powerful gadget limited to certain trusted users, and Wiki means it is on Wikimedia Projects. So the name implies a powerful gadget on Wikimedia Projects limited to trusted, experienced users. Graspbony (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, "sneaky vandalism" is hard to catch. If it was easy, Cluebot/Huggle could already do it. But it is easy to say "we should use machine learning to detect this", but how? I agree that the best way to move forward is to make it yourself. If it can actually be done, it would be a big help (but that's a big "if"). GoldRomean (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need you to make it, as well as Ioeth Graspbony (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do it yourself. I cannot understand your vision enough to fully realize it, and only you know what's best for the product. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Require accounts for live edits, move IP edits to pending

This is my first time doing this so sorry if this is the wrong place, or an imperfect proposal, I don't have the technical aspects of this fleshed out, I'm just trying to gauge public opinion.

Preface

I want to be very clear up front: this is not a call to block IP editing.

Wikipedia has discussed 'blocking IPs' many times before, and those proposals have consistently failed and for good reason. There are a lot of good edits from IPs: typo fixes, factual corrections, and contributions from people who might never sign up for an account but still add value. What I’m proposing is different. I’m suggesting that IP edits shouldn’t automatically go live the second they’re made. Instead, they should enter a pending review queue (similar to how “pending changes” works now) and only appear in articles after being approved by a reviewer. But this doesn't change the fact that 97% of vandalism comes from unregistered users.

This way:

Good-faith IP contributions are still welcome.
Bad edits don’t immediately reach readers.
We acknowledge that most IP edits are already being reviewed by experienced editors anyway - this just makes that review step happen before the edit goes public, instead of after.

This would dramatically reduce visible vandalism - the biggest reputational issue for Wikipedia is when blatant vandalism sits live for minutes, hours or even days. This system would almost eliminate that problem.

Summary

Wikipedia allows unregistered users (IP editors) to edit most pages directly. While this openness has been part of the project’s ethos since its founding, it has also meant that experienced editors must constantly patrol for vandalism, spam, and poorly formatted contributions.

This essay argues for a structural shift:

IP edits would no longer go live instantly.
Instead, IP edits would enter a pending review queue before appearing in articles.
Brand-new accounts would also have their edits reviewed until they demonstrate basic good-faith editing (significantly less than the 500 to become an EC, but enough to vet whether the account is just purely for trolling).

This system preserves openness, anyone can still suggest changes, while reducing the burden of reverting vandalism and repairing broken pages.

Think of it as a universal “Pending Changes” model for IPs and brand-new accounts. Pending Changes has been controversial but ultimately accepted for certain high-profile or vandalism-prone pages - this would expand that system massively, but with the same core idea. And it's worth noting German Wikipedia already disables IP editing altogether. Compared to that, this proposal is less restrictive - it doesn’t ban IP edits; it just restricts them.

Why change the current system?

Constant cleanup is already the norm. Nearly every IP edit is already double-checked by experienced editors to make sure it isn’t vandalism, spam, or just poorly formatted. In practice, patrollers treat these edits as "pending" already - the only difference is that readers see the unreviewed version first, which is often vandalism or nonsense.
Vandalism is instantly visible. Even if it’s reverted within minutes, IP vandalism harms Wikipedia’s reputation and can mislead readers.
Editing without an account is too easy for trolls. Throwaway IP edits mean vandals can disrupt pages endlessly without consequences.

How the new system would work

1. IP edits go into a pending queue by default.

They do not immediately change the article.
Reviewers (autoconfirmed users or above) can approve, reject, or modify them before they go live.

2. Newly registered users also have pending edits until they make enough constructive edits to be deemed trustworthy.

This strikes a balance: new users aren’t stuck for months before they can edit freely, but they do show a basic level of good faith before their edits go live.

3. Established accounts (autoconfirmed and above) see their edits publish immediately, as now.

Benefits

Vandalism won’t go live - readers will see a stable version of articles.
Patrolling becomes calmer - instead of frantically reverting vandalism, editors can review suggested changes at their own pace.
Makes formal what already happens informally - since experienced editors already double-check nearly every IP edit, this simply streamlines the process and prevents bad edits from ever reaching readers in the first place.
Lower barrier than Extended Confirmed - this proposal doesn’t require 500 edits and 30 days, just a short “training period.”

