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

Background: please see this discussion started by Jimbo Wales on his talk page.

I propose that a site-wide banner be displayed through June 20, 2018, on all language Wikipedias including the English Wikipedia, when geolocation indicates that the reader is in an EU jurisdiction, explaining the upcoming June 20 European Parliament vote on the copyright law changes being considered there which could severely impact all Foundation projects, including a link directly to

Note that the Wikimedia Foundation already has an official position on this issue: Doctorow (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Background information

Collated information on the effects of the law on Wikipedia

Filtering proposal

(taken from @Doctorow:'s message on Jimmy's talk page)

Position of Wikimedia organisations


Please post any questions about the law and how it might affect Wikimedia projects:

I asked how we would be in violation of it, maybe I was not clear. If this rule was in place now what do we do that would mean we would could be prosecuted for being in breach of it (assuming that it does not have an exemption)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about EU banners

The first link in this section includes that description. I agree it certainly does represent an existential threat to the freedom of content re-use, even if the exception for encyclopedias was carved out to prevent direct legal attacks on the existence of the wikipedias. Other projects such as Wikisource would certainly be directly at risk, but they don't reach as many EU citizens as enwiki banners would. EllenCT (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It may not appear reasonable, but it is the case the the WMF servers are in the US, and US opyright law is controlling, not EU copyright law. There may be personal risk for individual editors, but there's no more risk to the WMF's projects than if China changed its copyright laws, or Melanesia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Beyond My Ken: I’m going to take the opportunity to point out that Wikimedians are already individually liable for every action we take on WMF projects, so if the concern here is that individuals will be held more accountable for stealing the intellectual property of others, well, good for the EU in my book. If there is actually an existential threat to the WMF, I’m sure their legal team would be on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • US copyright law is (fortunately for us) not all-controlling. Local copyright law is also important. WMF does need to comply. The point is the opposite; individual editors are not affected; WMF is. But it's not complaining. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you have it backwards, but I'm not prepared to mount a detailed exegesis. My understanding is as my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support absolutely flabbergasted with the mountain of oppose votes solely on the grounds of "political bias". The proposed law has wide-ranging implications, which at worst could mean closing Wikipedia in the EU. It doesn't help that the proposal was made so soon after the net neutrality one was closed. Net neutrality was arguably harmless, but I just can't see how this law could possibly not have substantial negative effects on Wikipedia. We can't afford to gamble on Wikipedia exceptions being added to the final bill. The one political cause we should campaign for is our own. (see Headbomb) TeraTIX 23:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I've created Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. It's fairly difficult to find "neutral" sources here, and I'm not even sure how the EU makes legislation. Hopefully the magic of collaboration will improve it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Ping. This is highly relevant for everyone to read.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree the article makes a good point. Particularly about how difficult this would make editing for our average users, per:

...Third, the broad and vague language of Art. 13 and the compromise amendment would undermine collaborative projects that rely on the ability of individuals around the world to discuss controversial issues and develop content together. Free knowledge that is inclusive, democratic, and verifiable can only flourish when the people sharing knowledge can engage with each other on platforms that have reasonable and transparent takedown practices. People’s ability to express themselves online shouldn’t depend on their skill at navigating opaque and capricious filtering algorithms. Automatic content filtering based on rightsholders’ interpretation of the law would—without a doubt—run counter to these principles of human collaboration that have made the Wikimedia projects so effective and successful.

For that reason alone, I would not condemn action by the site regarding this issue regarding Article 13, and change my opinion to Neutral for this activity if it is deemed by consensus that either a Banner or Blackout to be necessary by the WMF. Thanks for the input, Jimbo. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: "Also this would mean identifying from cookies/IP adresses the location of our users/readers" eh. we already do that for almost every single banner.. Since at least 2009. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
TheDJ, I have no idea. I'm an editor not an IT expert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Apolitical? LOL. I have a list of articles I would like you to make apolitical.... HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 then as a Wikipedia editor there are things you can do about it. Hope your list is not too long...Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung Some I can work on. Give me time. Some are owned by unprincipled Admins who would rather see me banned forever. There is no hope there. (For those articles or those Admins, and maybe Wikipedia.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. This is not just a vague human rights thing, this is something that may well have direct financial consequences for WMF. On that bases I'd go as far as to support WMF overriding whatever consensus happens here to make the blackout happen. DaßWölf 02:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I see "oppose" !votes which suggest that Wikipedia should avoid reacting to any country's legislative process as a way of achieving neutrality. I feel that this is misguided, because while Wikipedia is neutral about many topics, we always take a position that every country should allow Wikipedia, access to information, and the educational resources we provide. I will not entertain anyone's arguments that restricting access to Wikipedia should be part of the Wikipedia mission. There is no reason why we should expect that the law of every country is best for Wikipedia. It is fine for us to say that Wikipedia is basically good, and to expect that the laws conform to the existence of Wikipedia. Citizens like us make laws for the public good. People do not exist to conform to laws which fail to consider the public good. It is right to start with the assumption that Wikipedia is good and that good laws will encourage its development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Then do something about your law makers. Do you understand the current legislative actions affecting internet, copyright law, and legality of use for our users in China? How about Turkey? Spain? Thought so. Wikipedia is here for people to access—or not. They can do so, as best they can from the countries they live in. These are countries where they have –politically– elected the officials who then propose, debate, and enact the laws they deem necessary. We are not here to advocate for or against any such laws, any such country, or any such lawmakers. That's politics. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Period. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Remember that proposed copyright legislation a few years back? It would have made many, many free images used here subject to copyright. We had a banner about that, because it would have directly and adversely affected us. I don't see how this is any different. Adam9007 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep. And I was against that action too, but consensus was against me. I stopped editing for about year afterwards, too, because I saw that these kinds of political actions would become perennial requests. Judging from, counting this one, three discussions so far just this year, I guess I wasn't far wrong. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that we already use edit filters on Wikipedia: Edit filter management and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The concerns raised in last year's WikiMedia blog do not appear to have considered our own existing filters and the way we operate them. SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

