Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Shouldn't we have a television network?

Shouldn't Wikipedia have a Wikipedia television network with shows, etc, showcasing our works, maybe news, and other aspects of culture which are presented at the project? I get that we already have an online encyclopedia, but for those without access to a computer? Antonio Wants to be the first Wikipedia TV celebrity Martin (Please discuss) 14:44, March 18, 2023 (UTC) Antonio Martin (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That's an intriguing idea, but meta:Wikimedia Forum would be a better place to suggest it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

An over-the-air television station is expensive and each one can only reach a local market. A cable access channel is relatively cheaper to produce but getting a slot on a cable provider is a challenge and again, each provider only reaches a specific market. An Internet-based media channel is more cost-effective for the number of people it reaches, in spite of its limitations of requiring viewers to have Internet access and an Internet-connected viewing device. Because of the wealth of information available globally on the Internet and video-sharing sites such as YouTube, people everywhere are motivated to obtain some minimal access to these resources, beyond just access to Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Not a station but a channel, and not a channel on local Cable TV but A channel on Youtube, for example. Then the principle cost is production, not distribution. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And if anyone is interested, they can go right ahead! All the content is available for reuse (with appropriate citations). isaacl (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikitube? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Something to watch for is how the content from Wikipedia is presented. A show (TV/YouTube/etc) is different from a text article. You wouldn't want someone reading an article to the camera. So, how do you make it engaging for viewers? As a faint indication of what could happen, I have blogged on topics that also have articles in Wikipedia that I have contributed to. In my blog posts I have linked to relevant WP articles, but I also included analysis and speculation that I could not put in Wikipedia. I suspect that anyone trying to adapt a Wikipedia article to a video presentation is going to find WP policies and guidelines too restricting. Think docudramas, with invented dialogue, or the visual aids that would be needed for most subjects. Good documentaries can take years to develop. How much work, and how much outside material, would be needed to create even a five or ten minute segment on a topic based on a Wikipedia article that would engage viewers? - Donald Albury 15:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone making videos on another site wouldn't be subject to Wikipedia policies (beyond satisfying licensing requirements). There are plenty of explainer videos out there that draw upon Wikipedia and other sources. For example, the Half as Interesting YouTube channel, devoted to brief explainers, started out covering small tidbits gleaned from Wikipedia articles. I absolutely agree that to do it well, significant effort has to be made, and graphics is what's going to make best use of the video format. isaacl (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A video version of a Wikipedia article is a bad idea. Screenwriting is a completely different kind of writing; everything is organized differently from the start. An illustrated video documentary of a topic that is also covered by an encyclopedia article, yes that can work, though composing and editing it is a much bigger job than writing an article. The other things a Wikipedia TV channel can do better are interviews, lectures, panel discussions, and how-to pieces. And those are what the existing Youtube channel "Wikipedia Weekly" does. Those things could be done better and they could be done more. More of them could be linked from articles, and the various videos that we already have in Commons could be better linked, catalogued and organized. Basically, that's it. Wikipedia Weekly on YouTube Jim.henderson (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• I highly recommend Understanding Wikis and Wikipedia. The market for broadcast educational content on TV is very small. See also AtheistTV. Schierbecker (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to thank everyone who commented on this, and I will go through the channel indicated above. I also had another idea which I will bring up through there. Thanks all and God bless you! Antonio Nur Jeanette Martin (yo!) 14:35, March 28, 2023 (UTC)

Common mistakes on K-pop related articles

I see so many editors write "lead single" as title track, and EP as mini-album. These are actually different meanings. "Lead single" in South Korea is "pre-release single" and the single that released along with the EP/album is called "title track", which in international music industry term means a song that has same title as album/EP. About EP as mini-album, since we already have our own definition, we should use EP instead of "mini-album". But for title track, I have no idea. Do we have consensus about this? Do the admins actively correcting these mistakes? -GogoLion (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@GogoLion to answer your question, administrators don't curate content so they won't be correcting mistakes as a admin.

