The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.
If you wish to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the Help desk or the Teahouse.
This is not the place to resolve disputes regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Do folks think it would be a good idea to preemptively give rollbackers and NPP users access to the ability of CheckUser temporary accounts ? (The rights do not do anything at the moment, but they should allow folks with the rights to figure out if two temporary accounts are from the same IP once the rollout of the Temporary Accounts feature) Sohom (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts My reading of the policy was the user needs to be in a group that has the safeguards outlined in the policy ? (As opposed to explicitly requiring that folks follow the process all over again) I would consider rollbackers and NPP folks to have met and exceeded all of criteria mentioned there. (cc @SGrabarczuk (WMF) who was involved in the tech-migration side of the project) Sohom (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure that's true. I've definitely granted rollback to accounts less than 6 months old or with less than 300 edits before. The guideline for rollback is 200 mainspace edits, see WP:Rollback#Requesting rollback rights, and WP:NPPCRITERIA says 90 days and 500 undeleted mainspace edits. Both of these are less restrictive than the 6 months + 300 edits WMF requirement. Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going forward, we could make the requirements for NPP/rollback the same as the minimum/whatever additional requirements we impose for temporary accounts access. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sohom Datta. @Voorts is correct. The right may not be automatically granted to a group of users. It can be granted manually to those who require this specific access in accordance with the access policy. This right carries requirements that may be different from rollbacker or NPP users. There is also an expectation for the user who gets this right to agree to the terms of use given this right grants the user access to private data (IP addresses). I hope this helps. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NKohli (WMF) Could you explain why this cannot be bundled ? I'm still at a loss why we cannot update our policies to meet the minimum, filter out folks in the groups to meet the official criteria and give them temporary-account CU privileges. To my understanding, they will still need to click through and agree to the terms of use even if the right is granted post-facto. Creating a requirement for granting two rights while requesting one will create a unnecessary overhead and bureaucracy on the side of admins and folks who are engaged in good-faith vandalism reversion. Sohom (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta to clarify - as long as the user who is getting this right is explicitly applying for it, and meets the requirements, they can be granted the right. This is the second criteria as listed under the policy: Submit an access request to local administrators, bureaucrats where local consensus dictates
@NKohli (WMF) I understand that the policy exists. I am asking for a rationale why the policy demands that we do things in this idiosyncratic way (this is non-standard compared to almost every permission grant I've seen in the last four years, and frankly seems like completely unnecessary bureaucracy). Were local-wiki administrators consulted before this global policy was instituted (if so could you link to the consultation/notes from it) ? Was there a global RFC, phabricator discussion or mailing list discussions about the policy that I can look at to understand it's context ? Sohom (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone always has to apply for user rights; this one is no different. The only rights granted automatically are auto and extended confirmed. Given that WMF legal wrote this policy and it's intended to comply with GDPR amongst other laws, I doubt this will change. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts MediaWiki rights (for example, edituserjson as opposed to groups WP:INTADMIN) are typically bundle-able (and the norm is to allow for them to be bundled together for related activities). I don't particularly mind that this isn't allowed tho. What I'm asking for is primarily public documentation and reasoning for why this is the case. (That being said, based on some offwiki conversation I have had, I now have a better idea now of why the policy is what it is) Sohom (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta I think notifications to WP:AN and NPP talk page (not sure where RBers gather to discuss matters) would be prudent as this change may affect workloads of these group of editors at the very least. – robertsky (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the benefit for NPP, in that they may have to figure out if various temporary accounts are the same person and IP addresses may help with that. However, I am not seeing as clear a link to rollback. Rollback is essentially a way to simplify reversions, while digging into IP data is sounds like it complicates vandal-reversion. CMD (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Things like checking if an IP is in the same city as another one, if an IP is from a proxy, or all changes from a certain range like /64. I commonly use various online IP tools when I do anti-vandalism work, losing that ability wouldn't be nice. win8x (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary accounts will be browser-based. Using a different browser on same device, or clearing the history and starting over again will each create a new temporary account. So, you could act like multiple different persons with minimal effort even on the same IP/device/browser. For those involved in anti-vandal work, it will be essential to check if they all come from the same source or not. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})02:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary accounts (i.e. IP editors in old money) will not be able to create new pages, right? So how would this be useful to NPP? – Joe (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed requirements for temporary account IP addresses user right
"[a]gree[ing] to use the IP addresses in accordance with these guidelines, solely for the investigation or prevention of vandalism, abuse, or other violations of Wikimedia Foundation or community policies, and understand[ing] the risks and responsibilities associated with this privilege".
I propose that we maintain the minimum requirements, and add a requirement that editors show a need for access. I also propose that we up the minimum requirements for NPP and rollback to match this right and make editors apply for this right simultaneously (and that we consider having those rights as showing a need for access). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm up for these requirement (until we figure out if we can bundle temporary account IP addresses into the rights). Sohom (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm We should not force someone that wants to do anti-vandalism to also be required to apply for 2 additional groups that they may not want. — xaosfluxTalk23:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also #3, #4 are already built in to the interface - we don't need to require that. #1 is already the minimum, so this is making the local requirement be "ask for it"??? — xaosfluxTalk23:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1-4 are all of the requirements, as the line immediately preceding that list notes: The minimum requirements per the access policy are. My suggestion is that editors applying for this right independently should also have to explain how they would use the right, but I guess that's a necessary part of submitting in application. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the only part for the local project to decide is if we want more than 6/300, or additional requirements. As far as "show a need for access" being a local requirement, do you have a proposed test for this - or just if you can convince any admin you have a need? — xaosfluxTalk00:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convincing an admin that you have a need would be fine. That's part of why I proposed bundling it with NPP/rollback; both of those groups will generally have a need for the right. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that RB should be required to apply for NPP or vice versa. I was suggesting that NPP and RB should meet the same requirements and we should just give the temp-IP right when we give out those other two rights. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Sounds good, but I highly prefer bundling it with NPP and rollback as well. Once this rolls out completely, figuring out abuse by multiple anonymous editors will become extremely more difficult that it already is with IP ranges. Regardless, I think we can trust holders of NPP and rollback to have access to IP data, if we can trust them with reviewing new pages and mass reverting edits respectively. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>04:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with bundling it as per Bunny, provided there is no room for discretionary variance below the 90 day threshold under WP:NPRCRITERIA. Currently, the guidelines for granting say "90 days" registration is "generally speaking" a prerequisite; if we bundle, this should be made a hard minimum to ensure logged IP data has eclipsed before a potentially malevolent new account was able to register and attain access to masked address information. Chetsford (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support minimum requirement as stated with RfP/Temporary account IP viewers page for #2. Oppose bundling with NPP or rollbacker. My point of view is that rollbacker is (or at least it was when I first started out) a relatively easy right to get to help new editors to demonstrate that they can on more rights and responsibilities before moving on to other user rights, while those who are interested in NPP may not be interested in doing anti-vandalism work. – robertsky (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A rollbacker without the see IP permission would be effectively toothless and while NPP folks don't strictly do anti-vandalism, there are scenarios (for example overturned BLARs, AFC drafts or repeatedly recreated page where it makes sense for folks to have access to IP data) Sohom (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky NPP work sometimes also occasionally requires looking at the creator the articles, and now with temp accounts, a potential sock masters life has become very easy to create similar multiple problematic articles if one gets deleted. If NPR has access to IP data, it should be much easier to spot such attempts (of course creating multiple actual accounts is a thing, but I don't think we should make sock masters' life any easier.)