Challenges

Review backlog risk: If every IP edit needs approval, there must be enough reviewers to handle the queue. Otherwise, good edits might languish. However, this backlog would likely taper off over time - much of today’s vandalism is driven by the 'instant gratification' of seeing your prank or nonsense appear on Wikipedia immediately. Once vandals realize the days of seeing their edits show up live are over, a lot of that behavior will fizzle out.
Openness concerns: Some editors fear any restriction could discourage casual contributors or whistleblowers who value anonymity.

Likely outcomes if implemented

Short-term: Chaos. There will be a big backlog and potential frustration for both IP editors and reviewers.
Medium-term: Adjustment. Vandalism will drop as the “instant gratification” factor disappears, reviewers will adapt, and tools may even improve to automate simple approvals (typo fixes, formatting).
Long-term: Stability. Wikipedia becomes more stable and vandalism becomes far less visible - but there’s a real risk that casual, one-time editors might contribute less.

Possible refinements

Require IP editors to pass CAPTCHAs or rate limits to stop automated spam.
Allow certain “low-risk” edits (like typo fixes) to bypass the queue if detected by filters.

Conclusion

Wikipedia thrives on openness, but openness doesn’t have to mean instant, unreviewed edits from anyone with an internet connection. Since experienced editors already double-check almost every IP edit - and vandalism bots only catch the most obvious junk, shifting IP edits (and a short probation period for brand-new accounts) into a pending review system would still uphold Wikipedia’s core principle of “anyone can edit,” while dramatically reducing visible vandalism and the endless cycle of cleanup. This change would keep Wikipedia open to contributions from everyone, but cut visible vandalism to nearly zero, eventually easing the workload on patrollers and reducing the current reliance on chance that someone spots and reverts bad edits in time.

Nswix (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would this interact with Wikipedia:Temporary accounts which are soon going to be deployed here? I will also note that visible vandalism is far from an IP-only problem, and that, in your new system, "cleanup" will still need to be performed even if the edits are not visible during that time. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "vandalism is far from an IP-only problem" (emphasis mine, no evidence provided), the proposal cites evidence that it is the overwelming majority (97%!) of it. But even if it's only 40%, I agree that single-step proposal that targets a substantial chunk of a problem is worth at least testing. This proposal explicitly defines itself as a reader-facing improvement, not an editor-timesaver or way to prevent bad edits in the first place. These two aspects seem to hint at a "Perfect is the enemy of good" problem. DMacks (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The linked study is from 2007, and other studies from the same time found much lower numbers (around ~80%), with the caveat that the vast majority of IP contributions were not vandalism. Even then, my point is that, beyond the numbers, the ability to vandalize is not fundamentally connected to editing under an IP – many of the worst long-term abusers regularly create new accounts instead. On the other side, one-time constructive editors would be confused by not seeing their contributions appear (and might even believe that they were reverted), and might be discouraged from editing further.

While there is certainly an improvement on the reader-facing side, it might come with the price of a steep decline in new contributors, which will have an impact as they are responsible for a large proportion of the encyclopedia's edits. This has been evaluated more recently in meta:Research:Value of IP Editing, which found that restricting IP edits generally led to a decrease in both vandalism and productive edits. I do not believe the trade-off is necessarily good, although I am not opposed to something like A/B testing to help ascertain it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it's worth noting German Wikipedia already disables IP editing altogether.

Not true. It simply does the IP part of the universal pending changes thing you propose. And right now, their de:Special:PendingChanges backlog is 17 days long. It's also said that the lack of immediate feedback makes editing a lot less rewarding and encouraging of newcomers. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have data for how long the enwiki pending-changes wait-time typically is? More importantly, do we have data for what percent of IP edits are not reverted (undone, whatever technical process) in mainspace? An edit getting reverted means there was a second set of eyes, so that latter could be a maximally pessimistic gauge for how much increased editor load there would be for requiring review of all IP edits. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the CAPTCHA part active right now? I'm getting that prompt on every edit starting today. -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except this one. So, every edit in article-space -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an idea page, so no - that is not the reason. If you don't like entering CAPTCHA verifications, consider creating an account. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's because of a certain long term abuser and is unrelated to this proposal. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. dewiki does this. It has caused them very, very many problems. I do not want us to head in that direction.