Do you have sources to back up your claims? I suggest looking through WikiProject Korea, WikiProject Songs, WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Music to find answers. If that does not work start a RFC. Lightoil (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Board of Trustees have ratified the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

Hello all, an important update on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines:

The vote on the Enforcement Guidelines in January 2023 showed a majority approval of the Enforcement Guidelines. There were 369 comments received and a detailed summary of the comments will be published shortly. Just over three-thousand (3097) voters voted and 76% approved of the Enforcement Guidelines. You can view the vote statistics on Meta-wiki.

As the support increased, this signifies to the Board that the current version has addressed some of the issues indicated during the last review in 2022. The Board of Trustees voted to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines. The resolution can be found on Foundation wiki and you can read more about the process behind the 2023 Enforcement Guidelines review on Diff.

There are some next steps to take with the important recommendations provided by the Enforcement Guidelines. More details will come soon about timelines. Thank you for your interest and participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

JPBeland-WMF (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Problem with deleted page

I received an error report from the MilHistBot about Talk:Raymond W. Bliss. The problem is that the talk page has no associated article page. The article was deleted for "copyright problems" Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 March 17 but the talk page was not deleted and was tagged by SandyGeorgia with {{G8-exempt}}. That is a problem, because the article is now in maintenance categories. The MilHistBot will not be able to process any articles until the issue is resolved. I could tell it to skip articles like this but that is problematic at the present time and the issue will not be resolved; the page will clutter the maintenance categories. Normally I would resolve the issue manually but I don't know what the correct procedure is. The talk page needs to be given a proper MilHist rating and we don't have one for deleted articles. So what I have done for now is use the {{Suppress categories}} template to squelch the inclusion of maintenance categories, which works from my point of view. If anyone has any advice it would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Would a redirect solve this problem? If so, then a redirect to Surgeon General of the United States Army makes sense. Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 we need to get Mike Christie in on this as there are scores of these resulting from WP:DCGAR, and Mike needs the pages to generate the GA stats, similar to the FAC stats. I wonder if instead Mike could arrange to save only the GA page? I do not know how to resolve this, but it has always been a problem that GA reviews are sub-pages of article talk pages rather than stand-alone; I leave this to you, Mike and others as I am only entering the G8-exempt's per Mike's request for his GA scripts. I have been worried about the number of these stand-alone pages and whether they would cause problems down the line ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Losing the talk pages will remove some GAs from the historical stats database I've built, which would be a pity but is better than disrupting productive editing and useful bots. I'd rather see these deleted than see others have to work around them. Hawkeye7, how would your bot handle a similar situation with an FA that had the article deleted? Sandy, I know that's extremely rare, but in those cases would the talk page be G8 exempt? If I (and hence the bot, I assume) could see deleted pages this wouldn't be an issue. I'm not saying it's a reason to start an RfA but it's the first time I've seen a need for the tools.

I'd say delete these pages at will. I have some archives of the data I can use to reconstruct the history if I decide to go ahead and do that. Sandy, sorry to put you to the trouble over those pages and now change course, but it seems like too much of a divergence from normal business operations to persist, for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The same problem would arise with an FA whose article page was deleted. Since that is a form of FAR, the procedure is for the article to be returned to the project for reclassification, but as I've noted, we have no classification for deleted articles, so it can neither be dealt with automatically nor manually. Note that my interim solution of using the {{Suppress categories}} template around the WikiProject templates has retained the categories related to the {{ArticleHistory}} template, ie Category:Delisted good articles and Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles thereby not messing up your database. In the case of an article that is being deleted for copyvio, my personal preference would be for the article to be reduced to a redirect or "stubbed" (ie reduced to its first line and infobox) and its history revdeled. However, I realise that this cannot be done for an article deleted as a hoax or under WP:NOT (where it is decided that Wikipedia will not have articles on certain subject areas). For those I would suggest suppressing the project templates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It's probably never been a concern with FARs, as there has only ever been one FA deleted (ANAK society), so it's not really messing up much data. But the FAC is not lost, as it's not a talk page subpage (eg Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ANAK Society, embarrassingly promoted by moi :) But because GA reviews are subpages of the GA page, they get lost for data purposes.