WAIT, how is this political?

WAIT. before you oppose on 'not-political' grounds, be aware that this is not something that it politicised in the EU, it is something that has not been reported on in the media, and the public are largely not aware of. This EU proposal is far more dangerous than any of the net neutrality debates, in a direct way to Wikipedia. Net Neutrality doesn't directly affect Wikipedia, but the changes to copyright that article 13 contains may make it impossible for Wikipedia to operate in the EU; the 'link tax' might completely shut down access to Wikipedia in Europe if enforced, and the rules for copyright basically eliminate fair use, making all the European branch language Wikis largely impossible. That is way more of a big deal than a bit of political activism. Please do not bandwagon this one, THINK. I was against the other net neutrality banners, but this is NOT THE SAME THING. I urge you guys to please reconsider, because this is not a partisan political issue in the EU, and that this is actually a potentially huge existential threat to Wikipedia itself. Even Jimbo Wales has said so over on his talk page.Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Where have you been told that the WMF isn't worried about it? It is not a partisan issue like net neutrality, so Wikipedia wouldn't be 'taking sides'. This is trying to be snuck through the political process with nobody noticing. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, if this is a threat to the WMF model, then the WMF should be clearly issuing a statement against it and/or issuing something to say they support a message. (WMF supported the Protests against SOPA and PIPA). If we had this, I would see no problem then including a banner message to warn about this. --Masem (t) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Err, they already did: wmfblog:2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/. Judging from the statement, WMF seems rather worried about article 13, which would probably make the WMF subject to some kind of liability. The European users and associations originally cared about other things, necessary for our copyleft wikis: freedom of panorama, public domain, orphan works. But then, maybe that's considered "political" too. --Nemo 21:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Javert2113:Sorry about the hidden ping, I pinged everyone that had made a 'political' oppose above, and it was a long list of names. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It's fine. I'm just a bit grouchy today, to be honest. Thank you for the ping; I probably wouldn't have seen this otherwise. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think your guess is probably a good one. I'd be opposed to any type of persuasive banner regardless of the specific words used or the topic referenced. Chetsford (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the issue is that it isn't clear exactly what consequences this might have, particularly for Wikipedia. Article 13 is pretty broad in its language, which makes it a bit unclear where it will be enforced and where it won't. When similar laws passed in Spain I know that google news shut down in that country (at least linking to Spanish publishers). A lot of these links are pretty fearmongery, and I am not sure anyone really knows what consequences this might actually have. Everyone seems to agree that it will be bad to some degree however. If a Lawyer from the WMF could give us confirmation on this (can someone ping somebody?) that would be the best. I'm not sure if wmfblog:2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/ represents a WMF position on the topic or not... — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The worst case scenario, it seems, is that Wikipedia in the EU goes the way Google News did in Spain. That, in the future, Wikipedia will be inaccessible to EU citizens. However, I oppose the persuasive banner regardless of the consequences. If the citizens of the EU, acting through their MEPs, decide WP is not welcome in the EU we should respect their decision, not chain ourselves in the guest bedroom and demand to stay. Again, though, I do appreciate the spirit in which the banner is proposed and agree it would be unfortunate if the worst came to pass. Chetsford (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Julia Reda AMA

For those few interested, tomorrow Julia Reda (one of the few defenders of the Internet within the EU politics), is doing an AMA tomorrow at 12:00 CEST on reddit (talkcontribs) 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it has started: --Nemo 11:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Article outlining the threats of the law to Wikimedia projects

Cory @Doctorow: has written an article for Electronic Frontier Foundation that outline the threats posed by the law to Wikimedia projects and what can be done to oppose it:

Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on the subject

Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market has been started, it is currently not very comprehensive, please help expand it. John Cummings (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the (fairly critical) de:Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger Germany has already such legislation, maybe that is something worth inspecting? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Germany already has the link tax aka article 11, see Google News (it failed miserably, so the EU lobbies are now proposing an even worse version). The biggest danger for Wikimedia is probably article 13 (mandatory upload filters and liability). --Nemo 08:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It also appears to be poised to but some real teeth in the EU right to disappear, with hefty daily fine if a US website like Wikipedia refuses to delete a BLP article on demand. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WMF position