Regarding rollback, yes I agree it may make it a bit harder, but what is the general edit count when people get rollback? Guidelines state 200 as a suggestion, but I don't think many people can come up to the activity level of RB before passing 200. (I don't have any data, this is just my assumption) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>16:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a pattern of similar multiple problematic articles can be established even without the IP address access, is there really a need? Likewise for repeated BLARs or repeated recreations. Isn't it the same as us assessing multiple newly registered accounts doing the same thing? – robertsky (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming WP:ACPERM still applies (i.e., we won't grant temporary accounts autoconfirmed status) so I don't really see the utility of this for NPP. I'll apply for it if I'm made to, of course, but I don't really see myself using it much. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also bundling the rights will require revocation requirements (1 year of inactivity) to be added if there is none. (It is a positive. Just a reminder.) – robertsky (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Maybe to alleviate concerns temporary (trial run) granting of these right don't include this new userright, but once its indef granted, then its bundled in? I'd be okay with it either way personally. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GDPR has been around for close to a decade now; IP masking, as I understand it, is more about the fear of future legislation rather than current policies. We have a clear third option, follow other projects and turn off IP editing, instead of creating additional levels of bureaucracy. -- GuerilleroParlez Moi19:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even TVTropes requires sign-in-to-edit. But way back when this was repeatedly proposed, the WMF repeatedly said "not just no, but snook no". Maybe they've changed in the last decade or so but trust me, a large number of editors have wanted SITE for a long time, and it hasn't happened; it's unlikely to happen now, for better or for worse. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm an active NPP'er and also a rollbacker (which I seldom find to be useful and rarely use). Also it would not be too hard for a government / agency that wants to investigate posts by a temporary account to get NPP rights which also defeat one of the purposes of temporary accounts and thus also give a false sense of security to temporary accounts in which case the temporary account might do more harm than good. I think that granting it to all rollbackers is an even lower bar making those problems even worse. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also it would not be too hard for a government / agency that wants to investigate posts by a temporary account to get NPP rights which also defeat one of the purposes of temporary accounts They would also be able to apply for the IP right outside of those things, so I'm not quite sure why that's a relevant consideration. I think that granting it to all rollbackers is an even lower bar As noted above, the minimum requirements for this particular right (as set by WMF legal) is 300 edits + 6 months with an account, and as noted, bundling the right with rollback would require increasing the requirement for rollback. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support bundling the application process for NPP and rollback with the temporary account addresses user right. Make granting of NPP or rollback contingent on being eligible and granted the account addresses user right. We should make this coupling of the two applications as simple as possible for applicants--that's where I'm struggling a bit. For current NPP/rollbackers, require application for temp account addresses right as soon as their account meets the requirements. Suspend NPP/rollbacking right on those accounts whose users are eligible for and do not successfully apply for the addresses user right. Consider suspending NPP/rollbacking right on those accounts ineligible for the addresses user right. Take headache relievers consistently, as I see a giant migraine coming on with these changes and the complications herein. — rsjaffe🗣️01:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the use of the word "suspend". As soon as a user with a suspended NPP/rollbacking right that is suspended due to not having addresses right successfully receives addresses right, the linked NPP/rollbacking right would be reinstated without need for a new application. — rsjaffe🗣️01:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "minimum account age of 6 months and 300 edits" provides to some extent another automatic user right layer (give or take the applying system), it would be better to align it as much as possible with existing rights. In this case, it perhaps should line up with the WP:EXTENDED right as much as possible, ie. 6 months and 500 edits. CMD (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for NPP, oppose for rollback. I don't get the arguments here that rollbackers are "toothless" without the ability to view IPs -- rollback is supposed to apply to edits that are obviously unconstructive. If you need to investigate someone's IP address to determine whether an edit is unconstructive then it isn't obvious. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for Rollback & Support for NPP. It's a bit obvious that vandalism fighters may require this right to check if two different vandal accounts are actually used by same person.Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔07:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose bundling with either NPP or rollback; a decision to double or triple the experience level for a user group should be done on its own merits, not snuck in as a technical criterion, and this would cause the NPP backlog to explode. And I'm not convinced by Sohom Datta's claims, especially since logged-out users can't even create articles so it should be completely orthogonal to NPP status. And while he has more of a point for rollbacker; people of all levels of experience will patrol vandalism and while it may be more effective with temp account access there's no reason whatsoever to forcibly prohibit people who don't meet the temp account view criteria from using Huggle, for example. If specific people find that this access would be helpful, they can request it. * Pppery *it has begun...16:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mandatory bundling. We may have editors who don't want this permission but want to be able to patrol new pages/redirects and/or have rollback. Updating the instructions, once the masking is live here, to encourage editors applying for NPP or rollback who meet the 6/300 requirement to also ask for it as part of the request could be useful. Or admins suggesting it as part of the process of reviewing the permission requests for NPP and rollback if they feel the editor would be a good one to have that additional tool. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In T388320 (not publicly accessable), I pointed out what I believed to be a serious flaw in the Temporary Account system which could lead to significant leakage of personal information (in excess of what we have now with IP edits). One of the things I argued for in that ticket is requiring the TA user right to be explicitly granted, and I'm glad that this was done. So I'm firmly in opposition to any attempt to walk that back.
As for granting this to all NPP and RB holders, consider that when those rights were granted to people, the granting admin evaluated whether they trusted the user to use the particular powers being granted. To say that "Because some admin last year thought you wouldn't abuse rollback, we're now going to automatically add in some other unrelated right which will allow you to do far more dangerous things" seems absurd. If you want the TA IP viewer bit, ask for it. I don't imagine there will be a very high bar to giving it out, but keeping a human in the permission granting loop is essential. RoySmith(talk)16:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know if the requirement to make an edit or perform a logged action is enforced automatically by the MediaWiki software? That is, if you have been inactive for 365 days, you won't have access even if you hold the right by virtue of your group memberships? isaacl (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is not removed automatically, we can deal with it manually like we do for some rights, like adminstrators, autopatrollers, etc. Although preferably there should be a way to autoexpire the user group membership given that it is a Foundation-mandated requirement. However, from the way I read the access policy, we should also take into account that local community consensus can be achieved to increase the minimum threhold for retention. If [sic] local community consensus dictates removal, then stewards or local administrators and bureaucrats are authorized to terminate access.– robertsky (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I asked because I think that affects the decision to bundle the right with an existing group. If I understand correctly, this wouldn't be feasible if we need to manually remove access from those who have been inactive for a year. Alternatively, the groups would need to have the same inactivity requirements (in addition to the criteria listed in the "Proposed requirements" section, in which my comment was originally placed). isaacl (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPP has 1 year inactivity requirement. Rollback does not have any. It is feasible to do so manually. If I am not mistaken, there are admins who have been tracking which accounts to remove which rights. I don't work in this venue often, so correct me if I am wrong. I took the liberty to break it out to a separate section as your question was at the same indent level and the newer entries are getting disjointed. Feel free to move back indent accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agreed it is feasible to manage manually if the group itself has a matching activity requirement. It's something that would have to be added to the requirements to continue to hold the rollback right, and then the tracking process implemented. (If the answer to my initial question is "yes", then of course this extra work can be skipped.) Thanks for adding the note regarding the additional requirement to the "Proposed requirements" section. isaacl (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, the comment by Pppery has made me think about this. I feel that a separate right should be made. I am proposing a separate right, TAIV(obviously an acronym). The following would be criteria and functions. We can discuss the changes & improve it per consensus.
@Voorts I know that it's from the WMF policy & not your criteria. I said "The 4th criteria by voorts" to quickly clarify that 4th principal from that criteria is being referred. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔04:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comment from NKohli (WMF) indicates that the right cannot be bundled with an existing group, since access to it must be requested individually. Unless that viewpoint changes, then there has to be a separate group. isaacl (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is that we tie together the application process, so both groups are applied for at the same time. Each application is evaluated separately, but the NPP/Rollback application approval is predicated upon the IP addresses approval. This is administrative simplification of the two applications, not a bundling of the groups. — rsjaffe🗣️18:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to Ophyrius's proposal. In essence a new group is the only way to go if the right can't be bundled. The community can of course set more stringent criteria if it wishes. isaacl (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can make people apply for the new right if they apply for NPP/rollback. What we can't do is automatically give the right to all current editors with NPP/rollback unless they separately apply. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really a need to require everyone who applies for NPR or Rollback to also apply for TA IP viewer right? I don't see how this is critical to the function of those and can't be separate, even if IPs are not going to be available to NPRs/rollbackers without the right, that doesn't affect the process of reverting vandalism or reviewing pages severely. Moreover, I imagine this would significantly affect the majority of valid requests at WP:PERM/R and WP:PERM/NPR to a lesser extent. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; that's something different than Ophyrius's proposal. I think I agree with Tenshi Hinanawi though—I think editors should be able to request the rights separately, depending on their interest. As per rsjaffe, the request process can be unified so applicants can request all rights in which they are interested at once. isaacl (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: Well, per Mz7, I support a separate perm page for Taiv. As for the comment by @Tenshi Hinanawi:, I believe that existing rollbackers/Vandalism fighters, should receive this tool as it would help by checking if 2 IPs are of same range/ used by sane user and what to be reported. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔04:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it can be useful, but I don't believe it should be at the expense of being required to wait 4-5 more months as a new user so you can have both Rollback and TA IP viewer at the same time when you only want Rollback, likewise with NPR. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why TAIV should be a separate usergroup that has rollback & reviewer bundled with it (if consensus reached) rather than it being bundled with others. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔15:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a proposal. Please do not !vote. Are there any suggestions for changes?
Background: The WMF is removing public access to IP addresses and replacing them with temporary accounts. The WMF has also created a new user right for access to temporary account IP addresses. The minimum criteria for that user right are:
minimum account age of 6 months and 300 edits;
applying for access;
opting in for access via Special:Preferences; and
"[a]gree[ing] to use the IP addresses in accordance with these guidelines, solely for the investigation or prevention of vandalism, abuse, or other violations of Wikimedia Foundation or community policies, and understand[ing] the risks and responsibilities associated with this privilege".