Hawkeye7 could you show me an example of an article talk page with the suppress categories in place, if that is the work around, and let me/Mike Christie know what the final decision is? Mike, I'm not fussed what you all decide one way or the other; I just want to know what to do :) :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. See Talk:Raymond W. Bliss for an example. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm ok with deleting these talk pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie if we want them deleted now, we need an admin to go through them at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox10; all are identified as deleted there. Similarly, if we want to put Suppress categories on them, the list is there. Your call. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that I know how/where to put the suppress categories, it seems easy enough ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie since it's the same amount of work either way, now that we've gone to the trouble to save them, I'm happy to help add the suppress categories ... whichever way we go, we have to edit every talk page, so why not save them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be great, of course! I just don't want to make more work for you or Hawkeye7. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Today’s featured picture March 25, 2023

Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

How long do I need to wait for Wikipedia:Request an account?

Hello, I had requested an account as I cannot create it due to similar to other username. The page said that the request can take 2 to 3 days, but I have waited more than 3 days and still did not receive any emails. I checked the account creation log and I still cannot find my requested account being created. I filled in the username, the email, confirmation of email, comments and pressed send request. Did I missed some steps to submit my request? And should I resubmit my request? 202.144.171.195 (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked but I don't see any requests from your IP address in the queue, and at the moment there are only 2 pending requests. I also don't see any accounts being created on your IP. In both of these cases I wouldn't be able to see your request or your account if you made the request from a different IP address, so that's not a definitive answer. Check the email you provided for a message from wikiwikimedia.org (check your spam folder too), that should have instructions for your new account, or a reason why it could not be created. If you didn't receive the email then probably your request wasn't received properly, in which case you should submit a new request and it will be processed shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I made my request from IP “125.253.63.66” a few days ago. And I have checked the spam folder and still do not receive any email. Should I resubmit my request? 202.144.171.134 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Please submit a new request. I don't see any open requests from that IP nor the range you're currently using, and I can't look up closed requests by IP address. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Hello, when I tried to resubmit my request, an error message said that there is already an open request with my requested name in the system. What should I do? 202.144.170.145 (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I did find your request, my search was not broad enough. It is on hold because you have not confirmed the email you entered in your request, and I cannot do anything with the request with that flag. After you filled out the form, within a few minutes you should have received an email - it's not clear to me from the instructions but I think it is from accountswmflabs.org or wikiwikimedia.org, or possibly a different email on one of those two domains. You will need to click on the link in that email to confirm your request before it will go into the general queue to be processed. If you can't find it, I'll get in touch with a tool administrator (I'm not one) and see if your request can be dropped so that you can create a new one.

Alternatively, you can make a request under a different username, and then change it afterwards to your preferred name. The name you requested is available as far as I can tell. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I found the verification email. I have clicked the verification link. The email did in the spam folder, but I clicked the wrong button a few days ago when I checked my spam folder and I actually saw my trash folder. Thank you for your help. 202.144.170.168 (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Birding and ornithology articles

There's currently a large number of articles about birding and ornithology for each year, listed at List of years in birding and ornithology. It's normal for a topic to have a series like this (see List of years in science or List of years in film), but I think feedback would be helpful on whether "birding and ornithology" is a significant enough topic to warrant these 100+ articles. Should they be left alone, or is cleanup necessary here? I'm wondering if they should be merged into a Timeline of birding and ornithology or something like that, but I don't know what the correct approach would be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Internet Archive

As you might have seen, a federal judge in New York ruled Friday in Hachette v. Internet Archive that the Internet Archive's practice of lending out digitized copies of copyrighted books for free (aka controlled digital lending) constitutes copyright infringement that can't be defended on fair-use grounds. [1][2] This will be appealed, but in the very plausible event that it's upheld, one of our best ways to access reliable sources could be off the table. It's worth thinking about what we could do if that happened. Any ideas? Additional funding for The Wikipedia Library (which is already doing great work) might help, but it'd be awfully hard to compensate for the literally millions of free online books that could disappear in the not-so-distant future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know about this. I think our links in citations would continue to be all right (unless links are broken by IA) because the judgment says "The Publishers do not challenge certain uses IA makes of the Works in Suit, including 'indexing them for the purpose of searching, displaying short excerpts in response to searches and citations, and supporting research in text and data mining.' Def.’s Memo., ECF No. 106, at 16-17. The Publishers limit their claims to IA’s digital lending of entire ebook versions of the Works in Suit". However our future research would be seriously hampered by editors being unable to "read" the works. Also more limited availability (via Wikipedia Library) might be lawful under the law's dispensations for libraries rather than under "fair use", the matter at issue in this case. Thincat (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

