This page contains discussions that have been archived fromVillage pump (WMF). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, eitherstart a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
Well, I am admin, have 10+ years experience, and about 50 edits in the past 24h. Please discuss above in the main topic, we do not need to open additional topics for the same subject.Ymblanter (talk)13:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
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.
There are too many non-admin closes around here by people who don't say they are non-admin closes, have only two years' editing experience and 72% of whose edits in the past 24 hours have been reverts. The following comment was placed where it was because a request was made for it to be placed there. Leave it be, and pleaseWP:AGF. Nobody's trying to derail anything. Given that the British government thinks that WMF cannot be trusted to moderate its own website its lawyers (and anyone else interested) might like to research whether before in recorded history the government of a democratic country has refused to pass a case to a Judge because it knows it will lose. Trust in the Labour government has plummeted to such an extent that it is level-pegging with the Conservatives in third place.
The closer of the second thread below this one invites me to continue the discussion here. I accept the invitation and will attempt in a few words to convey the horrific nature of this judgment, which is only 258 words long, although it is one of the most momentous ever issued by the High Court. It was not handed down by a High Court Judge but by an employee of the Church of England. My thanks to PBradley-WMF for the two posts above added this morning. I now know a lot more about the OSA than I did before. I see that the government rejects the advice of Lord Pannick - that is ironic considering that the reason why they are not passing the case filed on 11 August to a Judge for trial, instead directing it to gather dust in the court office forever because they know they will lose, is indicative that they now (yes, it's the same people) accept that the advice he gave, which they rejected 21 years ago, was correct.
At paragraph (5) the judge says "contrary to what [s/he] says in the claim form, the claimant does not appear to have complied with the pre-action protocol." The evidence included a letter from the defendant declining to engage in the pre-action protocol. At paragraph (2) the judge says "The decision under challenge here was made on 25 July 2022. The claim was filed on 2 August 2024, over 24 months later." The evidence included a copy of the claim form stamped with the date, 21 October 2022, when it was received in the court office and bearing the signature of the receiving clerk.
At paragraph (3) the judge says "the burden of the claim appears to challenge a decision protected by Parliamentary Privilege." The evidence included irrefutable proof that what a peer gets up to in his spare time can never be the subject of Parliamentary Privilege. In the few remaining weeks before Wikipedia is consigned to history I urge Wikipedians in the U K to lobby their MPs (e.g. by visiting their surgeries) to raise the matter on the floor of the House of Commons. The rules on the reporting of Parliamentary debates will ensure it receives widespread coverage. Maybe @:Jimbo Wales would like to do that?80.41.151.12 (talk)16:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added by89.243.9.179 (talk)
Your posts keep getting hatted, reverted, or closed because you seem to be ranting about the non-recognition of a royal wedding rather than anything that's actually relevant to being discussed on this page.Anomie⚔13:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
The subject matter of the case is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the government is manipulating the judicial system by preventing Judges ruling on selected cases. This destroys the system of checks and balances that the executive/legislature/judiciary system is designed to perpetuate. This is more important to democracy than the war in Ukraine. If the government succeeds in destroying Wikipedia it will not stop there. Whether on this page or another Wikipedians should be given the facts and the opportunity to comment.89.243.9.179 (talk)13:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Only gonna address this:The closer of the second thread below this one invites me to continue the discussion here. I think it was less an invitation and more letting you know that you could do it, but it wasn't recommended. --Super Goku V (talk)02:55, 31 August 2025 (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.
Wikipedia under US House of Reps Oversight Committee
[1] They have issued a subpoena for Iksander on "foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence U.S. public opinion", and pointing to the ADL's complaints about Wikipedia as a basis. "The panel is seeking documents and communications about Wikipedia volunteer editors who violated the platform’s policies, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation’s efforts to “thwart intentional, organized efforts to inject bias into important and sensitive topics.”"Masem (t)18:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
To the best of my understanding of how hose committees work, theHill story, and looking at the letter itself ([2] also linked from the story), it isnot asubpoena that has been issued to the WMF at this time. Just a letter asking for information but not requiring it. But IANAL and hopefully WMF will soon provide information about what they intend to do.Skynxnex (talk)19:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Here's the letter they sent[3]. Their #4 demand is especially concerning:
Records showing identifying and unique characteristics of accounts (such as names, IP addresses, registration dates, user activity logs) for editors subject to actions by ArbCom.
It's not too hard to read that they want real names and other such details which can be gleaned off IP addresses that would be in server logs for registered users.Masem (t)20:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The Hill reports the WMF's responseas follows:In a statement, a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson said the organization had received the request and are reviewing it. “We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s questions and to discuss the importance of safeguarding the integrity of information on our platform,” the spokesperson said. It would be good to hear from a WMF representative here if they can share any other details about their planned response. —Ganesha811 (talk)21:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
It would probably be best if WMF doesn't alert the committee on their strategy for a response before they are ready to respond.Donald Albury23:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
This sort of request letter is something WMF can handle, and I don't think we need details on their planned response. If their response is as boilerplate generic as much of the letter, which clearly doesn't evidence much research into how Wikipedia works, that would be fine.CMD (talk)07:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm guessing the WMF will take their time, possibly a few weeks, and then make a further reply. Depending on what happens after that, we can always start discussing a WP-blackout of the US or whatever as needed. And in the meantime, we can update related WP-articles in aWP:PROPORTIONate manner as and if more RS coverage becomes available.US Congress probe of Wikipedia or somesuch might pop into existence one day.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)08:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
To what extent is this a performance for their voters? Why would they assume the editors are either foreign operatives or working for a taxpayer-funded university?Tech for Palestine was funded by an American tech billionaire, wasn't it? Also, why would they need the WMF to explain how Arbcom sanctioned pro-Palestine editors earlier this year, when Arbcom cases are fairly public?Rjjiii (ii) (talk)11:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree that this is performative. The letter uses "individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars" editing Wikipedia as a rationale for Congress' access to sensitive user info, but if the issue were really Wikipedians in Residence at American universities as a matter of spending propriety, then the appropriate target would be requesting info from the institutions running such programs.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)12:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, all Wikipedias in Residence have publicly declared accounts. I understood the committee as accusing some of having secondary accounts to POV push on the university's dime, which they want the WMF to reveal. That holds zero weight without identification of a single case though.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)23:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
The surface level read of this is they want to find students here on visas that are critical of Israel (on the flawed thinking that being anti-Israel or pro-Palestine must mean they are pro-Hamas and thus support terrorism) so they can be revoked/deported, but we also know that the conservatives have long had a problem with the liberal lean of the truth and may be trying to find other bad actors that work to deny the conservative POV in articles.Masem (t)12:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Indeed.Common Dreams just published anarticle opining that "The [House Oversight] effort furthers the goals of the Heritage Foundation, which has launched a plan to "identify and target Wikipedia editors" using a number of underhanded tactics."GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)21:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
A permanent one-country blackout wouldn't work here, since the WMF is headquartered in the United States. Unless they decide to move, they would have to comply with any demand by Congress, blackout or no blackout. We could do a temporary blackout like with the SOPA/PIPA protests, but a permanent blackout would be giving them exactly what they want, and would not be able to protect the site.QuicoleJR (talk)21:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Having theOffice action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço thread,WMF loses legal challenge to UK Online Safety Act (OSA) at High Court thread, and this thread all appear on the same page is wild--what a month August has been for the WMF. As I said in the other thread, this feels like the beginning of the end for this project. Fwiw, a blackout seems like a fun idea.Some1 (talk)01:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm still holding out hope that we will survive this, although I'm beginning to wonder if the WMF should move its headquarters to a different country. It has definitely not been a good month for us, but this is why we have the WMF. I trust that they can take care of all legal issues, and America has some solid protections for freedom of speech.QuicoleJR (talk)01:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I like whatWill Stancil said: "The other thing is that if you have the morally, logically correct position in a conflict – or are simply standing up for a popular institution or a stable status quo – you should WANT to fight, as long as possible, in as large a public forum as possible, because that's how you persuade people."Carlstak (talk)02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
To me, these 3 things happening in the same month paint a pattern of the internet getting more and more regulated by governments as time goes on. Many governments (especially conservative governments and authoritarian governments) are trying to make the internet less free and end the internet's wild west phase. The UK isn't the only country trying to crack down on children using the internet (example:Online Safety Amendment in Australia, various state bills in USA).