Hi everybody, since some people have been asking about it, I wanted to confirm our position very briefly: the Wikimedia Foundation is deeply concerned about requirements for mandatory upload filtering to fight copyright violations or other problematic content that could appear in the future. Therefore, we oppose Art. 13 of the proposed Copyright Directive due to its potential harm to freedom of expression, user privacy, and collaboration on the internet. We believe that a general monitoring obligation for platforms would threaten user rights. Best, --JGerlach (WMF) (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

JGerlach (WMF), As I pointed out at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 229#How about a far less controversial EU Copyright law proposal? the WMF position you just linked to is over a year old, and the proposed regulation has changes significantly since then. See Talk:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market# Timeline of the proposal (prepared by Cory Doctorow) for a list of the changes. The leaked secret proposal to make the upload filter in Article 13 more extreme especially troubling and might require an additional WMF comment.
May I request an updated position statement? If there are no updates, may I request a simple republishing with a comment to the effect of "in the year since this was published, our position has not changed"? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I can confirm that our position has not changed and we oppose Art. 13, in its amended version too. Even with the recent changes and the exception for non-commercial purposes, we oppose this proposed norm because it would establish a dangerous precedent and threaten user rights on the internet. --JGerlach (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass ping

@TonyBallioni, Yair rand, Natureium, Power~enwiki, Billhpike, Masem, Javert2113, Winner 42, Godsy, Doktorbuk, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Chetsford, Ammarpad, Joe Roe, Wumbolo, GermanJoe, Finnusertop, Kudpung, HiLo48, Joshualouie711, Slatersteven, Justlettersandnumbers, Mandruss, Narutolovehinata5, Nyttend, Chris troutman, SilkTork, and Sphilbrick:--Apologies for the mass ping.But, I feel it might be prudential to inform you of the WMF 's stand on this issue, which has been clarified at this thread, since it has the potential to affect your !votes.Best,WBGconverse 04:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Time to close?

Reading the discussion above, while of course voting is not consensus, as of this comment, there are 27 26 support comments versus 30 oppose comments. Even if the support comments were more numerous, considering the amount of participation here (far less than the unsuccessful net neutrality proposal a few months ago) and the narrow gap in numbers, it's becoming clear that there really doesn't seem to be consensus at this point to implement the banner as proposed. With that said, some users from both sides have stated that they are open to either a neutrally worded banner that merely discusses the proposal and its details, or a WMF-implemented banner. But from the looks of things, with discussion having slowed down over the past few days, it seems unlikely that the numbers are going to change. As such, I would suggest that this proposal be closed, albeit without prejudice against continuing discussion of the EU proposal itself elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes time to close I think. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree, clearly there's no consensus. TeraTIX 11:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
A neutrally-worded banner, moreover, still announces to the world that we believe it a really important thing about which tons of people need to know; the details of the wording wouldn't affect the fact that its mere presence is non-neutral. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Also support close at this time. A "neutrally worded" banner would need a separate new discussion—that was not the topic of this one, so absence of comment cannot be fairly interpreted as absence of opposition. To avoid unnecessary confusion, the close should be clear that the "neutrally worded" option remains unresolved. ―Mandruss  14:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closure discussion

Post-closure comments, including discussion of the EU directive, can continue in this section. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Appears that Art. 13 was adopted on June 20th by the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee. Next this will go July 4th to the Members of the European Parliament and if 10% oppose the proposal than a more formal vote will be required.
With respect to us being "political", Wikipedia lives and functions within a political and legal reality. We should engage "politically" when laws are being proposed which will affect our ability to function or our future.
This should include efforts to oppose the blocking of Wikipedia in Turkey and attempts to censor Wikipedia in France. It should also include opposing unreasonable burdens, such as upload filters, which would affect how we work. A banner should educate people in Europe about what this law would mean for us and others.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
As a side note, decided to advertise the potential issues with a banner, obscuring Wikipedia for few days, and –eventually– to share an open letter with other projects addressed to the UE representatives. The decision was made basically because we belong to a movement that promotes open knowledge, thus we should stand to defend the right to free education and culture, even if the UE decision wouldn't directly affect us (but it would do anyways). --Ruthven (msg) 14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It is now 2 July. If we are to have a banner, it should go up now.