IPs are an existential threat to Wikipedia

IP editors have pros and cons. The cons are such an existential threat, I wonder why we allow them anymore. This from my watchlist this morning:

• Special:Diff/1146692897/1146722326
• Special:Diff/1146655702/1146722480

Most vandalism is from IPs and SPAs who are persistent and sneaky, they are determined experienced malicious editors. The downside is we loose some legit editors, that was a big issue in the early days when the Wiki was new. As we transition into middle age, maintaining the existing is increasingly important. IPs can always use talk page edit requests. This is such a big change to 'what is Wikipedia' I don't expect this thread to go anywhere but I want to voice this POV which in time is inevitable if Wikipedia is to survive. The number of articles to maintain increases linearly while the number of experienced editors watching stays flat. -- GreenC 16:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, the world is heading towards that state. Are we there yet? I'm not sure. It's hard to tell when the gradual increase in vandalism crosses the threshold. Hiding IP addresses may soon make vandal-fighting impractical for the rank and file editor; that may be when we have to block the good IPs along with the bad. Certes (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Actual research would disagree with you: Research:Value of IP Editing. Legoktm (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a useful document. This document is examining and detailing the pros of IP editors, while only acknowledging cons (mainly vandalism) exists. The last time a vandalism study was conducted was 2007 Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Vandalism_studies/Study1. I'd like to see more recent studies how much damage vandals are actually causing, even better with trends. -- GreenC 17:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly there's been more than 2007, I'm sure searching through e.g. the Research newsletter archives will turn up more things. In any case, it's important to look at IP editors in context, we have plenty of registered accounts that are engaging in the same "persistent and sneaky" behavior you called out (e.g. LTAs, paid editors, etc.) I would think that IP edits already get way more scrutiny than those accounts. Legoktm (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In indirect ways, even low-quality contributions (from IP editors and others) can be valuable. A study by Gorbatâi suggests that low quality contributions by IP editors has an important effect by catalyzing additional high quality contributions by established editors. Chilling. Vandalism is valuable, because it triggers that "gotta-fix-it" itch and gets us to waste our time? DFlhb (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That summary is a misrepresentation of the Gorbatai study, which did not specifically measure IP vandalism but instead measured contributions by novice editors vs. expert editors. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and I support IP contribs. DFlhb (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You may or may not be right in your conclusion, but your methodology is certainly wrong. Even at the very naïve level the metric to look at is the percentage of IP edits (I'll use this term although every editor uses IP) that are bad, not the percentage of bad edits that are made by IPs. Those can be very different. Then we get into the number of IP editors who then go on to register. Remember that correlation is not causation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I check through a lot of IP edits on my watchlist. Some are flagged by ORES, some not. Anecdotally, for me, on the whole, IP editors make more positive than negative edits. However, I cannot say the same for Wikidata. If it were up to me, I would ban IP edits in Wikidata, except for language linking edits. Again, anecdotal, but except for the language linking, I find IP edits to be more damaging than not in Wikidata. Peaceray (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is a serious issue for Wikipedia… because these vandalism edits to Wikidata can get transferred to Wikipedia without notification on our watchlists. Data could change and we would not even realize it had. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This is already happening. (This comment reminded me to go do some searches on Wikidata and, lo and behold, 5 minutes later I have already found an instance.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia watchlists can show edits at "an associated Wikidata page". However, it's disabled by default, doesn't work with grouping, and excludes any other Wikidata pages which may contribute to the article. As others have said, preventing IP edits to Wikipedia wouldn't solve that problem. The one consolation is that Wikidata has a much lower profile than Wikipedia, so many casual vandals won't know it exists, but security through obscurity is rarely a good solution. Certes (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I fix a lot of vandalism, primarily undetected vandalism (more than a few days old, sometimes years or even a decade-plus old). IPs are responsible for the vast majority of this vandalism, and it's not remotely close. However, most of this is not by "persistent and sneaky" editors. It's by probable teenagers who found it funny to change "Brown Sugar" to "Brown shit poop" and having done so, most likely never thought of it again. Or it's by someone on their school's shared IP that makes dozens or hundreds of edits, many actually constructive. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Ironically that particular vandalism was fixed by an unregistered editor — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Good catch! Seems like an existential benefit to me... Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The self-congratulatory research referred to above misses some points relevant for the 2023 English Wikipedia which is a very different place from the early days. First, while many IP editors are great, it's likely that those very experienced contributors use an IP from habit or because they enjoy being a rebel (they see making an account as following the herd). Many of them would probably be grateful to be forced to make an account so they can say to themselves that they only did it because that's how the world is these days. Second, it's likely that significant degradation occurs from IPs who enjoy changing numbers or making other hard-to-check edits. Third, the drip-drip of nonsense, even if quickly reverted, can be very de-motivating for good editors. I have seen a retired academic leave Wikipedia due to the idiocy of needing to constantly monitor articles. Fourth, apart from those writing open-source software, the English Wikipedia is #1 for anyone wanting to make a contribution to the common good. People capable of helping the encyclopedia will be highly motivated to join the premier website—so long as the process of making an account is simple and carefully explained, they probably will join. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The research page was created in 2019, which is hardly "the early days." Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Vandalism studies there have been 4 comprehensive attempts to study vandalism and only 1 study has finished to completion, in 2007, the first one. -- GreenC 16:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of more recent analysis of pt.wiki than meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/IP Editing Restriction Study/Portuguese Wikipedia? CMD (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything else, but I'll ask around and see what I can find.