However, while that is probably bad overall, I do not think it spells the end of Wikipedia. I thinkthis feels like the beginning of the end for this project is way too pessimistic. We should have some faith that this project that we've built that is the 10th most visited website in the world will be quite resilient to most attacks. –Novem Linguae(talk)05:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I am topic-banned in the area targeted so I know that I may not be allowed to discuss this situation, but revealing the IP addresses of editors, including me, should worry everyone who uses this site. I think that the WMF should be taking drastic action to protect its contributors, who probably began editing without suspecting that they would eventually be targeted in a federal investigation. Would migrating arbitration case logs to somewhere private be feasible for the time being?Salmoonlight (talk)04:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I take my back my "performance for their voters" comment above. If any people at all are feeling intimidated and chilled by these letters then they're already a problem. Let's hope that the WMF can helpComer andMace understand free speech and theFirst Amendment,Rjjiii (talk)17:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
This isn't just me feeling intimidated. On my user page I identify myself as being LGBTQ+ and pro-Palestine in a so-called red state. In the event that my IP address gets leaked, through either the purposeful malice or incompetence of the committee, I could be physically harassed in real life.Salmoonlight (talk)19:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
The committee can ask for whatever info it wants, but that doesn't mean that the WMF is going to supply that info to the committee. As noted above, this isn't a subpoena.FactOrOpinion (talk)00:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I think they're only being polite, and recognizing that there may be areas where the WMF's goals align with the committee's goals (e.g., "safeguarding the integrity of information on our platform"). But providing editors' IP addresses isn't going to be one of them.FactOrOpinion (talk)01:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
How has WMF responded to the letter / how do they plan on responding? If WMF decides to reveal users' IP addresses, will this be announced, so users' may make their own arrangements to protect their safety?VR(Pleaseping on reply)05:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
See[4] and several other media reports on how they have responded so far. My guess is that they're probably planning for the time being, sohow might not really exist yet in all details.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)05:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
That's been well known; there's been rumblings of either an EO or a bill that would strip non-profits of that status if they support "terrorism", and under this admin, they're already using language that simply opposing the ruling party is akin to that. Such a law/EO shouldn't survive a court review, but that's not a sure thing.Masem (t)13:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
It may not survive but it may still introduce chaos temporarily as the court sorts out the issue, unless the a temporary injunction on the EO or law if a bill is passed can be obtained almost immediately. For example, the original organisation in India which was the fiscal sponsor for a majority of Wikimedia related outreach activities was denied a renewal of a license to receive foreign funds. It caused local volunteers to either cancel or postpone activities for months before an alternative organisation was found.– robertsky (talk)01:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Seems that right-wing outlets are celebrating this investigation while defeating their own argument by bringing up disparate cases of genuine manipulation on Wikipedia that have long been resolved. It'd be nice if mainstream journalists who feign concern about the death of democracy would clear the fog of war already considering the rate at which they pump out articles.Salmoonlight (talk)02:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Maybe it will help focus some minds a bit if there are potentally Americans involved, rather than just those pesky expendable Indians, who all look the same anyway.Phil Bridger (talk)20:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how this is comparable to that lawsuit. This isn't even a congressional subpoena, much less a court ruling, and it's not clear to me how it could become a lawsuit. Nor do I see a reason to think that the relevant laws and jurisprudence are the same in the US and India.FactOrOpinion (talk)22:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I think the best way to understand what's happening is that they are using the threat of revoking Wikipedia's tax-exempt status as a cudgel to get WMF to give them personal information about editors that Republicans think they can portray as bad actors. --Tryptofish (talk)22:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
If by "they," you mean Republicans in Congress, they have no power over WMF's tax status; they could attempt to change tax law, but clearly couldn't single out WMF, and would likely face resistance by diverse non-profits in their districts/states if they tried to make a broad change. If by "they," you mean the IRS under the Trump administration, I assume that WMF would sue in response. The Trump admin. wants the IRS to revoke Harvard's tax exempt status, and so far, the IRS has resisted, though of course that could change. Thereare some bad actors among editors, which is why we have ANI, AE, recent changes patrol, ...FactOrOpinion (talk)23:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Interesting response to Mike Masnick's column about this:
"I've edited Wikipedia pages before. And I'm in California (so 9th Circuit). If any 1A lawyers want to file a claim against Comer and Mace for 1A violations/attempting to chill speech and need a named plaintiff, sign me up."FactOrOpinion (talk)01:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 16
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on August 16. Please helptranslate.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continues
Wikimedia Futures Lab:Apply before Sep 4 to joinThe Wikimedia Futures Lab, the in-person convening hosted on January 30 – February 1, 2026 in Frankfurt, Germany with participants from affiliates, contributors and external experts, to learn more about global trends and discuss potential movement-wide responses.
Wikimania 2026: The theme and date forWikimania 2026 have been decided: Liberté, Équité, Fiabilité (Freedom, Equity, Reliability). This edition will take place in Paris, from July 21 to July 25, 2026.
Tech News: Some of the latest updates from Tech News week34 and35: An A/B test comparing two versions of the desktop donate link launched on testwiki and English Wikipedia for 0.1% of logged out users on the desktop site. The experiment will run for three weeks, ending on 12 September; Administrators can now access theSpecial:BlockedExternalDomains page from theSpecial:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find.
Community Wishlist: Template authors can now use additional CSS properties, since the CSS sanitizer used byTemplateStyles was updated. These improvements are aCommunity Wishlist wish.
Wikipedia Mobile Apps: The Android app team has launched a newexperiment in Italy that lets logged-out readers of Italian and English Wikipedia set their own donation reminders based on how often they read. This new approach responds to feedback from donors who say their motivation to give is tied to their reading habits. Instead of one-size-fits-all banners, readers can now choose reminders that fit their own usage, all while keeping their privacy intact.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
I think the way to keep updated would be to watchlist to the Community Tech Wishlistupdates page. @JWheeler-WMF should be able to give more specific advice on that (I actually wonder if it would be too much work to convert the page to use the Newsletter extension?)Sohom (talk)00:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I understand that I'm not the first user to make this complaint, but I'm astonished that the Foundation still feels the need to run extreme, screen-filling pleas for donations. I'm not sure how worldwide or coordinated these campaigns are across different WMF chapters, but (at least in Australia) Wikimedia places giant banners begging for donations on the Wikipedia homepage when logged in, and fillsthe entire screen with a similar plea for money when one even clicks on an article if theyaren't logged in! Is this not just a bit excessive? The Foundation's article on this wiki has a whole section titledExcessive spending and fundraising and asserts that its budget has a "significant surplus" and that it's in ownership of "vast money reserves". Why on Earth does the WFM feel the need to use this Wiki to grab at users' wallets at every opportunity?Loytra (talk)08:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
The short answer is that anything "obnoxious" the WMF does in donation banners has beenA/B tested to work better than not doing it, getting more donations. Overall year over year, I think traffic to Wikipedia is declining because search engines and AI are using our content, so the overall strategic situation isn't great. The"significant surplus" and that it's in ownership of "vast money reserves" part is probably talking about theWikimedia Endowment, which works like a retirement account but for organizations. The idea behind retirement accounts is to build up a huge reserve of money, invest it, then live off the interest, making it self-sustaining. So just because the WMF has a ton of money doesn't mean they should cancel all fundraising and spend the endowment down to $0. They are in my opinion prudently trying to build up the endownment so that it can generate enough interest to fund things in perpetuity. Hope that explanation makes sense. –Novem Linguae(talk)09:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Also this from theAugust 2025 Readers Newsletter:Wikipedia's pageviews have either stayed flat or declined in the past few years, while global internet usage has increased. This means that the percentage of internet users that find, use, and appreciate Wikipedia is decreasing significantly.Some1 (talk)17:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
What on earth is that page, key takeaways, the tiny actual article, and then an FAQ section all identical. Columbia business school? Anyway, if anyone actually knows what is meant by articles whose content resembles what ChatGPT would generate (generalist articles?), it would be interesting to know.CMD (talk)02:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 inthe paper explain this. They looked at articles created from 2021-12 to 2023-11 (to straddle the launch of ChatGPT). They cross reference that against the top 1000 most viewed articles per month to get 2206 articles created recently with high pageviews. Then they prompt Chat GPT 3.5 turbo with each of those articles:
"You are an assistant whose task is to write an encyclopedic article for a given topic chosen by the user, similar to those found on Wikipedia. Generate an encyclopedic article in English with title "[title of actual Wikipedia page]"
They compute a similarity score between the actual text of the Wikipedia article and the text Chat GPT generates. And their analysis goes on from there to say that articles that had high similarity experienced a drop in pageviews. But from figure 2(a) there on page 3 of the paper, the drop looks kind of tiny. And there's abigger increase in pageviews to dissimilar articles.
As someone who works on this data, I'd have to do a lot of work to validate that what they found actually suggests what they say. Because there are just too many moving parts to make this clean of a conclusion. But it's certainly thought provoking.Milimetric (WMF) (talk)13:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Agree with the concerns, and I'm not sure bucketing all articles as a binary similar/dissimilar is sensible at any rate. The data also suggests overall page views went up after ChatGPT's launch, which is not in my priors. I wonder which articles are more similar, my instinct is that it is the niche ones where Wikipedia is the primary accessible source.CMD (talk)15:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity and planning(cause I kinda want to do something regarding it) where can I see a full list of newly "born", incubated and shut down(both ones that didn't get out of Incubator and ones that did) Wikimedia projects?Brickguy276 (talk)20:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
UPDATE: On Monday, 11 August, the High Court of Justice dismissed the Wikimedia Foundation’schallenge to the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) Categorisation Regulations. While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the Court’s ruling emphasized the responsibility ofOfcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA is implemented.
The judge recognized the “significant value” of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly-assigned OSA categorisations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors. The Court stressed that this ruling “does not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations”, and indicated they could face legal repercussions if they fail to protect Wikipedia and the rights of its users. In order to achieve that outcome, he suggested that Ofcom may need to find a particularly flexible interpretation of the rules in question, or that the rules themselves may need amendment in Parliament.
If the ruling stands, the first categorization decisions from Ofcom are expected this summer. The Foundation will continue to seek solutions to protect Wikipedia and the rights of its users as the OSA continues to be implemented.
If enforced on Wikipedia, Category 1 demands would undermine the privacy and safety of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors, expose the encyclopedia to manipulation and vandalism, and divert essential resources from protecting people and improving Wikipedia, one of the world’s most trusted and widely used digital public goods.
For example, the Foundation would be required to verify the identity of many Wikipedia contributors, undermining the privacy that is central to keeping Wikipedia volunteers safe. In addition to being exceptionally burdensome, this requirement—which is just one of several Category 1 demands—could expose contributors to data breaches, stalking, lawsuits, or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes.