2. "97% of vandalism comes from unregistered users" – that statistic is meaningless. What is more important, what we assess every time we protect a page, is what proportion of IP edits are vandalism, not the other way 'round. Toadspike [Talk] 17:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on "let us not follow dewiki". —Kusma (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, vandalism is very low these days and not a big problem thanks to filters. Unlike 20 years ago, it is quite rare to see defaced pages. Wikipedia has a very high reputation. What we need to worry about is getting enough people to edit so our community does not fossilise. We are already far less open than we used to be. I do not think we can afford to become even less open. —Kusma (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the topic area and the type of vandalism. We still see a lot of POV vandalism in our more controversial subject areas. And I still find myself frequently having to revert school kids who think it fun to add their mate’s name to “list of people in X” articles. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Honestly I've slowed down on editing simply because vandalism has gotten so low, and most of my time here was spent reverting it. It might be because of policy changes, but honestly I'm beginning to think it's just because people nowadays have better things to do. Either way, this proposal is a very bad idea. The amount of IP edits is enormous, and the backlog would quickly grow to a point where it would be impossible to go through all the edits. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, nowadays Vandalism isn't why people criticize Wikipedia usually. Instead people often criticize bias (or perceived bias), and in some cases unsourced content. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are massively underestimating the amount of edits that will be added to the pending changes backlog, and massively overestimating the number of editors who will work on that backlog. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A benchmark here might be the NPP backlog. They probably have much better stats on this, but today it looks like there have been roughly 5-20 new entries per hour, and 921 new entries in the last week. The backlog is 18,472 articles, the earliest of which is 6 years old. NPP reviews take much longer than reviewing diffs, but given that we get roughly 2 edits per second, the workload would likely be much longer too.

Another, better benchmark might be the patrol backlog on Commons, which is more similar to this. Unpatrolled edits are removed from the queue after 30 days, and even then the backlog reached 57,083 IP edits in 2023 (of 1,255,051 edits total). You can extrapolate what the numbers would be here. And if we impose a similar 30-day cutoff, then we basically are banning IP edits, stochastically. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NPP "oldest entry" backlog numbers are misleading. If you convert a six-year-old redirect to an article, that's reported as a "six-year-old backlog" by the software, even if it's only been in the queue for five seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a sizeable amount of volunteers ready to take on this task? If no, how do you expect the transition from the short-term to the medium-term scenario to occur? We have many backlogs as is, and the number of active editors has been ~stagnant for years. Dege31 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I could see. Maybe hold edits tagged as "potentially vandalism" for review. Might be a good idea, But I'm too lazy to do a formal suggestion. But hey, still an idea. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically labeling newcomer edits as "potentially vandalism" could easily scare them away from the project altogether. Please do not bite the newcomers is one of our guidelines, after all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what they meant. You know the ORES-based "potentially vandalism" filter under recent changes? I think they means maybe we could make all edits assessed as such go through PendChang. Though that would probably take quite a bit of coding. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. It's just an idea, I don't really care too much, but hey, it's a neat idea. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad for misunderstanding it! Yes, that makes more sense (and wouldn't be as bite-y), the question is really whether we have the manpower to do so. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find the backlog risk concerning. As Aaron Liu pointed out, German Wikipedia implemented this policy, and 2 week+ backlogs do happen there. I don’t see why a similar backlog wouldn’t arise here if we gated all IP edits behind review in this project.

As Toadspike noted, the key missing data point is what share of IP edits are vandalism. To quantify the impact on the total number of non-vandalism edits to the project, here are two scenarios using this year’s Wikistats share that ~13–14% of human edits come from IPs [35]:

Assume 20% of IP edits are vandalism (1 in 5!). If the policy is highly effective and reduces IP vandalism by 10x (90% removed) while reducing good IP edits by 2x (50% removed), we would remove about 5.3-5.8% of all non-vandalism human edits on English Wikipedia.
Assume (more realistically) that only 5% of IP edits are vandalism. If the policy reduces IP vandalism edits by 10x but reduces good IP edits by 5x (80% removed), we would remove about 10.0-10.7% of all non-vandalism human edits on English Wikipedia.