@GreenC, did you edit as an IP before creating an account? I did, and I think a lot of long-time editors did. (Someone used the wrong punctuation on the internet!) One of the concerns about requiring registration is that we might cut off the future generations of casual typo-fixers.

More generally, I have a problem that you all might be able to help me with. With m:IP masking coming up (and it is a "whether we like it or not" matter), I'm expecting to see parallel conversations like this:

• Alice: Let's require registration. Nobody will see any IP addresses, and we won't have these terrible IP editors around. Two problems solved.
• Bob: Noooooo, I always have to see everyone's IP addresses forever! If everyone registers accounts, I won't be able to see all of their IP addresses, and only CUs will be able to block vandals!

The plan as I've heard it is to convert "IP editors" to "temporary accounts". The page history will stop saying "User:127.0.0.1" and start saying "User:123456". Admins and some other users will be able to "reveal" the IP address for themselves for at least 90 days but probably not forever.

One of the challenges has been the number of different IP addresses. The English Wikipedia gets contributions from about a quarter million IP addresses each month. That's about 8,000 users per day here. (For reference, Cluebot reverts about 200 mainspace edits per day from IP addresses.) Some of these "different" IPs are the same person (edits made from your phone at home + on the bus + at school = three "different" editors), and some of the "same" IPs are different people (shared computers at school or library; shared network in an office). The new system will not resolve this perfectly either (me on my laptop at home in Safari + Chrome + Firefox = one IP address, but three separate temporary users), but it's possible that we will see a decline in the overall number of unregistered editors, and that it will be easier to differentiate between frequent editors whose IP address changes frequently vs newbies/one-off editors. OTOH, it's also possible that we'll see an increase, as every incognito/private window, and every shared computer that rejects cookies, is a "new" account.

One result that I'm hoping for is that it'll be easier to contact logged-out editors even if their IP changes.

So my question for all of you is: Does this plan seem basically workable? It'll require some changes (e.g., updates to {{welcome-anon}}), but does anything in here sound especially concerning?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that a vandal can change their User123456 number just by opening a new incognito window? If so then Special:Contributions may no longer show what else they've ruined recently. Of course, they can hop between IPs now, but not as simply as hitting ⇧ Shift+Ctrl+N. Certes (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

To spell out a couple of consequences: firstly, we couldn't easily list their other edits to examine and consider reverting; secondly, we wouldn't know that they've already been warned several times recently and may need blocking. Certes (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether that's true depends on who you mean by "we". Any random person on the internet? True. An editor with the relevant user right and suitable tools? Not true. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Will the proposal make it easier or more difficult to detect that 2A00:23C4:FB19:8301:9575:2322:47E4:3AC1 (talk), 2A02:C7C:AC60:B900:E482:1D08:8149:4E02 (talk), 86.45.142.178 (talk) and 86.24.213.229 (talk) are all the same person? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Right now, we have these situations:

• Traveling editor – same person, same browser, multiple IPs, difficult to connect.
• IP-switching LTA – same person, same browser, multiple IPs, difficult to connect.
• Incognito editor – same person, "different" browser, same IP, easy to connect.