Aww, bye-bye then me lovlies. I have really enjoyed editing Wikipedia. Thank you to every editor who has helped me along the way. I've met some great people here. Thank you for the opportunity to help the worlds best encyclopaedia.Knitsey (talk)12:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
+1, if this is it for Wikipedia in the UK then I would like to say it’s been an absolute pleasure being a part of this community for over a decade, and I will really miss it, as well as all the people here I’ve connected with as a result.Patient Zerotalk13:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
If this really does become it for Wikipedia in the UK which it might, then it has been a pleasure editing Wikipedia. I would like to give my thanks to everyone who has helped up to this point. I can't believe my time here could be up soon after 5 years and nearly 24,000 edits later.Maurice Oly (talk)14:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Is it possible you all are writing your resignation speeches a little quickly? Wouldn't it be better to try to circumvent whatever they're doing with aVPN or something? Is it even confirmed that they're doing anything to Wikipedia yet? –Novem Linguae(talk)21:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Since VPNs are routinely blocked by Wikipedia, and the edit restrictions would be imposed by Wikipedia to prevent it breaching the Category 1 threshold, I don't think that users of Wikipedia in the UK can rely on VPNs to be able to edit Wikimedia sites.Nigel Ish (talk)22:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
In a situation where a VPN is needed, UK editors would probably want to apply forWP:IPBE. This is how Mainland China editors circumvent their country's restrictions, I think. –Novem Linguae(talk)23:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
As a UK editor, if this were to happen, and I had assurance that Wikipedia administrators wouldn't block me for circumventing the OSA law, I would probably consider doing that. VPNs and browser proxies I have used previously however, have been slow and have issues with maintaining connection across tabs (which for Wikipedia is a must - partaking in multiple discussions on different pages for example).11WB (talk)23:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
This is good to know. I have IPBE already and would certainly want to use it to contribute using a VPN if anything does happen. I hope I would be allowed to do so. I believe that the OSA does plan on addressing VPN usage at some point, though, so if that were to happen it would only be a temporary fix.Patient Zerotalk00:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
It's not actuallythat bad of a loss for Wikipedia. The relevant extracts from the judgement (emphasis mine):
I stress that thisdoes not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations. If they were to do so, that would have to be justified as proportionate if it were not to amount to a breach of the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention (and, potentially, a breach also of articles 8 and 11). It is, however, premature to rule on that now. Neither party has sought a ruling as to whether Wikipedia is a Category 1 service. Both parties say that decision must, for the moment, be left to Ofcom.If Ofcom decides that Wikipedia is not a Category 1 service, then no further issue will arise.
If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, andif the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. Such a challenge would not be prevented by the outcome of this claim
Note the use of the words "May be" my guess is that the government will do everything in its power to change may be to not have to. We will just have to wait and see what happens.Maurice Oly (talk)14:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I still can't see how we can fall under the Category 1regulations? They keep talking about the number of users but the key part for us is surely "uses a content recommender system". I saw some saying things likeSpecial:NewPagesFeed would count but it's not algorithmic as defined in the legislation. Even if it was classified as such instead of reducing access, assome have said, just put such feeds behind permissions and remove any perceived "content recommender system"s from the general readership. Worst case is IP editors get a bit restricted.KylieTastic (talk)14:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I mistakenly put this on Knitsey's talk page discussion instead of here. I'll repost here. This is my takeaway from this as a UK contributor:
The OSA and how Wikipedia will be categorised by Ofcom is concerning. However, looking atthis which lays out how the categorisation works based on the 2 conditions - personally, I don't see how Wikipedia could meet condition 1, as for condition 2, 'allows users to forward or reshare user-generated content' I believe is true and 'has more than 7 million UK users on the user-to-user part of its service, representing c.10% of the UK population' is possible (I don't think the actual number of active registered UK Wikipedians is known publicly). Dependent on how Ofcom determines the second condition, Category 1could be a possibility. It's clear though if that were to happen, the Wikimedia Foundation don't plan to leave it unchallenged. Hopefully that's some reassurance!11WB (talk)14:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
But option (b) needs to hit all three conditions as there is anand at the end of (ii) so ifuses a content recommender system can be show to not be true or taken away from the main user base (the readers) then we can ignore the sharing part of the regulation (iii).KylieTastic (talk)14:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: The app has some features that strike me as meeting this criteria more than NPP does. For example, "Places" (which shows articles about places near you if you enable location sharing), "Wikipedia games" (guess what event in history happened first), and actual recommendations for articles that might interest you based on your viewing history.Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
A VPN did cross my mind, however Wikipedia itself has very tough policies on those. Editors who are known to be from the UK that begin using VPNs to circumvent any (potential) Category 1 block run the risk of their Wikipedia accounts getting blocked by a Wikipedia admin in return! I think if Wikipedia editing rights were stopped in the UK I would have to hang my coat up on the rack and call it a day (as unfortunate as that would be).11WB (talk)15:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
When counting users, do you only count registered users or also IPs and temporary accounts? What about very infrequent editors who might make one edit a year?
The medium article about the original legal challenge that's linked to from the blog post does include some discussion of why it's potentially classifiable under category 1. It looks pretty plausible that with how broadly "content recommender system" is defined, there's a bunch of stuff on wikipedia that could qualify:
a “content recommender system” means a system, used by the provider of a regulated user-to-user service in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, that uses algorithms which by means of machine learning or other techniques determines, or otherwise affects, the way in which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the service.
"By means of machine learning or other techniques determines, or otherwise affects" is... broad. I bet that a bunch of moderation tools fall under that definition. A sufficiently hostile reading could get "Special:Random" under it.DLynch (talk)15:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
It certainly uses an algorithm to pick content to show to a user! It's not a very complicated algorithm, but the law doesn't seem to define "algorithm" in any way, so I think we have to read it as its plain-language meaning.DLynch (talk)21:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
What about the search bar, which presumably uses an "algorithm" to determine what order the results appear in? "Algorithm" is such a vague word that I'm not sure we'll be able to expunge all algorithms for UK readers.Toadspike[Talk]15:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog, in the event editing rights were revoked, I think it comes down to the individual editor to decide what they would do. VPN IPs have the disadvantage of being accessible by anyone, including to those who vandalise, as a result many are already blocked from Wikipedia. It would probably be preferential to cease editing in that scenario (hopefully this won't be the case!).11WB (talk)17:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
That seems silly. If I am editing through a VPN, signed in, why would an admin sanction an editor in good standing in these circumstances? -Roxy thedog17:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I refer to the IP address being used already being previously blocked as VPNs are usable by anybody, including vandals.11WB (talk)17:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I dont care about what random IP editors do, and my Q wasn't about them. Vandals are vandals if they use a VPN or if they dont.
I repeat, "If I am editing through a VPN, signed in, why would an admin sanction an editor in good standing in these circumstances?"Roxy thedog18:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't explain it in the best way. The VPN you log into may be assigned an IP address that has previously been used by a vandal (as IP ranges are the same by service and per chosen country), meaning you'll find it unusable on Wikipedia. That is what I meant to say!11WB (talk)18:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Are you saying that the wiki software would automatically block my VPN, without human intervention, despite my being logged in?Roxy thedog18:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Most proxies (especially free ones) have been blocked due to abuse. Others are blocked preemptively (due to abuse). Most are blocked by humans, but don't rule out a bot doing it. These blocks are usually hardblocks, not anononly (due to abuse). You take your chances being able to edit on a proxy without IPBE. --zzuuzz(talk)18:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
The way Zzuuzz explained it is the best way to articulate what I was attempting (quite badly) to explain! Thank you for this!11WB (talk)18:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I temporarily turned on my Chrome extension proxy so I could screenshot the message that shows when you attempt to make any edits using a VPN or proxy IP.You'll see something like this (those are not my regular IP addresses) when attempting to edit on a VPN usually, and you'll find you cannot make any edits as a result. Hope this helps visualise it for you!11WB (talk)18:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
This seems overall like the best we really could have reasonably expected out of the courts at this stage... Personally I view it as a strategic victory, it sets us up really well for when/if the OSA does actually have significant deleterious consequences.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
As I said to someone somewhere else, I think it's clear that Wikipedia has won the argument. Subjecting us to Category 1 rules would be a proper absurdity, in addition to being probably unlawful. --zzuuzz(talk)18:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
The court case was really about whether Ofcom is required by law to put us in Category 1. The court said it didn't have to put us there, or subject us to Cat 1 rules, and agreed there's a good chance doing so might be unlawful. It's not as bad as it sounds. --zzuuzz(talk)18:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
This is no way a victory of any sort - any editors from the UK (and possibly even readers) now have a Sword of Damocles over their head, where Ofcom or the Government can decide to designate Wikimedia as a Category 1 website at any time, with all the consequences and loss of editor base that would result.Nigel Ish (talk)18:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Whilst this is true, it is mostly out of our control! Your Sword of Damocles is a very good metaphor. The saying I am applying to this is, 'what will be, will be'.11WB (talk)18:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Isn't the case that they already had a Sword of Damocles over their head and the court simply declined to remove said sword although they did comment on what a lovely head it was and what a problem it would be for such a sword to fall?Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree. The judge doesn't want (and may not be allowed) to issue an injunction barring a (currently) counterfactual scenario, but considers WMF's arguments logically and perhaps legally correct.—Compassionate727(T·C)20:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Were it to come to that (which it seems it hasn't yet), I am sure IPBE would be liberally granted to editors in the UK who are in good standing. I certainly would be willing to do that.SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade If it does come to that, I'll send you a talk page message! I am kidding of course, I genuinely don't think it'll go to that extreme, things often have a way of working out! TikTok is still available in the US as far as I'm aware. This whole thing has given me a strange sense of déjà vu to be honest...11WB (talk)22:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Not gonna last long for US TikTok users. And by the way, YouTube is starting to verify every US viewer with AI based ID scan. We can't let WMF projects do the same for US readers. WMF might find a workaround to stop implementation of privacy invading policies.Ahri Boy (talk)07:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
I thought youtube was only doing the ID verification for UK users, I had no idea youtube was doing ID verification for US users. At the moment the WMF is only at risk of having to verify the ID's of UK users. I'm not sure quite how the WMF is going to get around having to do ID checks for UK users given the UK government will 100% want Wikipedia to be a Category 1 website.Maurice Oly (talk)14:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
There are different requirements in play. There's age verification (for accessing 'harmful' content) and 'verification' (for Cat 1 user-to-user 'empowerment'). The user empowerment part is the shadow on the horizon and has implications that affects everyone here, and probably Youtube as well - UK users must have the option to filter out any non-verified user and any of their content,[5] whatever that means. In our context that means no more warnings or block notices from those pesky unverified admins, no more unverified editing the same page to remove vandalism or POV. It soon gets into bonkers territory. WMF is talking about restricting access from the UK to get out of Cat 1. I don't blame them. --zzuuzz(talk)17:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
So if an article contains two sentences, and the first sentence is written by an unverified user while the second sentence is written by a verified user, only the second sentence should be shown? And if a verified user corrects a typo in an unverified user's text, only the word with the corrected typo should be shown? Sounds wonderful. --Stefan2 (talk)17:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh yeah. This was presented to the court in magnificent detail (see#9). But also if a verified user adds vandalism, or a page advertising their services, or writes about how great their idea or ideology is, you'll need to be verified to touch the article or go near them to point out policies. Bonkers I tell you. --zzuuzz(talk)18:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
You're quoting a politician talking about the Internet? Yes it makes no sense, but here's the law: "A duty to include [...] features which adult users may use or apply if they wish to filter out non-verified users [which means...] prevent non-verified users from interacting with content which that user generates, uploads or shares on the service, and reduce the likelihood of that user encountering content which non-verified users generate, upload or share." --zzuuzz(talk)20:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
So onlyadult users can filter out content provided by unverified users, while children would be required to view that content? It sounds like a wonderful suggestion to show something to adults and something else to children, in case the things shown to children are dangerous for children.