@Doc James: @Jimbo Wales:

Noting that whether to put up a banner is a WMF decision not subject to community consensus, are we going to put up a banner? If so, it needs to go up now; we need to give the readers at least a couple of days to read it. If not, may we please have an official statement from the WMF that you have decided against a banner? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon Banner is up now...
Can be seen here
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any banner. --Robertiki (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
On 3 July 2018 at 04:05 (UTC) the Wikimedia Foundation placed a banner on the English Wikipedia to run until 4 July 2018 23:59.[2] The banner is displayed to readers in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cypress, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxebourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The banner reads
"To all our readers in [name of country], we need your help. On 5 July 2018, the European Parliament will vote on a new copyright directive. If approved, these changes threaten to disrupt the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of. You have time to act. Join the discussion. Thank you." with links to "Contact your MEP" and "Read about it on Wikipedia".[3]
The banner should be extended a day to run until 5 July 2018 23:59 so that while they are voting they can read it, show it to other MEPs, etc. It can then be manually removed when we get word that the voting is done.
@Doc James: @Jimbo Wales: --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James and Jimbo Wales: the EU copyright banners have inconsistent end times. Everything should run until the vote. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
As this was a foundation action by meta:User:Seddon_(WMF), please contact him directly if you would like the centralnotice changed. — xaosflux Talk 03:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Anyone else we can ask? It is now 3 1/2 hours past the expiration. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Media response


media discussion

If anyone identifies any media discussing this then share please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Enable FileExporter

Further information: mw:Help:Extension:FileImporter and meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Move files to Commons

The FileImporter and FileExporter extensions allow importing files to Wikimedia Commons from other wikis with all the original data intact, while documenting the import in the version history.

FileExporter provides a link to import the file to Wikimedia Commons on the local wiki. FileImporter imports the file, including all data, to Wikimedia Commons.

Should FileExporter be enabled on the English Wikipedia? 04:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey (FileExporter)

  • The tool doesn't actually move the image to commons, it just copies it from here to there while keeping the edit history intact. Action would still required on the enwiki end by an administrator to delete the local file (which any editor can currently request by using the ((Now Commons)) template). Adding a link to this tool doesn't create any risk above and beyond that created by the ((Move to commons)) template. --Ahecht(TALK
    ) 18:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • at which point it gets deleted here, the steps to move are in place but the steps to ensure discussion, and restoration here arent. Gnangarra 02:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Delete IABot talk page posts?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a strong consensus ☒N against Option 1 and a weak consensus in checkY favor of Option 2 (I, like many others, assume that Option 2 will not lead to any mass-flooding of watch-list(s).If otherwise, the proposal stands rejected.).Thankfully,WBGconverse 05:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

A previous RfC halted new talk page posts by InternetArchiveBot.

This RfC is to see if there is consensus to delete the posts. It affects about 1 million talk pages. An example post that would be deleted.

There are two options for deletion:

#1 - a bot edits the 1 million pages deleting posts. Archived talk pages will be left alone. Bot operator User:GreenC has volunteered.
#2 - the wording of the post is modified to give users permission to delete posts if they want to. Since talk page posts normally can't be deleted by other users, it would remove that restriction. The wording can easily be changed via the ((sourcecheck)) template, it would not require every page be edited.

Please !vote support or oppose. Clarify choice of method #1 and/or #2 in order of preference.

- Rod57 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


Because the posts clutter talk pages and confuse editors. They won't be archived in most articles, most have no automatic archiving or enough traffic to warrant archiving. If you still oppose why not support choice #2? -- GreenC 18:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Choice #2 says this. Are you then in support of #2? -- GreenC 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty indifferent to option 2, just strongly opposed to option 1. If going for option 2, certainly need to check if there are other uses outside of this use case that could lead to unintended impacts. — xaosflux Talk 19:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Choice #2 says this. Are you then in support of #2? -- GreenC 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Firefly: Yes, below in the discussion, I have raised the existence of the messages as a problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Blueraspberry: You say that the messages 'consume human time', but what evidence is there for this, or for this being a problem? Tone doesn't come across well in text, so please rest assured that I'm genuinely interested in this - do you have any data to back up that such messages eat up reader time (unnecessarily), or are they just scrolled past in a second or two. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Firefly: This is spam. Spam consumes small amounts of time and attention from large groups of people giving benefit to almost none. Which of these premises do you dispute? - there are millions of these messages, tens of thousands of people read them, they have a life of years, the talkpages show tens of millions of views, there is a body of research publication which describes how spam / advertising consumes time and spoils an environment, these messages ask for minutes of time from all readers, people prefer to moderate their environment's level of spam, this kind of messaging is unprecedented in Wikimedia projects. Most people scroll past in 2 seconds but even that is unacceptable multiplied times millions. Many people read the messages the first few times and some people actually respond. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2 requires editing ONE page. Not a million. Can you re-evaluate Option 2? -- GreenC 18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please make a proposal with precise wording, preferably brief. However, you don't need an RfC to edit a single template. I don't see a need to add a "you have permission to delete this" message. If someone is too inexperienced to know they can delete a bot's message if it's a nuisance they should not be fiddling with talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I agree that permission isn't actually needed on any given single article, but Rod57 initially proposed something roughly reflecting your position on the template's talk page and ended up running this RfC at least in part because I asserted that mass removal of the messages, regardless of whether done by bot or by encouraging human editors to do so, is something that would require community approval (mea culpa). Even (especially?) experienced editors are indoctrinated to never ever mess with others' talk page comments, so I think adding such a message to the (already transcluded) template would have an effect beyond just "stating the obvious". I suspect the "precision" you find missing in the framing of this RfC is due to an attempt at brevity and neutrality from someone who has never constructed an RfC before. I hope that tradeoff won't make necessary restarting it entirely. --Xover (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I will add that option 2 will be much worse than the original posting of messages on the talk page, since all the talk pages will be changed, and will waste so much time in people finding out what happened, for no benefit at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