Those are just near-term effects. Longer-term, adding friction to a first edit likely suppresses participation by removing low-commitment on-ramps. I would guess that this effect has been previously studied in depth.

I don’t work in anti-vandalism, but if the goal is reducing manual workload, I’d prefer we first exhaust automation-heavy alternatives that don’t erode openness. You can always “improve quality” by restricting who can edit. Taken to the extreme, you get Britannica, but that runs directly against the project’s ethos. If less-restrictive options haven’t been tried here, we should really make sure to explore those first. spintheer (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to see it: your work doesn’t just stop vandalism, it keeps about 10% of good edits flowing by making it unnecessary to gate all IP edits. That’s exceptionally high leverage, and everyone pushing our anti-vandalism efforts should be proud of that impact. spintheer (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous research has also shown that many IP edits are reverting vandalism. (AFAICT all the research is outdated.)

This graph shows why I don't want to follow the German-language Wikipedia's model: https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org/contributing/editors/normal%7Cline%7C2015-08-03~2025-07-31%7C~total%7Cmonthly WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. This has probably been said before, but the dynamic is self-reinforcing: each step toward less openness in the project shrinks the constituency who might advocate for it, making the next restriction easier. spintheer (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting 'Templates used in this preview' in multi-column format

For longer articles, scrolling up through the long list of template shown during preview mode is getting to be a chore. Wouldn't it make sense to present this information multiple columns so less scrolling is needed? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could indeed be more practical, although I don't know if that is something interface admins can do or if it is inherent to the MediaWiki software. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T401066

I'm not an interface admin, but as far as I've been able to work out this is something that would have to be changed in software. It's a good idea though (the list is almost 11 screens long for me at London for example), so I've created phab:T401066. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While this is incorporated into the software, you should be able to see the effects yourself by adding this CSS to your personal userstyles page:

.mw-editfooter-list {
	column-width: 27em;
}

Aaron Liu (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly unnecessary as a software change to me. The list is already in a collapsible box (which remembers whether you last expanded or collapsed it, defaulting to collapsed), so if it bothers you you could just collapse it. People who really want this could add the CSS snippet Aaron Liu posted just above, much like how other people use my user script User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod to get more information in the list instead. Anomie ⚔ 13:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does the trick. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dash Bot

Assuming that strict criteria are met, would a Dash Bot be practical? kencf0618 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend what you wanted it to do and why. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:DASHBot already existed, but stopped running in 2013. Vague question gets a useless answer. 😀 Anomie ⚔ 13:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primum non nocere - bots often break things, so be very careful. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your most recent edit was inexplicably replacing en dashes with em dashes on a policy page in contravention of MOS:DASH, I'd be concerned about any bot you might be proposing for this, strict criteria or not. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bot1058 Task 10 is operating on an unscheduled basis, under operator supervision. Let me know if you have any problems with its edits. There's still a known bug that I need to fix. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That answers my question! kencf0618 (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a bold demand and filed Talk:Asia–Pacific#Requested move 3 August 2025 to stop the bot from making over a thousand edits to change Asia-Pacific links to Asia–Pacific. For this bot to operate smoothly, we need to have competent executive editors. Since anyone with an inflated sense of expertise can edit, I'm not sure how soon I'll take the governors off my bot's operation, and let it run unsupervised. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merges