Question 1: What should the minimum account age and edit count be? Option A: 6 months/300 edits Option B: 6 months/500 edits Option C: Something else
Question 2: Should we adopt additional requirements, such as a specified time period without blocks/bans prior to requesting the right, experience with counter-vandalism work, knowledge of relevant policies and guidelines, etc.?
Question 3 isn't really a binary, the options I think may be plausibly supported are:
All three rights come as a bundle - everyone who has one has them all
All three have the same requirements, but they are independent rights and an editor may have any combination
All three have the same requirements, but only NPP is bundled with IP viewer, rollback remains independent
All three have the same requirements, but only rollback is bundled with IP viewer, NPP remains independent
Rollback is bundled with IP viewer, NPP remains independent and the requirements for it are unchanged
NPP is bundled with IP viewer, rollback remains independent and the requirements for it are unchanged
No change to the status quo.
If anyone wants to bundle NPP and rollback but not IPviewer, with or without changes to the requirements, then I think that should be proposed separately. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
why make it complicated? Let's just treat it as a standalone user group like we do for all the other user groups, and at the most, word the RfP pages that those who are requesting for NPP or RB may want to request for TAIV separately. – robertsky (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we need to address question 1/2 before implementation of the new user right, I think we should go forward with that as RfC. The other questions can be addressed going forward. In the interim, editors can continue to apply for rollback and patroller separately. I'm proposing the following question:
Should we maintain the minimum standards or adopt heightened standards? If the latter, please specify.
I've taken up Voorts' musing about Q2 and separated it out for discussion.
My first question is: what are the risks of handing out the privilege? Are there any high-risk scenarios? If not, I don't see a need for further restrictions. If yes, I'd like to see a restriction that weeds out applicants that would be more likely involved in the high-risk scenario.
I agree with this question. It's hard to discuss what potential extra measures may be warranted/necessary without considering specific problems that are foreseen. I think it would be worse to make the criteria unnecessarily high, as it would potentially prevent users who would benefit from the access from having it, and if history tells, it's much less likely for the requirements to be lowered in the future.My initial thought is this: the WMF is doing this for two potential reasons - to increase anonymity, and potentially to stall or prevent future legal concerns over the information being publicized. If the WMF felt higher access requirements were necessary to meet those goals, they would've required it when allowing the information to be accessed by editors other than Checkusers. Since they did not, it suggests that there is not any need for additional restrictions. In other words, beyond the restrictions the WMF is requiring, why should we not maintain the status quo for decades that users can view the IP information of users without an account? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!02:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been musing on some potential ways to improve this question. I think it should be simpler - While the requirements above are the minimum we can adopt per the WMF, we can also adopt additional requirements if we choose. What other considerations (not specific criteria) would you support being had to permit someone to apply for and/or receive this role? - with the specific criteria to be worked out later. In other words, basically make this two steps - first is there a consensus for any individual consideration to be made into a criteria, and then work out that extra criteria. For example, people may support "some level of antivandalism work" and also support "recent activity" - but they may not support a criteria of "has made at least 10 anti-vandalism reversions in the past 6 months". I think it's going to get very unwieldy very fast if we are all allowed to just propose whatever other specific criteria we think fit, and it will become difficult, if not impossible, to find consensus for any of them. Hence why I think this needs to be the "ask the community for the scenarios they want to see addressed" question, and then the "what should the specific criteria (singular or plural) be that best addresses these concerns" at a later date. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!02:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I think apart from the minimum requirement, the rest should be open for administrator's discretion. They'll obviously make sure that a malicious actor not hold the right. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})02:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question should be Option A: Peg to the minimum criteria as required by WMF, then B1, B2... exploring higher restrictions. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})02:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be better than the current, imo. But I worry it will become unwieldy with B1 - 100 edits in past 6 months, B2 - 200 edits in past 6 months, B3 - 100 edits in past 12 months, C1 - 10 anti-vandalism/patrolling edits in past 6 months, C2 - must be "active" in anti-vandal work (without being defined), C3 - must show activity in new page patrolling, D1 - should not be actively blocked or banned at all (including topic bans)... etc, etc. That's why I think gauging community consensus on some requirement (for each "category") before workshopping the specific requirement is likely better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!19:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how much blocks and bans restrict the ability to view IP logs ? I think it would definitely make sense to restrict the right to users in good standing potentially with a requirement for 6 months of activity without blocks or bans. (partially because the ability to view temporary account IPs enhances your ability to ban evade in the first place) Sohom (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to spell out that editors who have active blocks/bans shouldn't receive the user right? That seems obvious to me and I don't think other user right guidelines explicitly say that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sohom may be getting at an automatic removal if someone is blocked/banned after already having the right, since the technical limitation only prevents a sitewide blocked user (or, I guess, a globally locked user since they can't log in) from accessing the info. For example, a topic banned user with 5 p-blocks from various talk pages would still be able to access the info from their main account if they had the userright. As a comparison, WP:ROLLBACK and WP:PERM/R make no mention of not assigning it to someone with blocks/bans, nor of whether it should be (or must be) automatically removed if someone is p-blocked/topic banned/etc. I don't know if that is standard process or not, but it should probably be explicitly stated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What @Berchanhimez said, I think we are a fair bit more open to giving folks rollback than we should be with CU-TA which will be able to give folks a leg up in AE areas (which is where a lot of topic bans, i-bans and p-blocks come from in the first place). I think making it explicit that any block or ban preclude folks from receiving the right is a good line in the sand to draw to point out that CU-TA will require a higher level of trust. Sohom (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key question to discuss is whether or not the checkuser-temporary-account right is a necessary prerequisite for new page patrol, or for rolling back edits. (I know that the rollback right is used to provide access to certain tools, but editors can still request it solely for making rollback simpler, by some measure.) I think answering this will answer whether or not being approved for checkuser-temporary-account right should be a necessary requirement to be approved for new page patrol or rollback. isaacl (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to see thoughts on this, because as you say there are use cases for the other rights that wouldn't require or even benefit from having this access. I wouldn't support this basically becoming a "new criteria" to get one of those rights if it's not absolutely necessary for the use of those rights. For example, the WMF isn't even requiring administrators to opt in to this - which suggests that this is not necessary for those (or any) part of the admin toolkit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!02:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is very important to the framing though. The question needs to be worded in a way that it's clear what it's proposing. My best idea is to change it to something like Do any other advanced rights that can currently be assigned (such as rollback or patroller) require access to temporary account IP addresses to perform those roles? If not, should access to this user right still be required to be considered for access to those roles? The problem is that this doesn't break out any roles individually. But it makes clear that A -> B, but that we could also decide to do B even without A, if there's a good reason for it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!02:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that's what we were doing here was workshopping the potential RfC. If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that a more full/structured workshop would be necessary for those questions, I would tend to agree - I don't particularly care whether it happens before or after an RfC, but I do think that my proposed questions would allow the RfC to gauge consensus for some roles (ex: there may be a consensus that administrators must be able to be trusted with this role, even if they don't want/use it) and more clearly show which (if any) others should have further discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!19:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original question was to give TAIV to everyone who has RB/NPP (TAIV dependent on RB/NPP). This proposed question fundamentally reverses the original question, it makes RB/NPP dependent on TAIV. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})03:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the right is a necessary prerequisite for NPP or rollback is the same question as whether or not being approved for [the] right should be a necessary requirement for NPP or rollback. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the framing is important, to put emphasis on the different scopes of tasks that different volunteers undertake. I'm not sure everyone considers these two questions equivalent (even if we do). isaacl (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference I intended is that the current question 3 is written from an approval process perspective, while my question is about the workflows of new page patrollers or rollbackers. As I think the answer to question 3 is a direct consequence of the answer about the workflows, my personal preference is to just directly ask the workflow question. But I appreciate that it's likely most people will consider the underlying question. isaacl (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if rollback and reviewer is combined with Taiv, it will be better as Rollback & reviewer are almost used together by everyone. It'll be helpful against vandalism. Also, most of the patrollers are also rollbackers. Since, IPs can't create pages the Taiv isn't that much required for NPP as I have never seen an IP being revealed of a sock or it's sockpuppeteer. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔04:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peeps regularly edit logged out to perform bad-hand-good-hand sockpuppetry. Also, as I mentioned somewhere, NPP folks regularly deal with un-BLARing and have the ability to approve AFC drafts both of which often require knowing about IP ranging (I know a particular Ipv6 range really used to like unblarring CASTE articles). Sohom (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that raises a interesting question, could AFC reviewing (without NPP) seen as a "demonstration of need" ? Sohom (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complete red herring. I don't dispute your claim that in some scenarios TAIV access will be useful when new page or recent changes patrolling. But that doesn't mean you must force every new page or recent changes patroller to have that access; some will follow your logic and find themselves wanting it, others won't. * Pppery *it has begun...04:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think having AFC, NPP or rollback is a demonstration of a need for TAIV, but yeah based on your statements, 2,4 and 5 are probably what what I'll be supporting. Sohom (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the new right also requires that the user make an edit or a logged action in the last 365 days in order to retain the right. This should be listed as one of the minimum requirements. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason for revoking the right, not a requirement to grant it. An editor doesn't have to use the right once granted, but if they don't use it once per year, they lose it. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the policy page is that they do not ever have to use the right - they simply can't have been wholly inactive (no edit or logged action in any log) for a year and keep it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!02:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful to mention, though, so people can keep it in mind when considering if holding the right should be a requirement to be a rollbacker. (My understanding is also that its an activity requirement, not a requirement to use the right occasionally.) isaacl (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MW page has too much information that could be overwhelming for the average RfC participant. The RfC should include the most important points about how temporary accounts differ from current IP system in one or two paragraphs, because I do think that most people do not know the differences. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})02:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone, I wanted to share that I'm reading the discussion, but I'm not active here because the discussions on wikis where we may/will deploy later this month take precedence. Other people on the team also focus on work needed to be wrapped before these deployments. But in July, we should be more available for you. Thanks for understanding.