In the future, we expect these situations:

• Traveling editor – Stable temporary username (plus Help:Notifications will work).
• IP-switching LTA – Stable temporary username.
• Incognito editor – Different temporary username every time, but the IPs can be revealed by admins+others with the relevant user right.

So if the four IPs you mention are all in the same browser, it'll be automatically connected. If they're the same person but different computers (e.g., on their phone, their laptop, a shared computer at school, etc.), then it will be just as difficult as it currently is. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A good analysis, but I fear that any LTA clever enough to switch IPs will soon work out how to change their temporary username. Certes (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume so, too, but is that really any worse than what we have now? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Only for case six above (Incognito editor, future). I don't know how many of those we have, or how many will switch to that mode (there being little point in adopting it now other than concealing one's browsing history from Mummy and Daddy.) Certes (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The incognito editor would be indistinguishable from a shared computer (e.g., in a library) that rests everything between users.

I'm pretty sure that this is going to work out okay in the end. I'm worried about a rocky entry, though. Does anything need to be done to Twinkle? To Navpops? To tools I don't use or haven't heard of? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the incognito editor is now and will remain indistinguishable from a shared computer. Now, both have a constant IP address, allowing us to tie the edits together. After masking, both will have changing temporary usernames, making it harder to associate their edits. That's a good change for innocent library visitors, but also helps a vandal who's discovered the incognito button. Certes (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Except that experienced editors will also be able to see the IP addresses for temporary accounts.

If we were requiring everyone to log in, you wouldn't be able to see anyone's IP addresses. This system will prevent readers/casual editors from seeing the IP address, but it won't prevent everyone from seeing the IP addresses. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Being unable to see the IP addresses would make it worse, so impact would depend on how "some other users" and "probably not forever" shakes out. CMD (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it not being able to see the IP address per se that would make things worse (how?), or is it not being able to see what other edits were made from this IP address that would make things worse? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mainly the latter. Connecting the edits of one IP is useful, but so is connecting those of adjacent IPs, especially within the same IPv6 /64, a range which often (but not always) denotes the same device and person. The exact IP only matters if tracking down a potential COI, such as an organisation's article edited from its own IP range. Some of us have suggested solutions such as Crypto-PAn, but received no response. Certes (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The plan is to let most experienced editors be able to reveal the IP address itself, so for a single IP, it shouldn't be a problem. Legal's supposed to post their requirements this week, and it's going to be one of those "Legal's minimum, but you can set a higher standard if you want" thing. At a glance, I think every editor in this discussion would easily clear the minimum. You'll need to click something to promise you won't misuse private information, but it shouldn't be a big deal.

I'm not sure how they're handling the problem of adjacent IPs (e.g., for finding out which other temp users are in the same the IPv6 /64 range). I'd expect existing CU tools to be able to do that, but I'm not sure how it would work for the rest of us. Let me figure out who to ask...

Please let me know if you have favorite tools that you'd like to keep using for this – it's 9–12 months away, but there's no point in waiting until the last minute. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Feminism and Folklore 2023 has been extended

logo.svg

Dear Wiki community,

Greetings from Feminism and Folklore International Team,

We are pleased to inform you that Feminism and Folklore an international writing contest on your local Wikipedia has been extended till the 15th of April 2023. This is the last chance of the year to write about feminism, women biographies and gender-focused topics such as folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, folk games, folk cuisine, folk wear, fairy tales, folk plays, folk arts, folk religion, mythology, folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales and more

We would like to have your immense participation in the writing contest to document your local Folk culture on Wikipedia. You can also help with the translation of project pages and share a word in your local language.

Best wishes,

International Team Feminism and Folklore ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 05:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of criticism on Donald Trump indictment

Please review those edits. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)