Merge discussions are buried away, which means they often don't get much input, and it takes even longer to get them merged once there's consensus. Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers isn't providing much value, as it has to be updated manually and it doesn't provide a full list of ongoing merge discussions. We currently have a list of discussions at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log, as well as the categories Category:All articles to be merged, Category:Pages currently being merged, and Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion. I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts on the merge process or how we can make it more visible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested on at least one previous occasion that it should work like either RM or an XfD to increase visibility. I think it got some support last time but I don't remember the detail. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PM updating automatically like WP:RMC would go a long away, I remember being surprised ~~this wasn’t the case~~ merges weren't handled similarly to RMs and RfCs etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it’d make sense to format it similar to WP:RFC/A since merges require more familiarity with the topic than for article titles Kowal2701 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wbm1058 runs Merge bot to keep the log page updated, so there's at least some automation involved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have always thought that merge proposals should be integrated (merged? :) ) with WP:AFD, since often commenters on a deletion discussion propose to merge (part of) the article into a different article anyway. To me, the question in a deletion discussion is whether Wikipedia should have a standalone article on a given topic, which is very much like what merge proposals are asking anyway. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. PropMerg is under-active and under-seen too much that I don't think there would be problems sending its workload to the afd userbase. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging merging (lol) with AfD is absolutely something I'd support if a viable way to do it is proposed. It's listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD, but I don't know if it's been seriously proposed in the current "generation" of Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked that list just to be sure before making my reply; the workload part I mentioned tries to address some of its arguments. I'm not even sure if there are previous discussions for only merging merging (nice) instead of also merging the vastly different ReqMoves. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you (or anyone else reading this) have thoughts on what the merging of merging would look like, or how it should be proposed? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at least marking Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers as historical and adding merging to WP:CONRED. Not sure what exactly to do with TM:AfD and TM:Merge though; the laziest way would be to just replaec the "discuss" link with a link to the AfD.

To propose this, we would make a threat at WP:VPR and advertise it in Template:Centralized discussion. Not sure if it needs to be an RfC, but something this large definitely needs to be Cent-listed.

I've notified WT:AfD and WT:PropMerge since we probably need their input. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I favor this. This reflects how AfD is already being used in many cases. We get AfD's like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Black Widow supporting characters every week. Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD still exists, but maybe it's finally time to break the logjam and make it "Articles for Discussion" and intentionally enshrine the fact that many articles shouldn't be standalone articles, don't need to be entirely deleted, but DO need a formal input process to minimize disruption and promote consistency across the project. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turning the "D" into "Discussion" is one way we could do it, but I want to make a distinction from the other fD's in that the proposal would not also merge ReqMoves, since that venue needs a completely different skillset unrelated to discussing notability. If BLankAndRedirect counts as Deletion, I think merging should to. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have little participation in/insight into requested moves. But yeah: delete vs. keep vs. merge/redirect is already the threefold outcome in AfD so it's not been purely delete-or-not for years. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime back I noticed that the AfD statistics tool switched from treating a merge result as a keep (and colouring it green), to treating it akin to a delete result (and coloured red) - I don't agree with this (and I'm guessing I missed the discussion on this change?). For me, a merge result is a sign of notability and for various reasons while editors conclude that it is not a sign of stand alone notability, nevertheless it is an acknowledgement of notability. So, I'm not quite in agreement with the idea that AfD produces three types of results - rather it is a discussion purely focussed on notability and merge is a measure of notability relative to the standards that have been set. That said, I agree that seeking ways in which merge outcome can be more steadily followed up on would be useful. I agree that it does require some understanding of the topic at hand - while one might make explicit (at WP:ATD-M?) that those who propose merge have an onus to follow up, I imagine that would be impossible to police. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - I can see that from a "process" perspective an AfD discussion can produce multiple different processes from the outcome of notability. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently !vote to merge at AfD when the subject is not notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The merge process does not need to be as formal as AfD because merging can be done WP:BOLDly, by any editor without the need for advanced permissions. We could more expressly allow AfD to lean into merge discussions, but it would not be good to make it mandatory. Merge discussions take a long time to process in part because merging is much harder than deletion. Depending on the articles in question it can take quite a lot of work. CMD (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I want merging to be just like BLAR, though. BLAR can also be done boldly, discussed in some random talk page discussion, or discussed at AfD. I think it would make sense for Merge to be the same. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are very similar so they could use the same processes, a merge is a BLAR with some extra steps. CMD (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that combining the process with AfD would be the way to go, but RM becoming RMM (requested moves and merges) would be a natural improvement. There's always scope for an AfD to emerge from a move or merge discussion, at which point more formality is appropriate. — Hex • talk 13:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An improvement for merging perhaps, but the two kinds of discussions are so different that I think it'd be a big detriment to participants who follow RM for their interest in article titles. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a merger with RM would be a good idea. An RM-closer doesn't need to understand topic in order to carry out a consensus for a move, but unless it's a very simple case of "merge the whole of article X into article Y as a new section" then that is not true of article mergers.