The persistence of advertising and spam messages consume a huge amount of human time and attention and bring no benefit. The Wikipedia community currently does not anticipate or measure the costs of mass messaging millions of discussion posts to hundreds of thousands of readers. If a message has a life of years, then if great numbers readers spend their time considering great numbers of messages, then this wastes hundreds of hours of Wikimedia community time in an unsatisfying user experience. We have to keep Wikipedia clean of unproductive distractions! See my previous rants on this topic:

No bot should be allowed to consume hundreds of human hours about its automated activities! Remove these messages immediately and avoid ever allowing this again! Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No evidence any significant amount of time is spent on these. They were turned off precisely because everyone just ignores them. On active talk pages they'll be archived quickly, on inactive pages they won't get seen. ~ Amory (utc) 00:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm in general agreement with Bluerasperry on the principle, but must note that I consider the concern somewhat overblown on this particular instance of the issue. In general we should strive to be mindful of editor attention, including both article and user talk page messages, and "noise" in people's watchlists; but not to the exclusion of useful functionality or information. There is certainly wasted attention caused by these messages, but they are not entirely devoid of compensating value (how much is a subjective call). And excessive effort expended on them, relative to all the other more pressing issues the project faces, is likewise not a good use of the same limited resource (editor attention). --Xover (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Xover: I really appreciate your acknowledgement that editor attention is a limited resource. I can understand and accept that different people will calculate cost/benefit in time in different ways, but I find it challenging to understand how anyone could say that the cost is zero or immeasurable. Thanks for the reply. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
No one said the cost was zero, just that what the exact cost is is at best a guess that depends on a lot of assumptions, which ultimately yields little to no insight on anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Per Headbomb, I don't think anyone is asserting that the cost of editor attention is zero. But they may disagree that leaving the old messages in place affects (uses) editor attention to any degree worth mentioning, or they may care so much more about the editor attention wasted by noise in watchlists and possibly discussions and wikidrama arising from the removal as to consider the other to be insignificant. Or they just think other factors are more important. An RfC !vote is the distilled result of the conclusion drawn after considering the various factors and assigning them your particular relative merit: it is not an expression of ignorance of, or active dismissal of, other concerns. It's "Here's what I think is important", not "What you think isn't important", if you'll pardon the simplification. --Xover (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I would not criticize others. For myself, I fail to understand the other side, and for myself, I feel a lack of ability to express what I see in a way that makes me feel understood. Thanks for the encouragement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll note that we have a reasonably accurate proxy of the attention gains by the bot's activity, namely clicks on its userpage. --Nemo 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LGBT rights summary tables as templates

Note: not completely sure if this is the right place for this proposal.

Articles about LGBT rights in countries have a summary table after more detailed descriptions of rights and laws (example 1, example 2). I propose we turn these summary tables into a template which would be easier to add to new and/or existing articles for both new and expert editors. An example of such template is available on hr:wiki (in Croatian). --Hmxhmx 18:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You should create a draft version, so we can see how it would look like. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I made a draft version avaliable at Draft:Template:LGBT rights summary. Feedback is welcome. :) --Hmxhmx 21:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
You can proceed cautiously because some people may object. Ruslik_Zero 17:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I will add it to a few articles and wait for any additional feedback. --Hmxhmx 19:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Research project: How much economic value does Wikipedia create for Wikipedians?

Wikipedia creates a lot of value for users and editors. However it is totally free for readers and editors voluntarily edit articles. Therefore its contribution to the economy is not captured in standard macroeconomic measures.

In this project, we would like to quantify the economic value obtained by editors by editing Wikipedia. Moreover, we would also like to understand the various motivations which make Wikipedians edit Wikipedia.

Check out our project proposal at this meta-page. We would love to hear your thoughts about the design of our study and welcome any feedback on the survey questions.

Avi gan (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to allow all ExC users to move-delete in Userspace

I propose that we allow all extended-confirmed users to use the supressredirect flag for moves where both the page to be moved and it's destination is in userspace I know this is a half baked proposal and the details probably need a lot of working out. — FR+ 10:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this what the extendedmover permission is for? I don't really see a reason to add this flag to the extendedconfirmed group. Even with 500 edits, there is still plenty of potential for misuse if we were all granted that right.
(Edit) I see the bit about userspace-only moves now. In that case, that would be a neat idea. Perhaps after ironing out the implementation details better, you could open a ticket for it. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 12:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@FR30799386: This wouldn't be an "easy" type change, as the software does not have current support for namespace aware usage of (suppressredirect). This means we can't just ask to have this turned on a mediawiki developer would need to write new code for it - I don't think it will get much traction. — xaosflux Talk 14:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:AfroThundr3007730. If an editor had to move a page without a redirect, they could just ask a page mover to do it or just request the page mover right if they needed to do it enough. SemiHypercube (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Wanting to suppress redirects in user space isn’t typically a good reason to grant +extendedmover. That being said, tagging it as U1 or G6 if it really bothers you isn’t a big deal at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this a perennial proposal? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Censoring the words ‘erection’, ‘erected’, ‘erect’, and ‘erecting’