If you send a DMCA takedown request, then I suppose you're unverified and so the material provided in the takedown request should have no effect on what verified UK users see? Of course you have to provide your name and address in the takedown request, but are those verified against some kind of ID? --Stefan2 (talk)03:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
"a variety of signals" determine whether a user is over or under 18, and the option to "use a credit card or a government ID" if you are incorrectly flagged. Yeah, right. Most of the people would be incorrectly flagged anyway and have to surrender their government ID in the name of "protecting the kids" or "national security". While blocking VPNs is protecting Wikipedia vandalism, balance needs to be thought out as well as governments increasingly use their powers to muzzle free speech, and editors are rightly concerned if the government could get their hands on their IP address.✠SunDawn ✠Contact me!00:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Should also add that sooner or later, US lawmakers will catch wind of the "Wikipedia users must undergo ID verification before they are allowed to edit" idea, and that'll mark the beginning of the end for this project.Some1 (talk)02:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
YouTube never said anything about national security. The government can already practically read your brainwaves if it wants to.Dronebogus (talk)00:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikimedia very much does not need your ID. It only needs to verify that you are older than 18. Wikimedia's statements are very much making this a bigger deal than it is. Wikipedia could just ask you questions you should know after graduating upper secondary school, assuming the test is reliable enough. According to the UK government 68% of pupils finished upper secondary school.
As for content moderation, Wikimedia Commons hasc:Commons:Not_safe_for_work (NSFW) which does part of what Wikimedia needs, but needs to go much further. Being verified to post content is basically whatFlaggedRevs allready does. I would like to see a page accepting categories of images and articles that are not safe for children and I think NSFW is done that way too. Then Wikimedia just refuses to show articles and images in the categories of said list to kids and people that fail the adult test (the test of whether you finished upper secondary school).Snævar (talk)18:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
That is exactly what weshouldn't be doing;Wikipedia is not censored and shouldn't be for anyone. And, how do we decide this stuff? Could we, for example, show the article aboutbreast cancer to someone who failed your hypothetical test? I might not pull it up at work, but I still would not consider it inappropriate for a minor to see.SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
@Snævar: By your own admission, that would deprive 32% of British adults of access to Wikipedia because they weren't educated enough for your liking. Not to mention the fact that education systems are different between countries, and the fact that people could justlook up the answers. No, to verify your age, Wikipedia would need to identify you, and that isn't happening. I'd blackout the site in the UK before agreeing to censor "inappropriate" content (what if conservatives decide that thetransgender article isn't appropriate for kids?) and I amnot giving the WMF my identity anytime soon.QuicoleJR (talk)19:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The issue doesn't seem to be NSFW content moderation, but rather the legislation treating Wikipedia as a social media site, and requiring the ability to screen out content from non-verified persons (which presumably means non-verified persons anywhere - not just from the UK), which appears to include article content as well as talk pages. This would break Wikipedia's editing model.Nigel Ish (talk)19:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Still, this would ruin the site, like you said. I'd support any form of protest, even the most extreme options we have, up to an indefinite UK blackout.QuicoleJR (talk)19:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
As much as I don't want to see an indefinite UK blackout that might be the only way forward, we will just have to wait and see which category Wikipedia ends up in. Though I do fear Wikipedia will end up in category 1.Maurice Oly (talk)21:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I support a full blackout onall Wikimedia projects. This is the way of pressing on against the legislation. I may support full blackout in other countries if they follow UK's example.Ahri Boy (talk)22:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
@Ahri Boy: A blackout affecting all projects would need to be agreed upon atMeta-Wiki. A proposal made on enwiki would only affect enwiki. That being said, I would support such a proposal, here or globally.QuicoleJR (talk)23:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
@QuicoleJR The test of wether someone has graduated from a secondary school is an example. An example is just that, do not try to frame that as some major point in my argument when it is not. Feel free to find any better way of distinguishing adults from kids.
@Snævar: My point is that there is no question that can reliably separate people by ages, as some adults may not have learned certain things and kids can just Google the answers. It doesn't matter what the question is, this solutionwould not work.QuicoleJR (talk)22:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Tests in schools that allow you to go the internet exist where I live. Those tests are just harder versions of their non-internet versions. We also have tests that give you aGymnasium (school) pass in a particular field, like German. It could be aTestDaF test or some other standard. We also have an gymnasium competition where people that are good at memorizing compete in questionnaire, so the school system needs to account for those too. The test would test your ability, not whether you can remember an answer from your book from class or some notes from a student google found. Let's say you just go to one of those tests (for exaample TestDaF) and they allow you to go to the internet, do you really think they would allow that if you could just cheese it?
This brings me to my original main point of the example, although I have not said what it is yet. WMF would be convincing an governmental entity that their test works. Since the test is based on the curriculum, a work of the ministry of education, if the WMF test fails it most likely criticizes the government itself. The ministry of education would need to update the curriculum and the WMF would use that work to improve their own test.Snævar (talk)05:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
The test would test your ability, not whether you can remember an answer
How would tests of skill in history analysis, language arts, mathematics, etc... apply to age? How do you even test someone's skill at aging over the screen?The CNIL article you linked says every age test known at the time of writing is bad; of what you say exists, it gives nothing of the sort.
The CNIL has analysed several existing solutions for online age verification, checking whether they have the following properties: sufficiently reliable verification, complete coverage of the population and respect for the protection of individuals' data and privacy and their security.
The CNIL finds that there is currently no solution that satisfactorily meets these three requirements. It therefore calls on public authorities and stakeholders to develop new solutions, following the recommendations described above. The CNIL deems it urgent that more effective, reliable and privacy-friendly devices be proposed and regulated as soon as possible.
Even being blocked for using the username of someone notable does not require sending id.{{Uw-ublock-wellknown}}
If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email [...] including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification.Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so. (emphasis added)
Do not send unsolicited scans of yourpassport ordriver's license to the volunteer response team. Instead, you should contact them to find out the best way to prove your identity. The best way will vary, but could be by using an email address on adomain name that belongs to you. (links in original; emphasis added)JuniperChill (talk)21:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
As an example, you probably have been to an intersection with lights before. Well, those lights can break and then the police dictates the traffic. Even if the lights are active, what the police says goes. With law, you have a hierarchy. The constitution is at the top, then statuary law, then regulations, then any community or company rules. Those rules are probably there to make it hard for the police to come after you, but you still need to follow the law, even if Wikipedia's rules say otherwise. Also see my comments on a passport not being necessary. You have the option to not answer an age test/submit an ID and then you will have some access to Wikipedia, but not anything unsafe to a child, like porn or violence.Snævar (talk)06:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
If anyone cares, I received the following response from the Department of Science, Innovation & Technology:
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 August to the then Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP regarding the implications of the Online Safety Act for Wikipedia and your concerns about preserving anonymous participation and access for UK users. I am replying as a member of the Ministerial Support Team. The government is committed to implementing the Online Safety Act and will continue to work closely with Ofcom which is under a duty to ensure that the measures in its Codes of Practice are proportionate and appropriate for different kinds and sizes of services. As a public body, Ofcom is also under a duty to act compatibly with the European Commission of Human Rights (ECHR). The government does not make an assessment of services which are to be designated as Category 1, as this is the role of Ofcom as the independent regulator under the Online Safety Act. Ofcom have requested information from services and will make its categorisation determination in the coming months. Once the register of categorised services has been established, Ofcom will publicly consult on its draft Codes of Practice for the additional duties on categorised services by early 2026. Ofcom have a duty to consult with those they consider to have relevant expertise regarding the ECHR rights to freedom of expression and privacy. The duties, such as user empowerment and user verification, will not apply to services until the relevant codes of practice are in force, following Parliamentary scrutiny. Yours sincerely, Ministerial Support Team
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Writing an open letter to "the High Court of Justice/Ofcom/UK government/etc." isn't going to go anywhere. You will see that royal marriages are subject to certain impediments that other marriages aren't because they were removed by the Marriage Acts as regards the rest of the population, which say they don't apply to royal marriages[7]. So, asLord Pannick said 21 years ago, Charles and Camilla's Marriage Act ceremony was null and void. A High Court action was duly filed after Charles' accession in October 2022. Thedeep state immediately got to work, enlisting officials in the court office to propagate lies, the defendant and the officials did not copy the defence to the plaintiff and a crooked judge was found to deliver a secret five-paragraph judgment which made no reference to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, only the lies secretly submitted by the defendant.