Taking the structure of RM discussions and applying that to article mergers though would be helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this. Proposed mergers is not a great system and merge discussions often sit months before they're resolved. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And once there's consensus to merge, it can take even longer. Over the last few weeks, I've completed a bunch of merges that achieved consensus in 2023 and 2024. They're just put in a category and forgotten about if the proposer or the closer doesn't do the merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support formalising this process. It would make merger discussions a lot more productive if they were handled the same way as requested moves. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging merges into AfD, and I oppose a merger with RM. "Merge" is already a possible outcome from AfD, and merges have more in common with deletion (since all the content in a page is blanked) than renaming (since no page is renamed). That said, I think we'll continue to have a merge backlog, since merges take work and time. It's rare that a page can be mindlessly cut and pasted into the merge target. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging merges into AFD and as per several of the editors above, change the D in AFD to discussion.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a workshop discussion to hash out an idea, not the actual proposal yet, but I'm glad to see so much support. But there's still parts to hash out: Should the D stand for Deletion or Discussion? (There's arguments on both sides.) What do we do with the {{merge}} templates, and should we place the deletion banner on pages proposed to be merged? (I think we agree that the proposal should involve treating merging like BLARs.) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to increase the visibility of merge proposals, then I think that promoting Wikipedia:Article alerts is a low-risk method for doing this.

In my experience, though, what really stalls a merge proposal is that nobody wants to do the work of merging the article. "I vote for somebody else to merge this" is a common, if usually unstated, sentiment. We need more "If there's a consensus to merge, then ping me – I volunteer to do the work" statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Overriding system messages at user level

I have proposal to overriding default system messages at user level (who are registered).
For example: If a user have a subpage with title like: User:{{{Username}}}/MediaWiki:{{{Message key}}} with syntax same as system messages -> Use this user-created message instead of the default.

Caveat:

Cannot override JS, CSS or JSON files
The protection policy at interface pages and User' JavaScript, CSS and JSON, apply.

Any comments? Thanks. DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 14:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the use case for this? I think any user advanced enough to use a feature like this would also be advanced enough to understand what the various messages mean without needing to customize them. Is there a particular system message that you have in mind for customization? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Example like MediaWiki:Tagline

The current workaround is via JavaScript, example: User:DinhHuy2010/global.js, where I have to change the text at the element.

Could it be easier to customize the tagline without needing to using JavaScript.

and yes, is written in TypeScript, built using esbuild on the Deno runtime. DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 15:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't replace, but you might be interested in wmdoc:mediawiki-core/master/js/module-mediawiki.util.html#.addSubtitle. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this use #siteSub @Aaron Liu DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 06:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I see that. There isn't much of a difference.

(Also, your signature is too long. See WP:SigLength. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu Signature fixed DinhHuy2010 (talk | contribs) 14:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the part where you "have to" change the text. Why do you "have to" change the text? Did you mean you "want to" change the text? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, Because just for fun, I like customization. DinhHuy2010 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Informing readers when a government orders censorship of Wikipedia

It was suggested I move this to the Idea Lab from Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF). Discussion of the incident itself should take place there to avoid fragmentation.

Now that there's been an instance where a court has ordered that sourced content is not allowed on a Wikipedia article, it's important that we set a precedent in how we respond and how we inform the public that this has occurred. I'd like to brainstorm a statement that can be placed on the main page or as a banner similar to the "Wiki Loves" notices.

These are the examples to demonstrate what I have in mind, but I'd love to hear different approaches too:

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.