Thank you for this, it was definitely useful. I can think of a few things that may need to be covered in the help page:
1. Global abuse-filter-manager and abuse-filter-helper are entrusted with TAIV by default, are the local EFMs and EFHs not covered or is it a mistake?
2. If someone begins a browser session on an IP, and later changes the IP, will it create a new TA or the old TA be updated with later IP?
3. When IPs get blocked, will the log and block reason be visible to non-TAIVs?
4. Will a block on an IP to restrict only the temporary accounts also restrict access to permanent accounts on that range?
5. Will users who voluntarily uncheck the Special:Prefs setting to remove TAIV need to request an admin to return the right to get it back, or re-checking the setting will enable it? If the latter, what if they became inactive (no edits/logs in 1 year) post-removal of TAIV?
@CX Zoom: I can actually answer number 1, it appears intentional. It is worth noting though that EFMs/EFHs do have access to edit filters with IPs in them, as they have abusefilter-access-protected-vars. They would also almost certainly be eligible for TAIV, since most EFM/EFHs heavily exceed the minimum requirements, the only real difference would be that the global versions have ipinfo-view-full and checkuser-temporary-account-auto-reveal. The former gives more information about IPs (which can ultimately just be looked up via any number of off-wiki services), and the latter just allows revealing the IPs of all temporary accounts in a page for a set duration, which can be accomplished manually. I would though, be interested in whether SGrabarczuk (WMF) would be able to comment on whether WMF has a stance on whether ipinfo-view-full can be granted to other groups (ie: local EFH/EFM), or whether it is strictly for sysops/bureaucrats. EggRoll97(talk) 02:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the proposed RFC questions in general, I think that the question should be one (not multiple), and that it should be simplified. Basically, we want to ask "Do we want the default standard?" and then explain that "the default standard" is to comply with the requirements set by WMF Legal (300 edits, 6 months, not blocked, must personally request the user right, etc.). We would set up a page similar to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, and individual admins will either accept or reject the applications and assign the user right.
Editors who oppose the default approach should comment on what they'd like to see. We'll have another RFC to choose between suggested higher options.
This is simpler because "just do it the normal way" (a common result) doesn't involve answering multiple questions that ultimately may not be relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm neither opposing nor supporting this for now. But, we may require more than 1 question to approach a consensus clearly. If I had to make an addition, I'd also ask a question if we should add the more criteria similar to Rollback & if (rollback), (reviewer) or (patroller)should be bundled. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔05:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand things, it can't be added to an existing group because it needs to be asked for specifically, so it can't be bundled in that way. However I've not seen anything to suggest that if someone asks for and is given TAIV that they can't also be given other rights they didn't specifically ask for at the same time as long as they meet the criteria for those other rights. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing I'm not referring to TAIV being combined with others, but others being with it. The rule is it can't be added to other groups, not that others can't be combined in this group, just like sysops having all the tools along with the tools others don't have like (protect). Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔06:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like hairsplitting.
According to the comment above, the user right must be requested, assigned, and accepted separately. Whether we "add TAIV to Rollback" or "Add Rollback to TAIV" doesn't make any actual difference for the purpose of this apparent rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference is that rollback has a less strict criteria because of which it's easier to obtain for newcomers, while TAIV isn't. So, it's one of he reasons why TAIV can't come with rollback. But, TAIV will be more required for vandal fighting so I proposed adding rollback to TAIV than vice-versa. Still, it's just a proposal and not necessary rule. It's for the community to decide, if it's required or not. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔08:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, as users not having TAIV can't see IP address, then I wonder if we should set up a page, where other users can request if 2 temporary accounts are linked just like Sockpuppet investigations as TAIV user would be like a half checkuser? Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔10:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any objections to proceeding on this RfC?
I've taken a look at the various documentation put together by the WMF, as well as the comments in the discussion above, and I've condensed the question about minimum standards and determined that we need to answer the following questions fairly immediately so that we can begin granting the right when it rolls out:
Question 1: Should we adopt the minimum or heightened standards for TAIV? If the latter, please specify. Question 2: Should we authorize any of the following actors to request revocation of TAIV upon evidence of misuse of the right?
Option A: the Arbitration Committee or its delegates
Option B: a consensus of (i) functionaries, (ii) 'crats, or (iii) admins
Option C: individual (i) functionaries, (ii) 'crats, or (iii) admins
I think we should continue discussing the NPP/rollback issue, which might involve a broader discussion of those rights in general and should require notice to NPP, anti-vandalism pages, etc.
The WMF is removing public access to IP addresses and replacing them with temporary accounts (this will not affect historic IP addresses). Temporary accounts are tied to browser cookies, which are set to expire three months from the first edit. This means that they will be different across web browsers and devices. The WMF has determined that temporary accounts are necessary to protect user privacy, comply with legal requirements, and maintain the ability to edit Wikimedia sites anonymously.
The WMF has also created a new user right for access to temporary account IP addresses, which has come to be known as temporary account IP-viewer (TAIV). The minimum criteria for editors (other than functionaries, 'crats, and admins) seeking the user right are:
minimum account age of 6 months and 300 edits;
specifically applying for access;
opting in for access via Special:Preferences; and
"[a]gree[ing] to use the IP addresses in accordance with these guidelines, solely for the investigation or prevention of vandalism, abuse, or other violations of Wikimedia Foundation or community policies, and understand[ing] the risks and responsibilities associated with this privilege".
By "historic IP addresses", I assume you mean IP addresses already in the edit history? ("Historic" makes me think of legendary IP addresses ;-) If so, perhaps the text could be reworded? isaacl (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of supranational unions, blocs or regions in country GDP lists
So, I just happened to chance upon the end of an AfD on a certain forked list, which, incidentally seemed to be created a couple of days after a suggestion that I think may have been misinterpreted (as an aside, I think a takeaway here could be that one should be possibly excessively specific when suggesting to new users they create an article). In any case, this seems to be a dispute that has been something that pops up every so often (see, RfC on the idea 3 years ago and the rest of that archive page for that matter). As Fram mentions, we do have a number of various GDP lists, of which the per capita lists (nominal, PPP) notably have had the EU included (I haven't checked the history or the other lists or anything). While I don't think another RfC would actually settle things for good, I feel like it might be worth a try to decide on a consistent format, for example, always excluding entirely, creating the series as part of a separate "supranationals" page, including in a separate section. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The TL;DR is I suppose I'd like to solicit opinions on what the best way to represent supranational bodies in these financial lists is, so that we can have some best practices to refer to. This specific discussion being a bit of a pre-RfC discussion to workshop potential options, form and scope, etc. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The EU is a unique political structure, not easy to compare to other supranational bodies, and simplifying the question to including it alongside a hodgepodge of other supranational bodies, which are not monolithic with relevance to GDP either would not be beneficial. As for a wider scope, it would be premised on the idea that the inclusion criteria of every GDP-related list is the same, which I wouldn't take as a given. CMD (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why restrict this to GDP lists? If the source we're using for a list of countries by X includes one or more supranational unions then it seems to make sense to include it/them in the list. If the source doesn't include any such entities, then obviously our lists shouldn't either.