The fraud was particularised in a further High Court action filed this month. The defendants should have been served two weeks ago and the plaintiff notified, but there has been silence. There are twelve defendants, including the king, the attorney general, the secretary of state, the government lawyer who failed to serve the plaintiff and those officials who have been identified. Wikipedia editors will only be able to save the encyclopaedia by giving extensive news coverage to these events and ensuring they remain in the forefront in the weeks ahead. Otherwise, Wikipedia will be shut down and the c ase will remain in the court office forever.80.41.151.12 (talk)17:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Back to the main topic for a third time. The memory of the events of Sunday, 31 August 28 years ago is still fresh (comments,[8], procession[9]). Harry will be returning to the UK on 8 September to continue the work. So let's give it all we've got. I propose the following banner for the main page:
Errors (rare) in Wikipedia are spotted and corrected in seconds by anyone. The UK government proposes to inhibit this process by designating Wikipedia as a Category One website under the Online Safety Act. It is also preventing Judges from hearing cases brought against it which it knows it will lose. Read the amazing judgmenthere.
Errors (rare) in Wikipedia are spotted and corrected in seconds by anyone. Not as often as you seem to think. I routinely catch introduced errors up to 24 hours old in my daily watchlist patrol, and ocassionally find older ones. I once found an error that had sat uncorrected for eight years (sad to say, I had introduced it myself). -Donald Albury16:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
It is also preventing Judges from hearing cases brought against it which it knows it will lose.
Nothing to do with parliamentary privilege. The case was filed on 11 August and the court office should have served the defendants and notified the plaintiff within five working days. Instead it has done nothing, effectively telling the plaintiff to pound sand.80.44.78.34 (talk)13:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Discussing a blackout in the UK
There seems to be zero appetite for a blackout right now. Closing this sub thread to focus on other topics which aren't so clear-cut.QuicoleJR (talk)11:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
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.
I think it's time we begin discussing a blackout in detail. The primary downside of such a thing would be its effect on our British users, but I think we can get around that (for now at least) by giving themIP block exemption so that they can use a VPN. We should also probably discuss timing (when and how long to do a blackout) and logistics (how we will do a blackout). Of course, to actually initiate one, we would need an RFC. Anyway, what are everyone's thoughts?QuicoleJR (talk)23:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I think that, at this point, enough people would oppose on the basis that the court basically said "if they really do try to apply Category 1 to Wikipedia, you'd have very good grounds to sue then", with hints of "and you'd probably win", that the RFC would fail. There are enough people who will oppose any blackout at all that you need a very credible threat to motivate enough other people to overcome them.Anomie⚔23:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Maybe, but I'd like to at least get the discussion started, even if it isn't time for a blackout yet. I've been considering, as an alternative to starting a blackout now, potentially having an RFC to pre-approve a black out to activate if and when we get declared as a Category 1. I'd personally support doing it earlier, but this would also be a decent option if that can't get enough support.QuicoleJR (talk)23:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
According to the article,the first categorization decisions from Ofcom are expected this summer, so if we decide to do a blackout or any form of "protest", it should ideally occur days or weeks before Sept 22.Some1 (talk)23:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Similar to Anomie, I would oppose action on the basis of the court decision. The court decision didn't actually change anything immediately, and in general I would prefer responding to executive and legislative action rather than judicial. If any action is taken in relation to Category 1, it should be very clearly scoped around the direct impacts of the designation's implications (and I suspect those details would be clearer closer to the time given some of the legislation seems vague), and would need to be worth the risk of it being ineffective and setting a standard that community complaints can be ignored.CMD (talk)00:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Now is not the time for a UK blackout discussion, as at this point we don't know wether Wikipedia will be in category 1 or not. Once confirmed that Wikipedia is in category 1 and all legal options have run dry them we should start a discussion on a UK blackout.Maurice Oly (talk)01:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
It looked more to me like the court was saying "It's premature to decide this right now, but categorizing Wikipedia that way would be a pretty questionable decision and we'd be very skeptical of that" than "Sure, go ahead and do that." So, I think at this point we should wait and see what happens; hopefully Ofcom will take the hint. If they do, great. If not, we can discuss next steps once something has actuallyhappened rather than "might happen".SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:18, 18 August 2025 (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.
Trial: Replacing our CAPTCHA with a new bot detection service
Hello, we are the Wikimedia FoundationProduct Safety and Integrity team, a team dedicated to the security and safety of users of the Wikimedia wikis. We have beenintegrating a new bot detection service, with the goal of replacing ourcurrent CAPTCHA with something that can hold up better against modern AI bots and other automated activity. In the coming weeks, we would start a trial here on English Wikipedia. We will be monitoring its deployment beforehand as we roll this out across several trial wikis, to make sure it is stable and performant.
This service will start by protecting the account creation page (Special:CreateAccount). We may extend it later to protect editing or other sensitive actions.
In this trial, we’ll be looking to see how well the new service does at stopping or slowing bot-driven activity, and how well it helps real humans more easily use Wikipedia.
Why our CAPTCHA needs replacement
Wikipedia needs strong tools to defend itself from malicious automated (including AI-driven) activity.The CAPTCHA we use today hails from an earlier era of the web. It has been aging poorly for some time, and is especially unsuited for the new era of AI. We know it also annoys many of our human users, and likely shuts some of them out.
We’ll be testing out replacing our current CAPTCHA withhCaptcha, a third-party service specializing in bot detection. They have a particular focus on privacy-sensitive customers, such as Signal and many other internet services, that make them a good fit for the Wikimedia wikis.
We want to be upfront that this trial will involve us integrating wikis directly with a third-party proprietary service. This is new for Wikimedia, and something we, as the Foundation, don’t take lightly. However, it’s not feasible for us to build a service ourselves that can keep the projects safe in this era. Organizations that are dedicated to running bot detection services have dramatically more expertise and resources to offer than us – especially the ongoing work of keeping up with the cat-and-mouse game of bot detection and evasion as it changes each year.
We’ve always operated Wikipedia in the most privacy-sensitive way we can, which has helped us avoid the kind of casual information sharing and online tracking that has become so common to the modern web. To maintain this commitment, we’ve set it up so that hCaptcha cannot see raw IP addresses of visitors, nor will it be able to see what specific actions are being taken or what URLs are being accessed. Any information about visiting devices that does get collected as part of bot detection will be discarded by hCaptcha within 10 days.
Our Legal department has approved such implementation of hCaptcha and confirmed that it is in line with ourPrivacy policy andTerms of Use.
hCaptcha is already live ontest2wiki, where you can test it out today. If you do test it out manually, bear in mind that you are unlikely to actually see a CAPTCHA-style puzzle due to how hCaptcha works (see below).
How the bot detection trial will work
Unlike our current CAPTCHA, with this new approach, the service will work primarily invisibly. Most visitors (around 99.9%) will never see a puzzle to solve at all.
For those visitors that do see a puzzle, they will need to complete it to create an account. These are visual puzzles, but for users with sight issues or other accessibility needs, atext-based puzzle is available that can be completed using only a keyboard.
The service will send back a “risk score” that is their confidence level in the account having been made by an inauthentic user. This risk score will not be public, but will be saved privately to enable analysis and responses to potentially bot-driven activity by WMF and volunteer investigators.
Visitor IP addresses will not be sent to the service – all requests to the service go through a proxy we host ourselves that drops raw IPs and uses hashed versions instead.
The code we load from the service will be sandboxed so that it cannot see or interfere with the page context of the user session, and so that the service can’t see the specific URL of the page.
During the trial we’ll be analyzing how bots are engaging with the wikis, making sure hCaptcha isn’t making it unexpectedly harder to use Wikipedia, and identifying any further privacy and security measures we can take. We will review this analysis, and will engage publicly with the communities about how the trial went, before we make decisions on expanding the use of hCaptcha to replace our current CAPTCHA.
See ourproject page for more technical details and more information about risks and how we are mitigating them. See also ourDiff post to read an expanded version of this announcement.Subscribe to our newsletter to stay in touch.
Thanks to the team for your work on this – I have really appreciated the thoughtfulness with which you've approached this deployment. I particularly appreciate the trial to collect data that informs technical decisionmaking going forward: I know that we're not yet confident about just what kinds or volume of abuse will be best addressed through this new service vs. other technical solutions vs. existing infrastructure, but I fully support the experimentation that it will take to gather the data to answer this question. Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)15:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
I hope the trial is successful (just about anything must be better than CAPTCHA) but if it is not please accept that it has been unsuccessful. Far too many times I have seen things being trialled in Wikipedia and then the trial being lauded as a success (my guess is because of the sunken costs fallacy) when it is not.Phil Bridger (talk)16:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Will the risk score be available to checkusers? Similarly, will account creation attempts that were rejected due to hCaptcha feedback be logged in the CU database?RoySmith(talk)16:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith While we won't get into great detail here about exactly what checkusers will see, we were a little more explicit about incorporating these signals into investigation tools in ourblog post: "We are also planning to incorporate the bot detection data we get from this into the tools we provide to our trusted volunteer investigators to respond to sockpuppeting and other inauthentic activity." We'll soon havea product page going up with some public details.EMill-WMF (talk)18:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
The blog post says that the servicedrops raw IPs and uses hashed versions instead, but if the hash function is deterministic, one can easily createrainbow tables mapping each IP to a unique hash. Of course, if by hash you mean a randomly generated UUID, then this won't be a problem. I would say that some IPs are more problematic than others (proxies, botnets, etc.), so it might be worthwhile to do some local processing with, say, the Spur databases.
This is a massive change and would likely require site-wide consensus (listed atWP:CENT and everything). Introducing nonfree code onto Wikimedia sites can be seen as even more drastic than adding AI summaries to articles, especially when that code is obfuscated and performs deep fingerprinting of the browser (or device, for Wikipedia's mobile apps), including canvas fingerprinting.