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


Just so you know, I view the words ‘erection’, ‘erected’, ‘erect’ and ‘erecting’ as sexually pornographic terms; this means that the aforementioned words should be censored on articles in which these words are included, except for the articles Scunthorpe problem and erection. The reason why I see those words as sexual terms is because they have pornographic meanings, one of those words which means ‘an enlarged and rigid state of the penis, typically in sexual excitement.’. Anyway, bye! Peppa Pig the Second (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't censor words or terms that others may have problems with. If it bothers someone that much, then maybe the Internet isn't the place for them. Either that or avoid such articles. The latter three also aren't specifically in reference to the penis and are also used when talking about building something, for example. None of those, however, have pornographic meanings. They came before pornography. They happen in pornography, sure, but they aren't pornographic. A lot of meanings words have now we've attached to them. Garbage, for example, isn't gross. We've attached the word gross to garbage as a way to describe it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't even believe this user is serious: [4] EvergreenFir (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Well I can say one thing... he better not keep those edits up, because that's going to get him in hot water if that continues... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, and for a very important reason - it wouldn't be a true encyclopedia that could offer a full extent of knowledge and information to the reader if this were any different. That's something that we'd never change, not even for a minute.... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to/should we add a Wikidata item link to Authority control

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

Currently, there is no link from the ((Authority control)) navbar template to the Wikidata item page, where the information displayed is gathered. The Wikidata item page is where an editor may add/remove/correct authority information on a person/entity. A common complaint against ((Authority control)) is that the template (and thus Wikidata) contains information on the wrong subject, or that the links are useless, or the associated link is broken, or frustration from how/where to correct it (there are other complaints as well, but they are outside the scope of this discussion). This proposal/survey seeks to allow editors to more easily access the Wikidata item linked to the Wikipedia page to make such additions/removals/corrections. While gaining some support, it has been suggested at Template talk:Authority control#Adding Wikidata item link to aid navigation to poll a larger audience, so voilà.

A 'Wikidata item' link exists on the left hand margin of any Wikipedia page which currently has a Wikidata item associated with it, similar to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. Also similar is our placement of a 2nd link to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. at the bottom of the page in the external links, to aid navigation and visibility. So the addition of a 2nd link to Wikidata would be in line with current behavior.

This will not affect dormant transclusions of ((Authority control)); i.e. those which do not display on the page.

Option 1 - RHS in-line 'Wd: Q2144892' links as the first item:

Pros: it's short, so the chances of adding an extra vertical increment to the height of the ((Authority control)) template is also small. After scanning all ~690k transclusions, 59.5% of ((Authority control)) templates display 3 or fewer links from Wikidata, and 90% display 7 or fewer, so at least those 60% would very likely retain their current height. Also, parameter suppression of some kind will probably happen in the next 1-few months, making even more templates 1-liners.
Cons: it's lumped together with the other authorities so it (Wikidata) might run the risk of being misidentified as an authority (which it isn't), but I've only seen this concern raised once (part of the reason I'm here). This hasn't been a problem with a sister template, ((Taxonbar)), which has about ~50% of the transclusions of ((Authority control)).

Option 2 - LHS 'Q2144892' link on a separate line:

Pros: less chance of being misidentified as an authority, and more obvious linkage to the corresponding Wikidata item than Option 1.
Cons: will force all ((Authority control)) templates that are 1 line tall (~50%) to be 2 lines tall.

Option 2Wd - LHS 'Wd: Q2144892' links on a separate line:

Pros: lowest chance of being misidentified as an authority, and more obvious linkage to the corresponding Wikidata item than Option 1 and Option 2.
Cons: same as Option 2, and slightly wider.

Option 2Q - LHS 'Q2144892' links on a separate line (stylistic variant of Option 2Wd; Q and 2144892 link to different pages):

Pros: same as Option 2, plus the additional link describing what Wikidata is, and is "cleaner looking" than Option 2Wd.
Cons: same as Option 2.

Option 2Wikidata - LHS 'Wikidata' link & RHS links display ID names instead of numbers:

Pros: same as Option 2, but much more reader friendly, and LHS is constant width regardless of Q# size, and the RHS (with this example) is slightly shorter than any Option 2.
Cons: same as Option 2.

Option 2pencil - LHS ' Edit this at Wikidata' link:

Pros: same as Option 1, and widespread use elsewhere, so intuitive.
Cons: less descriptive than Option 2Wikidata, and hard to see for users who invert browser colors.