I'm looking at GDP lists mostly because that was the dispute that ended up at AfD. There are also apparently some pretty weirdly written lists in there (e.g. List of countries by GDP sector composition, with multiple changing criteria in each of the sublists) Also, I just realised I posted this at WP:VPP instead of WP:VPR where I was meaning to... oops? Probably should not have done this as the last thing in my day. I do agree, re CMD, that the EU could be seen very differently from most other supranational bodies or regions, which means that (assuming I/we don't end up deciding to drop one or the other) it might need to be an RFC with two (or more) sections... I'd definitely want to spend some time on workshoping so it doesn't end up being a mess. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years statistical lists frequently appear at AfD; the key differential is the sourcing and how the lists are constructed. Where the sourcing is secondary analysis speaking of the class, then NLIST is usually satisfied. Where the list contents are extracted directly from a database, then it's usually a case of original research and/or synth. I would be less worried about a general rule regarding the subject of the data (supranational bodies etc), and more focussed on whether reliable secondary sources speak of the class. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-RFC workshop: Expected sourcing requirements for list of works
This recently was an issue of discuss at WT:ITN but appears representative of a larger scale lack of consistency, in how we are expecting the sourcing in a list of works for a biographical subject to be presented for a quality article when it comes to processes like ITN and other main page items as well as FA/GA.
For ITN, when we have recent deaths, many creative persons that are nominated on their death have what's been considered substandard because their filmography or discography or other list of works lack sourcing for most of the entries. This generally prevents the death from being included on the Recent Death line (recent example Guy Klucevsek), and has been a point of consternation at the talk page because it seems too impermissive for many bio articles. But then today, with Brian Wilson's death, it was noticed by one user after it was posted that the list of works there too lacked sourcing, and it was likely posted too quickly to be noticed given the rest of the article appeared to be in good shape. (Since its posting someone has been searching to fill out the necessary refs for the filmography). And then it was pointed out in the same discussion that today's FA, Mariah Carey, which was reviewed as a FA in Dec 2024, also lacks sources for the list of works, both on her bio page and on the separate list of work pages. So clearly the entire project doesn't seem on board with what seems to be the appropriate level of sourcing that should be applied to lists of works.
The one place where there is some advice is at MOS:LISTOFWORKS which says Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article. The word "encouraged" is a far cry from "required" so its hard to say that the MOS forces this. One could also add BLP and WP:V here, where removal of unsourced information is generally encouraged, but that usually is reserved for contentious content and not things that are likely factually true but just need a source.
Note that I am only focusing on what we are considering to be quality articles, and not articles in progress. Ideally, editors will improve biographies to meet what is determined to be the expected quality prior to taking an article to GA/FA or any other process that requires a quality article, but until the GA/FA or other process is actually started, these can still be considered works in progress and we should not be trying too hard to force such corrections.
So there's a potential RFC here, but I don't know what the framing is. Right now, I think its best to ask this in several questions to determine what the next steps are, if an RFC is even needed or what question(s) it might need to be about (Using subsections so each point can be addressed). If you think there are additional questions to these, please feel free to add them as a separate subsection. Masem (t) 00:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does each item in a list of works need to be sourced? (See next question as to what qualifies as a source). Note that I would consider a single reliable source that supports the bulk of the list to be acceptable for use as a header line into such a list or table (eg text like "Unless otherwise noted, sourcing for works is based on this source."), so that we aren't repeating one source 40 or 50 times over, but satisfying the need to source each work. --Masem (t) 00:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Masem for starting this discussion. Since I first raised this issue a year ago, I've changed my stance. I'm now more of the school that for the vast bulk of uncontentious items in a list of published works we do not need a source. To quote Chubbles: A published work proves its own existence. It is a strange irony that we can use an album to verify the details of a song or songs (for example see List of songs recorded by Kylie Minogue or The Queen is Dead) but would require a source to verify the album itself on a different list of works. Since that discussion a year ago, I've had this wording saved as a possible start point for changed guidelines at MOS:LISTOFWORKS:
In general, a published work verifies its own existence and therefore an inline citation is not necessary for basic information in lists of works. To allow for easy verification, editors should provide as much identifying information for the work as possible such as year of publication, publisher, ISBN or record catalogue number. Manuscripts, obscure publications or limited editions which are not widely available in libraries or catalogues may benefit from a reliable source for verification. For additional information that is not found in the published work itself such as sales numbers, awards, uncredited appearances or other details that are likely to be challenged, an inline citation to a reliable source is appropriate.
ISBNs work for books, because they can be linked to {{ISBN}}, which leads to a database where the source's existence can be verified. Would audio/video sources use something like {{Cite AV media}}, and would providing one of the identifier parameters provide something similar? A non-subject matter expert should be able to verify that, yes, this work was produced by this person. For comparison, a sports bio is not allowed to assume that a reader knows where to go to verify a player's unsourced statistics, and a link under "External links" is not accepted. —Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re record catalogue numbers: these seem to be a rarity for musician articles. In fact, usually swept away if they appear in infoboxes. Currently ITN/RD postings are often held up by demands for every record to be supported by a WP:RS source i.e. discogs.com not allowed. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each item should be cited. In my experience, bulk citations do not tend to earn the presumption that they support the bulk of the list (to say nothing of what threshold indicates "the bulk"). The other thing is that the list can grow after the citation is added, with no review whatsoever as to if the works are cited. I would personally put the threshold for ITN at something like 80%, and it is the rare single source that supports that much of a list. GreatCaesarsGhost12:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should have to have an independent citation where authorship is verifiable from the work itself -- e.g. if someone is credited as an author on the cover of a book, or named in the cast in the credits of a film. Where there's some complicating factor (e.g. the work was published anonymously or pseudonymously), then we need a second source to mediate. This is in line with MOS:FICTION, where plot summaries of fictional works do not need independent citation, because it is reasonably assumed that they are cited to the work itself and make no claims other than those that can be verified using only that work. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never understood how MOS:FICTION carved out that exemption. I don't see football matches being allowed to be unsourced because there is game footage, or a political debate allowed to be sourced solely to video. If I look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, it seems the ISBN would be, at a minimum, under release details. —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because if you are reading Alice's Adventures in Wonderland#Plot, and you wonder whether the book supports it, you can walk into basically any library or bookstore in the world with the information in the first sentence of the article, and they know exactly how to find the book in question. With a game, it's unclear whether game footage exists (sometimes yes, sometimes no; obviously more often yes for professional games), and it's unclear how you would find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, no, I don't think published works need independent references to prove their existence. Although ideally there would be some method of verification (such as ISBNs or a published catalog). Of course, it's another matter entirely for unpublished works, unreleased recordings, and other cryptic or apocryphal material. These would require sourcing. And the mere existence says nothing about notability of either the work itself or of the person or entity that made the work. older ≠ wiser12:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add to this that we need to consider not just "easy" cases where we're talking the author of a book or the musician on their album. A very common case is when we have actors that do guest/one-time roles on television series. That is something you cannot simply look at the TV series itself and immediately identify the role. Masem (t) 12:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the distinction being proposed is that credited roles (which I imagine we would define as named in the credits within the work can be cited to the work; uncredited or pseudonymous roles would need a secondary source. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This requires that the work has easily verifiable credits. A book you can verify the author by looking at the cover, a TV programme you need to get access to (which might not be possible) and watch to wherever the relevant credit is (which might be the start, the end or the point at which they make their first appearance). We also need to be able to distinguish between roles that are verified as appearing in the credits to the work, roles which are not so credited and have not been verified in secondary sources, and roles for which verification has not been attempted. To take a random example, how do I determine whether Michael Sheard is listed in the on-screen credits of Remembrance of the Daleks? Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a difference between this and verifying other sources -- how do I know that any sentence on Wikipedia is genuinely supported by the cited source? I have to check, or find someone who can. The policy reminds us that Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If Remembrance were a lost episode, we might say that a secondary source were needed, but this seems like an edge case to me. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was meaning how can I tell whether a role without an accompanying source is verified in the credits to the show, not verified in the credits to the show (and thus in need of a secondary source but not explicitly tagged as such) or whether nobody has determined whether or not it is verified in the credits? Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is where WP:V comes into play that we should not make it excessive work on the reader to find verifiable information. Just as we would not source a fact taken from a 1000-pg book without actually mentioning a narrower section or explicit page for that information, telling the reader to go find a specific episode and read through its credits is not helpful either. This is compounded at times that some roles go uncredited, as well as for a recurring character, the specific episodes are not usually named in our biographical articles. Masem (t) 12:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we require some "proof" that the work is merely difficult/costly to access vs. being non existent? There are certainly many early movies and television shows that no longer "exist." Vandals could create fake ones that could not be proven or disproven. Can something unattainable except by illegal means like the The Mysterious Benedict Society (TV series) cite itself? GreatCaesarsGhost16:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Film and television have either opening or closing credits (I suppose there are avant-garde exceptions) so its not the same as citing the entirety of a 1000-page book and expecting people to find a short passage. We already have {{Cite AV media}}, after all. Lost media or uncredited appearances are the exact type of thing that would need an independent source for verification - which I think I covered in my wording above. If an item is challenged or cannot be verified it should be removed or an independent source found as per editing in any other area. TV, film and, I suppose, radio/podcasts do present some issues as lists of works usually will list an entire series rather than individual credited performances. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, even in a film article, we do not presume acting credits per the movie itself, we use reliable sources (eg, WP:FILM's FA example is The Dark Knight). Maybe during the development of an article not sourcing credits (both on a bio page and on a works page) is reasonable because of the self-obviousness, but when we talk quality, which is the focus here, sourcing doesn't seem to be optional. Masem (t) 02:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was never clear how comprehensive FA and FL were w.r.t. MOS, e.g. does WP:FACR only include the MOS items at 2a, 2b, 2c, or MOS in its entirety? For example, I've seen FAs and FLs that fail MOS:ACCESS, but I've never followed up with WP:FAR or WP:FLCR. —Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They should adhere to ACCESS, but as with other MOS it's probably easier to just fix it or post on the talkpage, FAR/FLCR I'd save for something more serious. CMD (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FAR/FLCR I'd save for something more serious: Agree, what I meant was that I was never sure if MOS:ACCESS and other MOS areas were under the purview of the FA/FL, and haven't followed up. —Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that asking the reader to go find a film and watch the credits to validate is not a good approach to sourcing. It leads to 1) editors adding every minor actor that had a role in the film, eg "Man in crowd"-type credits. and 2) can lead to editors sneaking in false info that no one will bother to check for less known persons. However, film and television pages are less the problem compared to what the expectation is for sourcing on a biography page, which is the focus of this discussion. Its why, as alluded to a question lower down, that we shouldn't rely on what is reported at a blue-linked work, because a reader isn't going to find the source there either. Masem (t) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that the FA examples were all promoted over 10 years ago, so it's possible that consensus has changed re: sourcing in that time. That said, WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL might apply, even for FAs. —Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean...perhaps. But by the same measure, nobody has challenged them in ten years. Here's one promoted in December 2023: October 1 (film). Asking someone to look at a credit sequence is probably less onerous than asking someone to read a book or article. (The words move for you. No need to turn pages!) If there is an accessible written source - well add it! I don't think anyone is arguing you shouldn't if you want to. I just think this particular argument regarding cast lists in film articles doesn't hold water. I can see more of an issue with television or radio credits for lists of works concerning actors etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we go back to your proposed wording of (emphasis added) To allow for easy verification, editors should provide as much identifying information ..., I can live with being able to quickly verify that this work exists, and AGFing that Joe Smith is somewhere in the credits. That's akin to how we deal with offline sources. But are there equivalents to ISBN for other media where verification of the work's existence can be easily achieved? —Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking someone to look at a credit sequence is probably less onerous than asking someone to read a book or article. (The words move for you. No need to turn pages!): That's where I expect page numbers or time stamps. —Bagumba (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a difference between lists of works where the person in question is the author or sole author and lists of works where someone is making an appearance or a co-author in a collective work. The former is a lot simpler (I'm assuming you would not expect a page reference to the front cover of a book or album?); the latter is more complex - though still pretty easily verifiable by looking at the work itself (credits, liner notes, contents page) and is currently practiced all over the project. In terms of unique identifiers, published albums and singles usually have catalogue numbers. As far as I know, not so much for movies - when books reference movies in-text they usually just follow a Title (year) format, sometimes listing the director too. Chicago says: Name of director, Title, Location, Production Company, Year of release. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For movies, there's certainly more AGF possible with English box-office releases. How to handle smaller productions that are harder to verify, or non-English titles that many en.wp editors are not as familiar with. For quality standards, would it be systemic bias to scrutinize the works differently? —Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that wp:ver provides good guidance (except for it's missing sentence). Inclusion on a list is an implicit statement that it is one of their works. (Only) if challenged, a source for that implicit statement must be provided. Otherwise not. The missing sentence in wp:ver is that challenges should be based on and include an expression of concern about verifiability/veracity. Not just sealioning to knock out something that somebody doesn't want covered. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh… if someone sealions, just plop in a citation. Much quicker and less stressful than arguing that a source isn’t required. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time, we look to have a normally reliable source be the source to support an item on a list of works, like a biographic article or obituary. But we also allow for some unique cases, like for any published book, the ISBN number is usually sufficient, as from my understanding, because Wikicode makes this point to WorldCat which is considered an authority, and authorship is directly obvious from there. Same with most published journal articles with items like DOI numbers. But when we get to films, music, and other media forms, that type of database doesn't seem to exist. Eg: IMDB is not a reliable source for films despite that being the industry's standard per WP:IMDB and there is not anything professionally maintained like WorldCat.
Related to that, for works that are independently notable (blue-linked), where the person's role is self-evident from the blue link, is that sufficient? By self-evident, we're talking the information you'd find on the proverbial cover - Its self-evident that Michael J Fox and Christropher Lloyd starred in Back to the Future II (it is spelled on the film's poster and the article lede), but you'd have to dig to say that Elijah Wood also was in the film, so that would not be a case of self-evidence for a blue-link. Is this appropriate for these self-evidence blue-likes (which can simply a lot of issues with these lists), or are we violating "Don't use Wikipedia itself as a citation" when we rely on blue links? --Masem (t) 00:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relying solely on the presence of a blue link is counter to WP:CIRCULAR:
Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source ... Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.
Yes, but one hopes both that experienced editors will do the right thing themselves (i.e., add sources) and also that they don't make a spectacle of themselves by pretending that they can't possibly determine whether basic facts about Back to the Future II are verifiable because there's "only" a link to a Wikipedia article and no little blue clicky number in this article. In such cases, if refs are wanted in this article, there's nothing stopping you from adding a citation to the film yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, WP:PRESERVE is a policy. I wasn't advocating to make a spectacle. A volunteer might decide to tag it, an alternative to deletion, but similarly nobody should demand that they fix it themselves instead. —Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I sometimes find and add a reliable source for unsourced content I come across, if I went off on a (often fruitless) search for a reliable source for every unsourced item I see, I would never have time to do anything else. I try to avoid deleting unsourced content unless I am fairly sure it is untrue or irrelevant to the article, but if it is something I think sounds plausible but I cannot confirm from my personal library or a reasonable I-net search, then I will leave a content needed tag in hopes that someone will have a clue on where to find a reliable source supporting the content. Donald Albury14:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does sourcing need to be in the main article for list of selected works if there's a separate, full list of works that is properly sourced?
If we have a separate list of works from the main bio article, should the main article have sourcing when selected works are repeated there? Similar to the above question, can we rely on the blue link to the full list of works, presumed to be properly sourced to the degree we expect, or should the selected works be sourced appropriately too, which often can be done just by reusing those sources? --Masem (t) 00:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any summary style that is immune from sourcing requirements. EG: if I am summarizing a spin-off article in the one it originated from, I'm still bound to include the sources to support it. Which is why I think that in this scenario, sourcing from the split list needs to be reused in the main. Masem (t) 12:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup… remember that Wikipedia is dynamic… articles can and do change. So, while X might be mentioned (and cited) in “another article” today, future edits to that “other article” might result in X (and/or its citation) being removed. Thus, it is important to repeat the citation in every article where X is mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a 2024 discussion, so it looks ok to start this here. Feel free to note any significant points from there that are not already in the MOS. —Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most useless sections of articles about a (usually recent) event is the "Reactions/Responses" section. No one wants to know that the leader of some uninvolved country had "expressed condolences" for an XYZ event. I propose that there should be a MOS that prevents the addition of the reactions/responses (i.e., a tweet on x or whatever govt website a country uses) from countries uninvolved/irrelevant to the event. It's just bloat 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)11:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that routine condolences from random famous people are utterly useless bloat but responses in the form of concrete actions taken as a result of the incident can be encyclopaedic. The essay Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles (written by Fences and windows) however suggests that the community is not united in this view. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the worst things that has been added for any event, particularly when most of the reactions are along the lines of "thoughts and prayers" and not in any way of any actions or commitment for action made in response (eg along the lines Thyduulf is saying). We should be writing for a long-term point of view, so just listing non-action reactions, or at least not distilling these into brief lists (eg "The attack was condemned by many nations, including X, Y, and Z" is far better than sentence after sentence) is not encyclopedic, and better at a Wikinews article than en.wiki. Masem (t) 12:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing. This section thing should be treated in the same way we treat the "Supported by" param of the infobox: Consensus must be reached in every article to include that section 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)15:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally oppose Reactions/Responses sections, but I would support guidance against including routine condolences/condemnations/statements of support, especially when it ends up being a bulleted list that seems to attract flagcruft. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty classic result of WP:RECENTISM, as various reactions are going to be in a lot of immediate news content. It is usually bloat. However, it's also usually not worth fighting against. Like other aspects of current event articles, it's easier to treat it as something to take a new look at down the line. CMD (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a larger problem that editors write breaking news articles as if we're a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia, these reaction sections are just part of that problem. We really do need to try to get back to writing current events as encyclopedic summaries, and if editors really want to write to the level of detail of news, that Wikinews is a far better venue for that. Masem (t) 02:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there just hasn't seemed to be a great solution to the problem. Who knows, it may even be something that draws in editors. CMD (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as something that is best to deal with on an article by article basis. In historical articles, such sections are very useful. For example, today's TFA contains a section mostly devoted to contemporary reaction, here--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is less the abstract concept of covering reactions, and more the usual bulletpoint newsline that tends to grow in current event pages. CMD (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone was born in 1610 in the Duchy of Lorraine, we should not say they were born in France (although we might say where they were born is now France), or if they were born in an area of Silesia in Germany in 1935, we should not say they were born in Poland. We should reflect the political reality of the time. I think this also generally means we should call places Rhodesia/Dahomey/Gold Coast/Burma/Siam/Ceylon when those were their recognized names. I am not sure the date Burma becomes Myanmar is as clear as the others. However we would use Pinyn Romanization for places at a time when most in the west were using the Wade-Giles system. In some cases it is useful to tell the reader where a location is now, or what the place is now called (the later comes up a lot with educational institutions), but we still should acknowledge the contemporary name of the place. We would not say someone was "born in Cathay" though. Even though at one time people in the west used the term. We would say the person was born in China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the "Reactions/Responses" sections themselves useless, but some of the content in them (e.g. reactions from random, uninvolved politicians, celebrities, companies, etc.) is indeed irrelevant and should be removed. Some1 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Some1. "There was an earthquake, and the President of Ruritania said something socially appropriate" is as useless as saying a grant-dependent scientist saying that Further research is needed. But there are things that can be useful and appropriate, like "There was an earthquake, and Ruritania sent refrigerated tanker trucks full of milk" or "There was an earthquake, and Ruritania thought the resulting confusion made a great opportunity to invade the country". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction bloat should be removed but it would be better to pick battles worth winning. When something dramatic occurs, reactions are informative even if we are pretty sure it's just a tweet written by a PR hack. I would like a hidden template that activates in three months to say "Please remove WP:UNDUE bloat in this section". However, my advice would be to not fight plausible me-too additions when an event is current and everyone is excited. We rely on volunteers who come in all shapes and sizes and bludgeoning them with rules is not productive in the long run. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem starts because editors are adding every reaction they can find in the immediate wake of an event. Per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, this is not necessary. Short-term reactions should be limited to actual actions or call to actions (eg a country leader offering their financial or manual support to help in the wake of a disaster), and avoid any of those that are just "feelings". In the long-term, if there is sufficient evidence and weight that the "feelings"-type reactions are important, then they should be added. We should be encouraging editors to be far more selective off the bat. Masem (t) 00:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sections resemble the "In popular culture" sections. When not effectively curated, such a section can attract trivial references or otherwise expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies such as what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view. Their inclusion should reflect their prominence in relevant literature. Hawkeye7(discuss)00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most efficient long-term method we can use is to stop the creation of articles about every news story and cover developments in existing articles where all of the information can be maintained in once place. The vast majority of the time, we don't need an article about a bridge collapse when we can have a section on the collapse in the article about the bridge itself. That would make it much easier to manage bloat where integrating it into the article is already part of the editing process and it's more clearly undue. All we need is a simple "hi, thank you for creating the article about this event, we've moved the information to the article about that place". There. No bite, no bloat, no big deal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸00:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still need to get my larger discussion on trying to get us back to respecting NOTNEWS, particularly in the current climate today, but this is absolutely a problem, part of it being an implicit desire to have article ownership and be the one to create a new article, rather than add to an existing one. It makes editors run to create articles on every event before its clear whether it makes good sense for a standalone. Flooding such articles with pointless reaction sections is a way to make the event look more significant than it is. A bridge collapse without any significant damage or death toll is exactly the type of event that's better covered in the article about the bridge (eg: I-35W Mississippi River bridge, Tacoma Narrows Bridge) Masem (t) 04:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... part of it being an implicit desire to have article ownership and be the one to create a new article ... I don't think it's usually a case of WP:OWN, per se, but there is a certain satisfaction in seeing "my" article. See the number of users displaying a list of their created pages. —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I do manage to separate my desire for recognition for what I have done from exercising ownership over that work. That does require me to ocassionally bite my tongue. More to the current point, I spend days or longer (and in one case, 11 years) in developing new articles. I have, many years ago, started articles the same day I read something about the topic, but I now think that is a bad way to approach Wikipedia, and probably would support some way to slow down the process. As a wild idea, why not require new articles to be in Draft space or a user's sub-page for at least a day before moving to main space? That would force coverage of breaking news into existing articles for the first day. Donald Albury14:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've raised a question here about GFDL and was wondering if someone at Wikipedia could answer. I originally asked on the Main Page talk but was referred to here. Thank you! 2005-Fan (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our current Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria prohibits the use of non-free content outside of article space, including in draft space. I think this is an error in law and practice, and that the policy should be changed to permit relevant non-free images in draft space to the same extent that it is permissible in article space.
Drafts are created for the purpose of eventually becoming articles, and ideally allow the entire article to be constructed, including images, so that it can be properly evaluated for suitability as an article. It is something of an annoyance that non-free images relevant to a draft currently can not be uploaded to Wikipedia at all until after the draft has been moved to mainspace.
With respect to intellectual property concerns, our prohibition on the use of non-free media derives from the limiting factors in the copyright doctrine of fair use, but that calculation does not militate against the use of such content in draft space, precisely because drafts are less visible to the public readership, and therefore present much less of a possibility for public presentation of copyrighted content. Because drafts are intended to become articles, they serve no less of an educational or journalistic purpose than published articles. I therefore think that our policy should specifically be amended to permit the use of non-free images in draft space to the same extent as they are permitted to be used in article space. BD2412T22:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ips and unconfirmed users - the only ones forced to use draftspace by the software (rather than just encouraged) instead of being able to create directly in mainspace - can't upload files locally either. Are you proposing to change that too? —Cryptic22:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant CSD criterion (F5. Orphaned non-free use files) contains the clause Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. without any definition or examples of what constitutes a "reasonable exception" or "upcoming article".
If this proposal is successful then other parts of the criterion will need to be reworded from "article" to "article or draft" but that should be uncontroversial, especially as I'm about to alert WT:CSD to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this proposal. There is enough content in draftspace already, and much of it is frequently deleted by WP:G13 or at WP:MfD. Allowing non-free images to be uploaded for drafts would increase the burden of maintenance on administrators, who would have to delete more non-free images when drafts containing them are deleted, and Files for discussion participants who would have to discuss the images when their draftspace use is disputed, for very little benefit that I can see. For this proposal to be beneficial, there would have to be a convincing case made that uploading and adding non-free images after an article has been moved to mainspace from draftspace is somehow inconvenient or otherwise undesirable, and I do not see a compelling case here. If someone really feels the need to have an image ready right now, users are free to save one to their personal device with notes on where it came from and your rationale, and put it to Wikipedia when the article is ready. silviaASH(inquire within)23:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I save an image on my hard drive as you propose, and then work for months on a project-based draft like one of the MCU characters, and then once the draft is published as an article and I upload the image, someone contests the usability of that image in that article. Isn't it better to have the image vetted earlier, so that if it turns out to be unusable, there is time to find an alternative before the article is published? BD2412T23:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel the need to make sure an image is suitable for the article, then you can go ask someone and link them to the image in question. However, generally speaking, fair use images uploaded by experienced editors are rarely contested, so I just don't see this realistically being an issue, especially for such a standard use case as showing what a character looks like in the infobox. This proposal feels like a solution in search of a problem. silviaASH(inquire within)00:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SilviaASH "If you really feel the need to make sure an image is suitable for the article, then you can go ask someone and link them to the image in question.", Why would a new editor submitting a draft think to ask (where?) about a non-free image? They'd (at best) follow our existing guide to upload it locally, and at worse upload it to wikimedia commons. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know. But this isn't a new editor proposing this policy change, it's an established editor and administrator who explicitly asked, Suppose I save an image on my hard drive as you propose, and then work for months on a project-based draft like one of the MCU characters and I responded to their question saying what I personally think they should do. I would recommend the same to a new editor, probably, but I wouldn't expect a new editor to know, which is of course why I'd tell them. silviaASH(inquire within)04:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For files used elsewhere linking should suffice, might still be good to write the justification in advance could be converted by script when the page is accepted. For the more common case of a file that is only suitable for use on that one page, yeah that's thornier. One could tweak F5 to make any images linked on a draft covered under the upcoming article exception, but ultimately the nonfree images could sit in limbo for quite some time, which is rather undesirable.