Using a deliberately exaggerated configuration (navigator.webdriver === true, Chrome on Windows 10, user agent claims Firefox on Windows 10, DevTools set to emulate a mobile device), I managed to get an hCaptcha to appear and even got one of their text captchas. I had to solve 3 of these:
Within this data string 4355 * 8591 9489 + 7025 - 1616, retrieve the penultimate set of numerals
Find the center collection of numbers from the data shown: 3186 ... 5233 / 6930 * 2367 ... 2090
Point out the second group of digits in the provided set: 1821 9018 | 2321 - 7393 % 4377 ^ 2352
@EMill-WMF, (and @Chaotic Enby) and I had a conversation about the fingerprinting aspect of the scripts, the long and short is thatiff hCAPTCHA keeps the promises/guarantees they claim to provide, the risk of device re-identification by hCAPTCHA is low even through highly invasive techniques is low because they do not have access to surrounding information that identifies you as a contributor to Wikipedia. There is a seperate conversation to be had about the non-free nature of the code, but I think that a necessary tradeoff within this context.Sohom (talk)16:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. One of the key aspects isAny information about visiting devices that does get collected as part of bot detection will be discarded by hCaptcha within 10 days, which hasn't been explicitly codified in the contract with hCaptcha, and is currently more of a "verbal agreement" as far as I understand it. If this is followed through, there is less worry to be had, but codifying it could be a helpful step in terms of trust.Beyond that, I am sad to see that the possibility of running the hCaptcha model locally (which was mentioned during the conversation) hasn't been elaborated on in this announcement.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)21:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
"hasn't been explicitly codified in the contract with hCaptcha" – If this is true then any kind of hCaptcha rollout is a non-starter, and it's concerning that this hasn't been communicated clearly in the original post or at mw.
Yeah, that's not acceptable and the initial communication is bad and misleading. The opening message here stated that the data"will be discarded by hCaptcha within 10 days"immediately before a sentence starting with"Our Legal department has approved such implementation of hCaptcha ..." with no mention of 180 days.
I'm sure the WMF and involved parties are trying to communicate openly, but the statements given so far give a false impression of what the reality of the agreements in place are. Device fingerprinting data is sensitive, and the difference between retaining sensitive data for ten days vs half a year is massive. A "verbal agreement" with hCaptcha is inadequate to ensure such sensitive user data is properly protected, and if WMF's legal team hasn't advised the same then I'd bevery surprised.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)03:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
To my understanding of how this is came to be is that folks at hCAPTCHA have told engineers at the WMF that the way their current systems are architected, their systems only store customer data for 10 days for everyone. It is my understanding that WMF staff did not push for this 10 day restriction to be codified in the contract forspecifically the trial period since there was a understanding the systems handling such data would not change significantly during that time period. A point to note is that, if the WMF terminates their contract with hCAPTCHA, per their ToS, WMF can ask for all the data to be deleted and destroyed. I'm not sure if this arrangement will continue going forward, after the trial, but my understanding is that is up for debate. (For what it's worth, I've lobbied for the 10-day data retention policy to be codified in the contract in conversation because of similar concerns to the ones you raise)Sohom (talk)03:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for cluing me into the backstory, my feelings remain unchanged. The WMFreally shouldn't play fast and loose with user data like this. The data is sensitive and real, trial or not. The fact that this concern was raised previously and went unresolvedand uncommunicated is disappointing and concerning.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)04:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I am not especially worried either about hCaptcha keeping the user data from the trial. My bigger concern is that the contract for the trial might be used as a template for a future rollout, and will not address the 10 day restriction explicitly. This is compounded by the fact that this legal aspect wasn't mentioned in either announcement, meaning that the WMF might not be especially careful with codifying it. As Sohom said, the current data retention systems aren't a cause of worry, but third-party companies can easily change their architecture without giving us time to renegotiate the terms of the contract, if safeguards aren't codified in writing.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)13:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
"the current data retention systems aren't a cause of worry" – This is also based on hCaptcha saying "trust us". I'm assuming the WMF was not given access to perform an audit themselves, so it's just the word of a for-profit company that tracks users at scale (to prevent abuse of course) that they only retain data for 10 days despite their ToS having a carve out for 180 days. A layperson should be skeptical, a lawyer should be scowling.
The fact that this is a trial is no different than if it is a full rollout when it comes to protecting user data, the data isthe same and is just as sensitive as it will be during a full rollout, and the trial is not limited to ten days, so there is no strong legal barrier to hCaptcha retaining data for longer than what has been described in these announcements.
I think the difference between "a commitment by the vendor" and "a legal commitment by the vendor" is not zero, but not beyond the ability of WMF to judge, alongside meaningful other tradeoffs that forcing a legal commitment now for this trial could bring in timeline, cost, etc. Yes, we should make our position as a community known (that it would be much better to have a legal commitment). But in my view, this is not a blocker. Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)23:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
A reasonable view. I think the community should be afforded the opportunity to make that judgement since it directly impacts the privacy of individual users, however due to lacking communication from the WMF it seems that the community is going to go mostly unawares which is possibly the more serious issue here.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)00:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
the part about using aggregate/de-identified data for “any purpose” also seems pretty vague and makes me nervous as well. There’s no industry standard term for what that means and in a lot of places and cases it’s not anonymized such that it can’t be de-anonymized. I have no idea whether this company does or doesn’t handle this well, but it’s all on faith.Driftingdrifting (talk)04:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
hCaptcha's puzzles are image labeling tasks. The makers of hCaptcha also sell image labeling services to other companies - the labor involved is the labor of the users solving these hCaptcha tasks. Would Wikipedia's users be part of this labor pool? What sort of compensation would Wikimedia be getting for selling this labor?MrOllie (talk)15:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
@MrOllie, citation needed, to my understanding, the CAPTCHA's served at Wikimedia are math puzzles and "move this shape here" which are typically more about mouse movement than image labelling.Sohom (talk)15:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
No, if you get served a challenge, it will probably be an image labelling task (I tested it), though you can switch to a text-based "Accessibility Challenge" (see comment above). hCaptcha apparently stillsells their labelling services despite themending their payment program. Although, based on the fact thatEnterprise users couldn't earn rewards for solves at all originally, I'd wager that hCaptcha simply does not send data labelling tasks to Enterprise users. I don't know where you got "math puzzles" from, although hCaptcha does sometimes use"move this shape here" puzzles.OutsideNormality (talk)15:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I was involved in testing some of this before this post was made, the CAPTCHA challenges that were served to me were almost always "move this shape here" and math/digit-based challenges in text mode.Sohom (talk)15:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
For (non-public information reasons) hCAPTCHA's docs seem to be somewhat outdated, which is why I chose to ignore them (that's on me) :)Sohom (talk)15:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Going off into the weeds a bit, it would be interesting if we could customize this into some wiki-specific task, say "Select all the images containing a misspelled word", and showing them real screenshot fragments with words some automated process suspects might be misspelled. In addition to the bot-filtering function, it would also get some useful work done for the encyclopedia.RoySmith(talk)15:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
A big change from our current CAPTCHA, where every use of it involves solving a challenge, is that hCaptcha can work invisibly, and we've configured it so that the challenges are supposed to be quite rare (0.1% or less of the time). So, while we certainly do still have to care about them from a usability and accessibility perspective, they likely won't be at a volume that would be useful for deriving secondary value.EMill-WMF (talk)19:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
The focus on IP and a cookie subset in the privacy discussions feels a little disingenuous. While I appreciate the effort to obfuscate IP addresses (assuming that hash is appropriately salted, otherwise it’s a nearly useless gesture), I’m a lot more concerned about the “thousands” of signals they are using to uniquely identify my browser. JavaScript + HTML5 include some very invasive, privacy violating features that it sounds like are now being shared with a third party? I’m more worried about that than IP tracking.Driftingdrifting (talk)04:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
There is no meaningful technical way to isolate/elide those browser-based signals. Any attempt to do that would be not sustainable in the long term as a solution.Sohom (talk)12:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
That's very true, but for me that feels more like a reason to either not do this or to be absolutely rock-solid in the privacy agreement with this company. I'm less than convinced this is impossible for them to do themselves if they wanted to, where WMF makes tech investments continues to baffle me; this seems like it should be up there in terms of priorities and it isn't rocket-science.Driftingdrifting (talk)14:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
As the latest human authentication methods are based on behavioural analysis, large training datasets are invaluable for improvements. Even if the WMF were to turn on human authentication tests for everyone logging in, I think companies dominant in the field are able to collect much more data and have an ongoing revenue stream to support continually improving their models. To be able to match countermeasures that are also continuously updated, the WMF would need a business model that supported collecting a lot more data, and that would likely mean spinning up a for-profit subsidiary and attaining significant market share.isaacl (talk)17:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
That's a completely fair, I didn't think about the ML training angle on that, that would be hard to build the data set on in this limited scope.Driftingdrifting (talk)20:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm less than convinced this is impossible for them to do themselves if they wanted to. My understanding is that filtering bot traffic is a game ofwhack-a-mole that would be hard to do in-house. Using a third party service that specializes in it and is used on multiple major websites makes those tools better than what we could develop. –Novem Linguae(talk)20:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't know much about current bot detection technologies, so I can't speak for whether hCaptcha is the right one or not. But I do agree with the idea that we can't be experts at everything and shouldn't try. There's a ton of things that need to get done that can only be done in-house. I'm sure we could all reel off a list of a dozen "must have" features or bug fixes that we want done in the MediaWiki code base by yesterday. Every person-hour spent working on bot detection is a person-hour that can't be spent on those things.
This is the kind of thing that benefits from a broad customer base. Let's say our bot detection vendor has (to pick an absurdly low number) 100 customers. If some new bot attack springs up and is launched against one of their other customers, the vendor starts working on analyzing it and implementing counter-measures. By the time the bot master gets around to launching it at us, the fix may already be in and we're protected.RoySmith(talk)20:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who commented here. I wanted to just acknowledge the discussion here about privacy and data, including the strength of the guarantees we have around data retention. There will be an inflection point after the trial where we will be reviewing what would be needed -- on privacy, but also on accessibility, performance, volume, and cost -- from our implementation (and our agreement with hCaptcha) to support potential expansion if the trial is as promising as we hope it will be. It's helpful to have the community's perspective here for us to refer to when we reach that point, and you'll be hearing more from us again at that point as well.EMill-WMF (talk)21:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
"Wikipedia did not respond immediately to requests for comment."