Pinging Horse Eye's Back, who suggested that it could potentially be mentioned in the context of fundraising instead, in case that's something they want to discuss here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think an appropriate action is a banner on the article saying that some content has been censored due to a legal case. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the general trend of discussions on the other VP page, I don't think a deliberately escalatory notice like this on every page would be a wise decision, however it is worded. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on the combined fundraising/education angle what I find from talking about these sorts of things with people who are regular wikipedia users but not editors is that they are completely unaware that the WMF serves a legal function. IMO its the most actually valuable thing the WMF spends money on besides servers, its where the WMF actually stands up for all the principles that they fundraise on and I want our readers to know that. Lord knows I'm the first to criticize the WMF but I also think they deserve kudos where due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The WMF does a good job of handling the legal implications of running an international encyclopedia (and there are many). Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me, we have the Wikipedia:Fundraising/2025 banners. Maybe someone could propose a banner message there that focuses on the Caesar DePaço case, explaining how donations to Wikipedia are being used, among other things, to cover legal defense costs for lawsuits like that one. Some1 (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with User:isaacl below if this were ever implemented. Something like "Wikipedia is unable to provide some information about XYZ due to local laws. Please see [link] for more information." Bremps... 22:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think if there is consensus for a notice, it should be worded neutrally and be brief. I don't think the Wikipedia community should be spending time on arguing over what label to use in mainspace for each instance of prohibited content. Too often "censorship" is inappropriately used by the supporters of including a certain passage. The Wikipedia editing process is not infallible, so like it or not, sometimes externally imposed remedies will happen. For articles, it's enough to mention there is a court order, and to possibly point to a project page for more information (as much as legally permitted). (The community can of course discuss in project space whatever actions they want to take, which can include labelling specific actions.) isaacl (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumen database of takedown requests exists, and the WMF has been submitting the ones that it receives to it for a long time. It would be useful to link to them from any affected article. — Hex • talk 14:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMF

Official Wikipedia Roblox game and Generative AI use

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

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

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

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.

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

Tech News: See all the 60 community-submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks in Tech News week 29 and 30. For example, the request to add Malayalam fonts in the Wikisource Book Export Tool was resolved and now, the rendering of Malayalam letters in exported Wikisource books are accurate.
Temporary Accounts: After the rollout of temporary accounts on 18 large and medium-sized Wikipedias, we are monitoring the impact of this change, and preparing for the next deployments. See the full project update.
Add a link: Administrators can now limit "Add a Link" to newcomers, as opposed to keeping it open to more experienced editors as well. "Add a link" helps newcomers to start editing, so restricting the feature to them enables Administrators to cater the feature to that specific group, which they can do via the Community Configuration feature.

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

Digital Safety: PEN America shares 5 tips for bolstering your safety and privacy online.
Amicus brief: Our amicus brief in Patterson v. Meta: Defending free speech and the open internet in another Section 230 legal case.
UK Online Safety Act: Court hearings for the Wikimedia Foundation's challenge to the UK Online Safety Act "Categorisation Regulations" happened on July 22 and 23. A verdict is not expected until August.
Advocacy sessions: Collaborate for change at these policy advocacy sessions at Wikimania 2025.
Public-Interest content: Expanding Indonesian Wikipedia with Public-Interest Content through Project Gayatri.
The Wikipedia Test: Learn how to use the Wikipedia Test, a tool to protect the public interest internet.
Equity Fund: As it closes, the Equity Fund has announced its final round of grants to six past grantees. It will also be providing four "Connected Grants" to movement organizations who will pair closely with one of the grantees to collaborate together.
Don't blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
Content Translation: Translators who use the Suggestions feature in the Content Translation tool can now select and receive article suggestions that are customized to geographical locations of their interest using the new "Regions" filter.
Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions now has a new kind of Types: Wikidata-based enumerations, also known as light-weight enumerations.

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

Endowment: Sharing the Wikimedia Endowment’s Form 990 for fiscal year 2023 – 2024. Learn more from the frequently asked questions.

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

Annual plan: The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved the Foundation's annual plan for next year virtually in their quarterly meeting. You can read more about the goals for next year and a summary of the continuous conversations that shaped the plan.
Board selection: The Elections Committee shared a list of the all eligible candidates. As there are more than 10 eligible candidates, a shortlisting process is currently taking place. Representatives of Wikimedia movement affiliates that are currently compliant with their reporting obligations can participate in the shortlisting process. Learn more about this process and next steps on Meta.