Well, if an article is entirely unsuitable for the encyclopedia (a notability or NOT fail) without a picture, how can a picture make it suitable? And vice versa, if an article topic is notable, and not otherwise barred, won't that be judged by the text and sources, not a picture? (As an aside, we already practically publish drafts in main space, in that they are likely to be further edited, sometimes continuously edited long after publication.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For that inquiry, it doesn't matter whether the work is in draft space or article space (with unsuitable things being created in article space all the time). In image, at least, demonstrated the degree to which the subject can be illustrated. BD2412T23:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may or it may not -- the 'wrong' image won't show that, under eg. irrelevance, misinformation, disinformation, misleading, confusing, or otherwise poor image selection/placement. And in draft space there are fewer editors to catch it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What we clearly don't want is the allowance to have non-free images in draft space articles that never progress to main space, even if there was good faith intention to get it there and the editor lost track/left Wikipedia/host of other reasons. This is clearly set by the intent of the WMF resolution from 2008 on non-free content use. But I can understand the desire to have a brief period where the article is one or two steps away from going to mainspace to upload and populate non-frees before its moved to make sure that other factors (like facing, sizing, etc.) I don't know if we can set it up with the bots, but to allow a 7-day period for a non-free to be used in a draft (with the bot adding necessary warnings on the talk page), after which the bot can remove the non-free from the draft, and if that's the only use, to start the 7-day speedy deletion timer on the non-free content itself (effectively giving a 14-day window). We'd need to have the non-free rational included to what the target main page is and the bot smart enough to check a draft-space version if the mainspace article doesn't exist or just a redirect. But this all requires that the bot(s) can be set up to do this. Masem (t) 00:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with this. I still don't see myself ever taking advantage of this if it were implemented, but this sounds like a fair way to implement this without any significant increase in maintenance overhead. silviaASH(inquire within)00:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not having looked at the source for the bot which removes nonfree images from drafts (courtesy ping its owner), I'd say it'd probably be relatively easy to get it to only remove an image if it shows up on the same non-mainspace page for seven daily runs in a row, or however frequently it runs. That's not the problem.The problem is what to do when the draft's author immediately puts it back in, which will happen, and will happen very very frequently. Do you just not deal with it and wait another seven runs? Then the grace period for having non-free images on drafts is infinity days instead of seven. Take it off again the next run? Then you have to keep track, forever, of which images have been removed from which drafts, detect when it's a different image or draft that just happens to have the same name, etc, which starts being not so easy pretty fast, plus now your bot is effectively edit-warring. Log it for the bot op to deal with manually? Then you still have to keep track of it forever, plus the bot op has to deal with it manually, which isn't what he signed up for. —Cryptic01:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is going to game the system that way, a way to verify what's going on is to make sure the bot logs all such draft image identifications, ideally tallying how many times an otherwise unused non-free image is being added to a draft. If that goes above 2 or 3 times, that should be flaggd to an admin to see if the user is actually gaming the system or if there's a legit reason for this, and take appropriate action. Masem (t) 03:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stary by saying I 100% understand our NFCC and the legal basis for them. That said, I tend to agree with OP that there is no legal distinction between a "draft" and an articlespace article. If an image qualifies as fair use in legal terms does not depend on where it's used. It depends on the circumstances of that use. I would be shocked if a court determined that an image would be fair use on a website but not on the same website just because of how that website internally calls that page. As such, I don't see any legal reason to prohibit NFCC from being expanded to allow it to be used on at least one article or draft article. That all said, my view here is obviously based on there being no WMF legal objection to this, since ultimately it's their lawyers that would have to defend anything. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!03:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its less of a legal issue in this case and more the explicit instructions from the WMF resolution that non-free should only be used for encyclopedic content (for the purposes of minimizing non-free use and supporting the idea that WP is a freely-licensed work), which is why we've always limited it to use in main space (no user spaces, no talk pages, etc.) Draftspace is not mainspace, but because the content is intended to eventually go into main space, there are some reasons to make allowances for it, but at the same time, draft space also frequently ends up as a graveyard for unfinished articles, so we don't want non-frees sitting there unused. Masem (t) 12:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but non frees if not used in mainspace are to be deleted in a far shorter time frame (7 days normally). Plus one could game this by touching the draft every 5.9 months. If we are going to allow nonfrees in drafts for purposes of finalization before a move to mainspace, their use must be strictly limited to that purpose and thus a need to have nots help assist here (or not allow it all, the current situation) Masem (t) 17:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free content criteria are fairly horrible and have long needed an overhaul. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. We're not here to provide a library of free content for scrapers and reusers, that's Wikimedia Commons' business.
As a matter of principle, any file that we can legally and ethically use to build an encyclopaedia, should be allowable anywhere in the encyclopaedia. The NFCC should be rewritten to delete any rule that obstructs this goal.—S MarshallT/C08:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until the WMF changes their stance on non-free content use, we can't change NFCC that way. And using NFC is antithesis to the idea that WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can use and importantly, modify and redistribute. Masem (t) 12:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right to say we can't get all the way there because of WMF obstructionism, but we can certainly push back the free content maximalists and swing the balance more in favour of the people who're actually here to write an encyclopaedia. Wide latitude to publish fair use images, where it's ethical and lawful to do so, in draft space would be a helpful step along the way.—S MarshallT/C13:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the WMF has said non free images can only be used with encyclopedic content, and while the content remains in draft space, draft articles technically are part of the encyclopedia. (for the same logic that drafts made in user space would also be a problem). I'm all for a short term allowance for non frees in draft space as long as their is a good faith attempt to bring the article to main space on a prompt manner, but a reality is that many drafts linger up to the six month limit without any effort after an initial burst to improve for mains pace. Hence allowing the use of nonfrees for a short time enforced with the help of bots seems a possible route. Masem (t) 13:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No (resolution was 2008), but we did have the common practice of drafting in user space. And keep in mind en.wiki had established the NFC before the resolution was made, as early as 2005, established that non free should only be used in mainspace [1]. Masem (t) 16:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with S Marshall's comment above, and I disagree that it's important that the encyclopedia be freely modifiable and redistributable -- it should be "free as in beer" not "free as in liberty." I've never thought that letting anyone modify and use the content for any purpose should be a goal of Wikipedia.
But that aside, I think fair use in draftspace is a non-starter for legal reasons: one of the requirements of fair use is that use has to be limited, and allowing fair use content in draftspace would probably not be limiting enough. The difference between draftspace on Wikipedia, and a person's offline draft, is that Wikipedia's draftspace is published (on the web). There really isn't any need for images in draftspace at all -- placeholder images are a perfectly fine substitute -- so it's probably hard if not impossible for fair use images in draftspace to meet the "necessary" or "minimal use" requirements of fair use law. I don't think WMF Legal would ever allow it for this reason. (If they did, then fine, let's do it.) Levivich (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's less of a WMF legal than the main WMF board position that all works they host support reuse and redistribution outside en.wiki, so seeking to reduce the reliance on non free contents aids on making the work as reusable as possible. The specfics on how we document non free is more to bolster the fair use defense that would be a legal issue if challenged. Masem (t) 17:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I have practiced intellectual property law since 2005, nearly as long as Wikipedia itself has existed. I am very confident that no court would ever look at content on Wikipedia and say that it would be fair use in mainspace, but not in draftspace. That is not a distinction of any legal weight at all. If anything, draftspace is less susceptible to copyright infringement claims because it is not indexed, and therefore cannot be found through regular search engine usage. I would also note that in its now-decades of existence, virtually all legal challenges to Wikipedia's use of images have centered on images asserted by Wikimedia to be in the public domain, and by the other party (whether a national museum or just a man who set up a camera for a monkey to take pictures) to be covered by copyright. BD2412T01:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, between the WMF resolution and the NFC and existing enforcement, we are very unlikely to see out non free image use challenged on copyright infringement.
The factor that focusing on the legal side skips is the goal in WP to be a freely reusable and redistributable encyclopedia, and the use of non free endangers that. That's the essence of the WMF resolution. (it's why we call it a non free content policy to put emphasis on the licensing issues, a fair use policy which would be towards the legal side). Because of that goal, we purposely limit when non free can be used to prevent abuse of non free images not associated with encyclopedic content. Masem (t) 13:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so, and obviously, the purpose of this discussion is to establish whether that rather extreme level of free content maximalism still enjoys consensus, or whether in the alternative the community might feel we could allow encyclopedic images in draft space where it would be lawful and ethical to do so.—S MarshallT/C15:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And to stress, I would be willing to allow such use in draft space for a very limited time frame (a week) with the good faith assumption this is to prepare for moving to main space. Masem (t) 16:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I have indicated, I don't think the "suitability" argument is very good, as suitability will be judged by text and sources. But balancing that against the apparent desire to do it and the credible claim that a 'completed' draft that is 'good' does not run afoul of 'fair use' in almost all cases, how about an 'intended to be published 'in main space within 48 hours' (to be enforced by a bot if possible or ordinary editing enforcement) while maintaining the ban in draft-BLPs (just because less eyes will be on a draft). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