Is there anyone at the foundation who can confirm that this attempt at contact actually happened? Or is the Nypost just making it up (as usual)Trade (talk)22:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Based on the nypost article and looking at the AFD, this nypost article seems to be a knee jerk to fan the flames of their dislike of liberal bias on WP. The AFD closed almost by snow to keep and they apparently did not look at that, only that it got nominated. It's a puff piece we should not worry about.Masem (t)22:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
There should be a place where if you're an admin, you can sign up to be on the list of talking heads who give comments to the newspaper. The news will always quote someone from the WMF awkwardly saying "we can't comment on that", which is boring, when they could instead have some monument of outspoken and brilliantly erudite witticism, guaranteed to impress and edify, from a brain-genius, of which I can easily name several, including of course myself.jp×g🗯️09:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I think this would be a bad idea. You definitely can't speak for me - we don't always agree afterall - and neither of us can speak for the WMF. But if there was that list then we would suddenly be official in ways we shouldn't be. There isCOMCOM but I'm not sure how active that is these days nor am I sure what their turnaround is - they might not be able to get a comment out quickly enough for a New York Post deadline. Now, I do think there could be utility in a project page listing people who are willing to speak to reporters (and what they could speak about), but that feels like the extent such things could go. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)14:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Noting that I've passed on a link to this thread to a member of the WMF Communications team. I am on the committee Barkeep49 mentions above, but I also know that Comms does look to add to the ranks of people who are willing to participate in responding to media questions.Risker (talk)16:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikimedia Research Showcase: "Readers and Readership Research" will be the featured theme for the next research showcase taking place onSeptember 24 at 16:30 UTC.
Temporary Accounts:Temporary accounts are now deployed to almost all wikis except the last 11.
User Info: Thisnew feature displays data related to a user account when you tap or click on the "user avatar" icon button next to a username. It's meant to be useful for different users with extended rights as well as newcomers.
Newsletter highlights: The latestReaders Newsletter is now available. It includes considerations about Wikipedia's declining pageviews in the recent years, how the Foundation and communities may work on addressing this together, and the formation of two new teams — Reader Growth and Reader Experience.
Activity Tab Experiment: The Foundation launched anexperiment testing a new Activity tab in the Wikipedia Android app to our beta testers. Instead of only showing editing activity, this tab also surfaces insights about reading and donation behavior.
Search Suggestions: To make it easier for users to find articles, logged-out users on both desktop and mobile will seesuggestions of articles for further reading on English Wikipedia beginning the week of September 22. All non-English wikis received this update in June and July.
Paste Check: The Foundation is working on a new check:Paste check. This check informs newcomers who paste text into Wikipedia that the content might not be accepted to ensure it is aligned with the Movement's values. This check will soon be tested at a few wikis.
CampaignEvents extension: TheCampaignEvents extension has been enabled for all Wikisources. The extension makes it easier to organize and participate in collaborative activities, like edit-a-thons and WikiProjects, on the wikis. To request the extension for your wiki, visit theinformation page.
Structured Task: TheAdd a Link Structured Task has been fully released at English Wikipedia. This release is an important step in making editing more accessible for new contributors, especially on mobile.
Tech News: Read more updates from Tech News week36 and37.
Multilingual Contributors: TheLanguage and Product Localisation team is launching aCentralNotice campaign to attract multilingual contributors to specific Wikipedias. The campaign will feature regionally targeted banners to reach potential native speakers.
Open Indonesia: Reflections onOpen Indonesia, an event in Bandung gathering communities dedicated to advancing open knowledge to build the country's Open Knowledge Roadmap.
UK Online Safety Act:The Wikimedia Foundation will not appeal the UK High Court’s decision to dismiss our challenge to the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) Categorisation Regulations.
August board meeting:Updates on board appointments and selection, CEO search, work to strengthen Wikipedia's approach to neutral point of view and updates on three pilots around more shared decision-making and shared accountability across the movement.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
In August George passed the wonderful milestone of being 100 years old, and he continues to contribute to Wikipedia today. Although we collect very little data about Wikipedia editors, our suspicion is that he’s the oldest person to ever edit Wikipedia. Wow! And I'm reminded of this comic from the Signpost:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-05-16/Comix.Some1 (talk)04:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Requesting updates on recent legal cases
In the last year, we've had editors outed in relation to legal disputes regardingAsian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (seeWP:ANIvsWMF andWP:2024OPENLETTER) andCaesar DePaço (seeWikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 11#Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço. I'd like to request a few updates. First, do we know what has been done with thePII in either case since it was released? To whom has it been released, and do we know if the lives of any editors have been disrupted at this point? Second, did we ever get a straight answer on what determines if the WMF complies with a government order (e.g. India and Portugal) or disregards it (e.g. Russia and Turkey)? If not, can we please have this answer? Third, do we have any indication whether content will ultimately be affected by ANI vs WMF? While the harm to editors cannot be undone in either case, I understand that the WMF is still trying to address the content side of the issues in the Caesar DePaço case and would like to know whether this is applicable to ANI vs WMF.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸20:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
First, do we know what has been done with the PII in either case since it was released? To whom has it been released, and do we know if the lives of any editors have been disrupted at this point? If nothing has happened that WMF is aware of, perhaps they could say that. But I would not expect an update to the extent that editorshave been affected, because it would likely not be in the interest of protecting those very same editors for WMF to publicly proclaim this information. At least in the majority of cases, that is; occasionally, of course, shining a broader limelight can be part of a thoughtful strategy.Second, did we ever get a straight answer on what determines if the WMF complies with a government order (e.g. India and Portugal) or disregards it (e.g. Russia and Turkey)? If not, can we please have this answer? I suspect that the Foundation would say, justifiably, that publicly revealing this information (a) is impossible because it depends heavily on circumstances, and (b) even if possible would be a very bad idea to post publicly on this site where in fact the Foundation's legal adversaries do read. Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)06:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
My main hope here is that we can get an indication, in whatever form it make take, that the WMF is making an effort to change its approach to prevent outing its own editors for routine editing. I'm not asking for a guarantee, just some sign that we're not going to see a repeat of previous events every time someone sues. My fear is that these two instances of compromising editor safety has created a blueprint for every bad actor with a modicum of resources, and I'm hoping that the WMF can dissuade this fear.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸23:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm curious on the ANI-thing, haven't seen anything in media for quite awhile, and I was told that "The case was adjourned to be heard on 7 July after WMF's senior advocate Akhil Sibal requested more time."Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)15:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Reader Growth team wants thoughts on changes to image browsing
TheReader Growth team is planning on experimenting with changing the way the users browse images. They've published a mockup of how the UI might lookhere. The project is in a early experimental stage and they want the community to answer the following question:
How should they handle images from other (smaller) Wikipedias?
How should they handle sensitive image/undesirable images?
Does the community has any particular stipulations surrounding image placement that the team should keep in mind when building this features?
The team welcomes feedback on these onthe WP:VPT thread. Feel free to comment on the thread and provide suggestions.
Learning Clinic: The nextLet's Connect Learning Clinic will talk about "Mastering the Capacity Exchange (CapX) Tool" and will take place on September 30 at 13:00 UTC.
Big Fat Brussels Meeting: The tenth in-person gathering of Wikimedians enthusiastic in free knowledge advocacy,Big Fat Brussels Meeting, will take place on October 3-4.
Wikimedia Research Showcase: "Celebrating 13 Years: Wikidata’s Role in Learning and Culture" will be the featured theme for thenext research showcase taking place onOctober 15 at 16:30 UTC.
Search Suggestions: Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users now seesuggestions of articles for further reading on all Wikipedias, in order to make it easier for users to find articles.
Activity Tab now on Android: Beta users of the Wikipedia Android app can now try the redesignedActivity tab, which replaces the Edits tab. The new tab offers personalized insights into reading, editing, and donation activity, while simplifying navigation and making app use more engaging.
Wikipedia 25: Wikimedia Foundation is creatingplayful, celebratory interventions on theWikipedia portal page, the Wikipedia app, and potentially any interested Wikipedias to celebrate Wikipedia’s 25th birthday. Pleaseshare your inputs and add your username on theTalk page if you think your community would be interested in participating.
National award: Wikipedian and current chair of Wikimedia Deutschland, Alice Wiegand, receives theOrder of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany for her voluntary commitment to Wikipedia and the global Wikimedia movement.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Making “Did You Know” More Visible in the Wikipedia App
The Wikimedia Foundation's mobile apps team is planning a 30-day experiment that will involve showing content from the "Did you know" section of the Main Page directly in the app'stabbed browsing feature. This would make the DYK section's content more visible to app readers, and it will be formatted in a more app-friendly way.
Happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you!
Ending 9 October the Foundation is asking for feedback to theirproposed update to the banner and logo policies on meta and there is no discussion yet. I tried to explain the issues at hand on thetalk page last weekend but it did not start any discussion either. So last chance to be heard on a highly technical topic but with potential consequences for the autonomy of the projects.h-stt!?14:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! I have added hopefully constructive feedback that a one week limit on logo changes and one day limit on blackouts are unnecessary formalization of norms that would be unnecessary for the stated goals of protecting the branding and prohibiting political messaging, given that other content-specific aspects of the policy update already address them. I have also requested a guarantee that advocacy banners/blackouts rejected by the WMF Global Advocacy team will have an accompanying explanation, especially given the secrecy surrounding this week's trimming of the WMF Board election shortlist.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)02:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
from Ars Tech. Mostly repeating similar points about left-wing bias and trying to get the WMF to reveal the process to keep WP neutral and complaining about how Fox News is unreliable on WP:RSP and similar. WMF's response to that, quoted"Wikipedia is supported by strong safeguards and high-quality volunteer oversight; it is a living encyclopedia that is always improving. We welcome the opportunity to further educate policymakers on the important work of Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation stands by its unwavering commitment to protect editors' exercise of free expression. Through rigorous policies, editorial standards, user privacy protections, and transparent processes, nearly 260,000 volunteers have created over 65 million articles in 300 languages. Wikipedia seeks to inform, not persuade."Masem (t)00:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Everyone who accuses Wikipedia of anti-Israel bias has no idea how the first 18 years went, with unblockable admins such as Jayg suppressing Palestinian viewpoints with a heavy fist. Shortly after the big Polish holocaust revisionism arbitration case closed, the Board of Trustees' Community Affairs Committee hosted a Zoom call with the spokesperson for the group that was complaining the loudest about antisemitism at the time, and she couldn't articulate what alternativearbitration outcome they would have preferred, what policy or guideline changes they wanted, or even a list of grievances concerning article text beyond an objection to the use of the term "apartheid." Now days they are just as clueless, but have forgotten apartheid for objections to accusations of genocide, while the sources supporting the latter are now much stronger than the former was. So what I'm trying to say is, I think it's best the WMF just ignore Cruz and similar complaints. They aren't worth responding to.2603:800C:1200:596A:9BFF:B043:AA5B:14FF (talk)23:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia 25: Are you planning to organize events to celebrateWikipedia's 25th birthday? The Wikimedia Foundation offers grants to support active Wikimedia groups in organizing short-term, low-cost projects to celebrate this milestone.Applications are open until November 1.