Foundation statements

WIPO permanent observer: For fifth time, China blocks Wikimedia Foundation as permanent observer to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

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 askcacwikimedia.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

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[36], 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:

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)?
Can you talk more about the implications for affected users who do not live in Portugal?
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?
Does the WMF have geoblocking abilities? (putting to the side whether it should, which I know is a messy ethical question)
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. Silver seren^C 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 [37] 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?

@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]

Suggestion for a targeted protest; blank all Portugal-related articles

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

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]

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

^ 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 [38], 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]

Yes, I support a global ban of this individual and all their proxies. I am not sure what legal action we could take against his proxies if they do edit though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If by proxies we mean his lawyer he was blocked for making legal threats way back in 2021 and since then a number of their socks have been identified. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ruimbarreira1411/Archive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I am not sure what legal action we could take against his proxies if they do edit though None? Polygnotus (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In addition to violating the policy against legal threats, using litigation to obtain editors' personal information constitutes off-wiki harassment. — Newslinger talk 09:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of a small amount of user data for eight users

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. [39] Some1 (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involved users

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:

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.
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

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 [40]. 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

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?

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]

Follow up on some questions from Foundation Legal

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 [41], 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

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 [42] 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]

Comment See also the AfD here: [43] Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of discussing this at both places, I've asked if the discussion at AfD can be closed and moved here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF), thank you for your prompt and detailed response!
By the way, could you please respond to my earlier question regarding the specific type of data that WMF provided to the Portuguese court?
And one more question — if an identical legally binding court order for personal data had come from a Russian court instead of a Portuguese one, would the Foundation have complied with it? Rampion (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer for your question seems a bit obvious to me: Probably not. Because it's Russia. Augustresende (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's Russia.
Previously, the same phrases were said about all countries except the USA. Iniquity (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can answer this as well. 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. To the broader question, whether Russia or otherwise, we apply the applicable law analysis that we updated in 2021 (same link as above). As you might imagine, with different countries, the answer to all three of the questions we ask are going to vary quite a bit. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will you disclose previously used emails? Or just the last e-mail being used? Will you change your decision if the situation happened on a dangerous country like Iran or North Korea? ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 16:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunDawnThe link in the comment you are replying to answers your second question: Whether to disclose or not disclose information in response to requests from non-US courts is a decision made on a case-by-case basis, and the assessment includes an evaluation of the potential harm and of the human rights implications. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding which email(s) will be disclosed, as far as I'm aware the only knowledge of your email addresses that the WMF have is what address is currently set in your account preferences (which is a maximum of 1 address per wiki) and whether that has been verified or not. I don't believe that previous addresses are retained anywhere, but if they are then it will be for a maximum of 90 days and obviously the WMF cannot disclose data it does not have. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous e-mail addresses are stored for administrator accounts. I have no idea where I found that information years ago, but at least back then it was limited to them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This just in: César DePaço wins new battle against Wikipedia Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 5 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

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?

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? Ϣere SpielChequers 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. Ϣere SpielChequers 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. Ϣere SpielChequers 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

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?
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?
What was the lag and delay, in days?
Were those users not provided any opportunity to take informed legal action of their own to possibly block exposure?
Were they informed to be given the option?
What is the formal, written, policy documention on this for WMF legal/officials?
If not public, why not?
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?
Does the WMF agree that users should be transparently and promptly or immediately informed of legal jeopardy in their actions; if not, why not?
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.

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.[44] 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]

A comment on the state of affairs with legal orders and similar on Wikimedia projects

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):
Editing the article themselves and/or nominating it for deletion.

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.

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?

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.[45] 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

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

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 [46]. 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]

WMF loses legal challenge to UK Online Safety Act (OSA) at High Court

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 Zero^talk 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 Zero^talk 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]

Miscellaneous

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

[Trump_letter_to_Epstein-1] Safdar, Khadeeja; Palazzolo, Joe (2025-07-17). "Jeffrey Epstein's friends sent him bawdy letters for a 50th birthday album. One was from Donald Trump". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-07-17. The letter bearing Trump's name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman's breasts, and the future president's signature is a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

[2] ttps://lusoamericano.com/businessman-caesar-depaco-is-suing-portuguese-media

[1]

[1]