Option 2edit - LHS '[edit on Wikidata]' link:

Pros: same as Option 2 and Option 2Wikidata, and widespread use elsewhere, and maximally intuitive.
Cons: possibly too enticing?

Option 3 - any of the above.

Pros: various.
Cons: various.

Option 4 - no change.

Pros: status quo.
Cons: less mobility to Wikidata, and thus less potential for editors to add/remove/correct information.

AC Wikidata item link survey

By that reasoning, the "V · T · E" in every navbox template should also be removed. There haven't been significant issues of navboxes getting messed up because of the edit links being displayed. We need to give readers some indicator of where the data is drawn from and how to make corrections or additions. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"V · T · E" isn't an overt call to action since none of those abbreviations will necessarily be obvious to the drive-by reader. "Edit" or "Edit here" or "Edit this" are all calls to action; it's an announcement to the reader that we want them to edit it. I don't really want every rando reader to start editing a Wikidata entry. "This Can Be Edited" would be a descriptive indicator that was not a call to action but space considerations would obviously preclude that. Chetsford (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you're the first person to enter this conversation that was aware (or at least vocal) about such standards!
I guess Option 2edit needs to be made for "[edit on Wikidata]"?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

AC Wikidata item link discussion

Please keep the discussion focused on the merits of the available options.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some text to clarify 2Q. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we please promote this to an RfC, that attracts more editors and will get independent closure with a bit mere authority? —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are the options confusingly numbered 1, 2, 2Wd, 2Q, 2, 3, 4? Could we change to having them as 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3, 4 - or something else that's more straightforward? In particular, we shouldn't have two that are just "option 2"! Mike Peel (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I renamed the second option 2, that was my mistake. Fram (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Headbomb & Chetsford, just to inform you that Option 2pencil and/or Option 2edit were created after your vote (and since you didn't vote Option 3 nor Option 4), in case you wish to amend. The available options appear stable now...   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Tom.Reding It's been a month since this was posted. Do you think maybe it's time we hunt down an admin to do a formal closure? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
AfroThundr3007730, perhaps, if you think it's necessary. Despite my vote, I think Option 2pencil is the most sensible choice as that is the de facto default when it comes to infoboxes, so using it in ((Authority control)) is the natural conclusion. Any other option would be a forking of WP-to-WD navigational display.
I have limited time in the near future, so feel free to hail an admin if you so choose.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Misleading opening statement

@Tom.Reding: you state: A 'Wikidata item' link exists on the left hand margin of any Wikipedia page which currently has a Wikidata item associated with it, similar to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. Also similar is our placement of a 2nd link to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. at the bottom of the page in the external links, to aid navigation and visibility. So the addition of a 2nd link to Wikidata would be in line with current behavior.

There s NO STANDARD LINK to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. There IS a standard link to WikiData on all pages with an associated WikiData item. But as a list of non-exhaustive examples:

All have A WIKIDATA LINK in the toolbox, and NO LINK to commons, wikispecies, wiktionary, wikitravel etc.

At the time of my removal here [5], the article Giovanna Fletcher had a commons link at the bottom (IMHO useless as it did not provide significant material), and NO link to commons in the toolbox at the left.

Adding this link leads, by definition, to duplication, as opposed to other ‘sisterlinks’. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And anyway, also for those sisterlinks - since they can now be linked from the toolbox, barring exceptions those templates are, in my opinion, then excessive and should be removed, but that is not for here. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so we clearly understand the argument: we had sisterlinks in the document (e.g. through ((commons cat))). Through WikiData coding that now sometimes results in duplication on the page as a second link to e.g. commons appears in the left hand box. Now, because we duplicate commons at the bottom in the article ánd in the top-left box, it is argued here that the duplication of the existing WD link in the left hand top box is fine. —Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: A link is shown in the sidebar to commons, wikispecies, etc. in the left-hand side-bar where it is available (defined as an interwiki link in the Wikidata entry, or as a manual interwiki). There is a large overlap between those links being shown and the sister project templates also being included (far from 100%, since there are many cases where those templates have not been added even if the link does exist, and there are templates that provide a link where it's not an interwiki on Wikidata). Of course, if a link doesn't exist, then it can't be shown, which is the case in the examples you have given here. Meanwhile, nearly every Wikipedia entry has a corresponding Wikidata entry, so you see that link in the sidebar far more often. So there is nothing wrong or misleading with the opening statement here. Mike Peel (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. a commons link now appears for the first item in your list as I just created it. Up to you if you want to add the photo that's on commons into the article. Mike Peel (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Be careful, the photo is clearly of a different person than the subject of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Is it? Did de:Wladimir Michailowitsch Sobolew get it wrong? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure. The guy was born in 1924 and the photo is recent; even of the photo were historic, there is no way a Soviet diplomat in the 1940s or 1950s could be dressed like that.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Aah, I found your deletion proposal now at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sobolev.jpg. Thanks for that. Mike Peel (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If a commons cat exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. If a Wikispecies entry exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. If a Wikidata item exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. Lo, if a <another wiki> entry exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. If there's Wikidata item associated with the Wikipedia page (and no forced params in ((Authority control))), then both the template and the link in the margin are 'dormant'. You've done an excellent job at finding variation on this theme, but not to prove the point you think you're making. The example pages above have Wikidata entries associated with them, but none of the other Wikis. Clearly you've misunderstood the system and need to reevaluate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No, I did not misunderstand. Your argument is still that duplication is fine because we do that elsewhere. I disagree, I would even oppose the other duplication - especially in cases where the corresponding commons cat does not add anything extra over what is already in the article, or just has limited content. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I would say we should get rid of ((commonscat)), especially since it pulls data out of Wikidata anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I was indeed considering that we could get rid of all sisterlinks-type cats, as they are all in the tools. It is just duplication. —Dirk Beetstra T C 14:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I personally would be fine with that, but I know some people feel very strongly about the sister links.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I can see arguments for some cases to be there, but not general. There are indeed strong feelings there, would likely need an RfC. —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Which would sink like a stone, I expect. Commons links are infinitely more important, useful and used than Wikidata ones. But carry on chatting among yourselves. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Since I am now looking, I do more regurarly running into cases where commons has nothing more to offer, but where the commons template is there just for the sake of it. Others indeed give an rder of magnitude more images than in the article itself and are useful. Some moderation only probably. I however still fail to see why we transclude up to 22 authority file ids, and need to link to WD to find ... what? Because that is what including it in the template suggests: low and behold, on WD there are even more authority file IDs! —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to increase trigger of Special:AbuseFilter/68

This filter is set to a very low threshold. The other day, an account suddenly started making random page moves at the rate of about 2 pages a minute (see Special:Contributions/Whiteleaf30). It was very fortunate that the abnormal behaviour was spotted early by This, that and the other as the person was making random new pages (obviously with a view to getting past Special:AbuseFilter/68's low setting), and I just happened to look at at WP:AIV at that time. By the time I saw what was going on and blocked the user, they have moved 10 pages to random destinations. A higher setting for this filter would help prevent a reoccurrence - they have tried once, probably best to assume they might well try again. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Boy, that was an old account, one edit since 2007, then this? Wonder if it was breached. Anyway, the filter is hidden from public view; what is the current setting? Home Lander (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Home Lander: try now. — xaosflux Talk 22:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, yes I could definitely support a higher threshold than the current setting. This issue is bordering on WP:BEANS; I'm surprised it's not worse already. Home Lander (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
This actually prevents more page moves than I'd have thought, especially considering you have to be autoconfirmed to move pages at all. My current thinking is we should leave it as-is, and make a second, parallel filter with higher thresholds each for requirements, number of pages moved, and timeout - something on the order of less than a hundred edits can't make more than five page moves per hour. —Cryptic 14:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, it would certainly stop some automated random moving like I experienced. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
What is this xRumer the edit summaries mentioned? Doesn't seem real given the edit summaries weren't consistent, but I'm still curious. Anyone ever seen any mention of this before? Compassionate727 (T·C) 05:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Compassionate727: See xRumer. I don't recall seeing it before, either. Home Lander (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that xrumer bots would get to the point of moving pages. They would first have to register an account, then get autoconfirmed without being detected. In the past I blocked many of these based on edit filter detecting spam and nonsense. However if it did get to run on an auto confirmed account, random things could happen as it clicked links and filled fields mindlessly. An edit filter for move rate warning, that allowed manual override may stop many bots. I would recommend a lower limit too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

IP Lead ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per consensus and WP:SNOW, this is not going to happen. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I propose banning IP's from editing the lead section of articles. The reason for this is that in articles putting something in the lead section can put extra emphasis on it. A lot of times an IP can overreact if for example someone misbehaves a little during a major televised event and insert their own personal opinion in the lead of the article of that person. (Mobile mundo (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC))

Not only might an IP be able to contribute constructively to the lead section, I don't think the MediaWiki software could protect a section of an article, unless the lead was a subpage. SemiHypercube (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
From the software point of view a page edit is an edit, the "sections" are not considered. We may theoretically be able to do something with the abuse filter, but it would be computationally expensive, and along the lines SemiHypercube mentioned above, we should normally assume good faith of our editors. — xaosflux Talk 00:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, if vandalism on a page was common enough, why not make a request to WP:RFPP? SemiHypercube (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not technically viable and even if it were it's unjustifiable. The situation provided by Mobile mundo is at best a hypothetical and at worst anti-IP hysterical reactionism. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 02:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The same issue may come about with registered users. It needs wise eyes to detect foolish changes, rather then obstacles to ips. IP s also contribute usefully to leads and unsectioned stubs. So do not stop them this way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the technical problems, it would be confusing, disruptive, and unwarranted to try to single out the lead. Either we let IPs edit articles, or we don't. Five unanimous opposition, I think this idea is effectively WP:SNOWed. Alsee (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Make it six. The contributions from IPs are far too valuable for us to restrict them editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.