WikiConference North America 2025:WikiConference North America will take place from October 16–19 in New York City, USA.
Dark Mode will soon be available on all Wikimedia sites.
Mobile Editing:Insights on mobile web editing on Wikipedia in 2025 are now available. This report highlights that ~95% of IP mobile users editing via wikitext open the editor but make no changes at all, a vast untapped potential. It also pinpoints where contributors most often drop off.
Dark Mode:Dark Mode user interface will be rolled out on all Wikimedia sites on October 29. All anonymous users of Wikimedia sites will have the option to activate a color scheme that features light-colored text on a dark background. This is designed to provide a more comfortable reading experience, especially in low-light situations.
Community wishlist extension:The new Community Wishlist extension has been released. This will allow users to add tags to their wishes to better categorise them, and (in a future iteration) to filter them by status, tags and focus areas. It will also be possible to support individual wishes again, as requested by the community in many instances.
Paste Check:22 Wikis are now testing a new Edit Check feature,Paste Check, to help avoid and fight copyright violations. When editors paste text into an article, Paste Check prompts them to confirm the origin and licensing of the content.
Tone Check: The Wikimedia Foundation is working on a new check for newcomers:Tone check. Using a prediction model, this check will encourage editors to improve the tone of their edits.
Search Suggestions:Search Suggestions was deployed on English Wikipedia. Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users see suggestions of articles for further reading. The feature is available on both desktop and mobile.
Unsupported Tools Working Group: A newUnsupported Tools Working Group has been formed to help prioritize and review requests for support of unmaintained extensions, gadgets, bots, and tools. The group has chosenVideo2Commons as the first tool for its pilot cycle. The group will explore ways to improve and sustain the tool over the coming months.
Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week40 and41 including aboutSub-referencing – a new feature to re-use references with different details.
Wikimedia Research Showcase: Don't miss the next Wikimedia Research Showcase, "Celebrating 13 Years: Wikidata's Role in Learning and Culture" taking place onOctober 15 at 16:30 UTC.
Human Rights: Making sure AI serves people and knowledge stays human: Wikimedia Foundation publishes aHuman Rights Impact Assessment on the interaction of AI and machine learning with Wikimedia projects.
Don't blink:The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
Learning Clinic: Join the next Let's Connect Learning Clinic on the topic of "Mastering the Capacity Exchange (CapX) Tool (Part 2)" taking place onOctober 20 at 17:00 UTC.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
I'm told we aren't, that "The WMF split from Tides in 2023 and launched the endowment as a separate nonprofit" see[11] Looks like that article needs updating.Doug Wellertalk15:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
This was my understanding as well, I believe that we jumped ship over general internal backlash againstdonor advised funds (most average people seem to hold them as deleterious to democracy and the worst form of "dark money") more so than specific criticisms of this particular fund or related political complications.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Earlier this week, the BoTannounced that of the candidates shortlisted for Board of Trustees election in 2025, two would be disqualified -Ravan (Ravan J Al-Taie) andUser:Bluerasberry (Lane Rasberry). This means that out of 6 candidates shortlisted by Affiliates, only 4 are on the ballot, out of which 2 will be elected.
As this is the more proper venue for this, starting a thread here as well. This is drastic and needs discussion within the greater community.Soni (talk)08:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
While we call these "elections", they are technically only "suggestions" to the WMF board. The board is in fact self perpetuating and while they can take into consideration the opinion of the communities they are under no legal obligation to do so. In my opinion this is not an ideal situation as it exposes us to take over by a board not aligned with our movement. The movement needs greater checks and balances in place to prevent such an event, one a movement charter I was hoping would play.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)14:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I've been trying to learn more about the history of how the Board of Trustees operates and how vetting of candidates happens. I was quite apathetic and confused about all this before, but nothing like recent events to motivate me. I'm in the early stages of planning a petition to make things better. I think the way things currently are stifles true community representation.Clovermoss🍀(talk)15:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Clovermoss, @Hexatekin, @Doc James, and @Soni: It's a fair guess that several users are warming to the idea of making a petition and/or an open letter. Having had success a couple of times withsuch a move to put pressure on the WMF, I think it would be an excellent idea. It shouldn't be rushed, in any case nothing is going to change anything for the current election - which is a total parody of a democratic poll. It should probably be prepared offline by asmall collaborative task force rather than creating a public shitfest about how to do it , and to avoid a duplication of effort, and losing the impact it would have.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)22:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
6000-odd users voted in last year's election. Every watcher of this page could boycott, and sign a petition of no confidence besides, and the WMF wouldn't even notice. —Cryptic23:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Boards are required to do their due diligence about director candidates. Also, unless there's a confidentiality ageeement about the board selection process, Lane and Ravan can share what reasons the board gave for excluding them from the ballot. Until they do, we have no way of knowing what the board's concerns are. For those saying they want a public explanation from the board: if you applied and they discovered something about you that might be embarrassing/disqualifying, would you want the board to publicly disclose that?voorts (talk/contributions)13:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I still stand by my statement that the board should not share potentially incriminating information that causes it to remove a candidate, but that does not appear to be the situation here.voorts (talk/contributions)03:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I've signed the petition. As far as I can tell from the various comments from Board members, the concern was that Lane might want to publicly post internal information that the Board treats as confidential. Removing a good-faith candidate from the ballot on this basis is deeply objectionable. The proper solution would have been to require anyone elected (or anyone expected to be on the final ballot) to sign an agreement not to release private information. We have similar things that Oversighters and Checkusers sign, and that would not be a problem. But it sounds to me like Lane was kicked off without ever having been asked about that, just on the basis of innocuous things he has said about the importance of reporting, and Board members assuming the worst after reading that. It also sounds to me like Ravan was eliminated for having posted comments on social media about Israel/Palestine that (I infer) would not go over well with the Trump administration. I think it goes against every core principle of the Wikimedia movement to expect Board members to "speak with one voice", as opposed to coming to consensus after hearing differing views.And it's a very autocratic-seeming election process, when the number of candidates gets pruned down to the number of open seats. The WMF Board has lost my confidence, and it's hanging by a thread in terms of losing the confidence of the editing community. --Tryptofish (talk)23:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
And it's a very autocratic-seeming election process, when the number of candidates gets pruned down to the number of open seats. Aren't there now four candidates for two seats?voorts (talk/contributions)00:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'm taking in a lot of information, but I'm pretty sure I saw someone say that it's four candidates for four seats. If that's wrong, I'll strike it. --Tryptofish (talk)00:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. I've struck it here, where the reason is given just above, and I'll correct it at the other two places I posted it. --Tryptofish (talk)00:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I would venture that the time spent reading through four candidate statements is likely longer than the average editor would want to spend even thinking about the board or elections. I don't think more candidates necessarily entails better quality or better choice.voorts (talk/contributions)01:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Similarly to ViridianPenguin, below, my concern isn't simply about the number of candidates. It's who gets to decide, how they decide, and for what reasons. --Tryptofish (talk)20:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have more diversity in perspectives. People who don't want to do a little more reading could always follow a voter's guide if they don't want to do that research themselves (not that I'd recommend that course of action, but I don't think we should cater the entire election process to that). But having limits on how many people can run prevents all that.Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
If the six shortlisted candidates were trimmed to four by random draw to simplify the ballot, I would still disagree but could stomach the situation. It is Lane's disqualification for contributing toThe Signpost, which was known from the start, on the basis of achieving a uniform WMF Board viewpoint that folks like me find especially disagreeable.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)14:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Personally I see the disqualification ofRaven asmuch worse, as do other wiki communities it appears. Also well aware this isn't a competition of how controversial a disqualification can be. It also seems like nobody really cares, at least not compared toother issues. I assume the community lost faith in the WMF a long time ago to bother caring that much about their "election" these days.CNC (talk)17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I’m not gonna lie - while I have my concerns with the board’s actions here (shouldn’t any possible issues have come up far earlier in vetting? Why are these two only being booted from things now, which, to put it bluntly, is grossly unfair to them after going through the entire process? Is this to appease the regime currently burning down the foundations of American democracy?), the argument that Ravan’s removal from the ballot constitutes a violation of her human rights under international statutes comes off as extremely tone-deaf. Remember, this is an election for anon-profit’s board of trustees, and not even a household-name one (ex. the NAACP, Red Cross, MSF, etc - while Wikipedia is a household name, I’d argue the Wikimedia Foundation isn’t even close).
Additionally, echoing statements above, the WMF and community are so out of step with each other at this point that I’ll lose little sleep about whatever happens. There’s far more pressing things for me and others to worry about in day to day life.TheKip(contribs)02:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
The WMF Board adopted ahuman rights policy in 2021 that commits them to following the international human rights instruments cited in the objections. If the board, which is currently conducting a purportedly free, fair, and transparent non-profit board election, removed a candidate from the pool as a result of political/government pressure based on their advocacy, that would appear to violate article 19 of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides for "the right to freedom of opinion and expression", including the "freedom to hold opinionswithout interference". (I am skeptical that article 25 of theICCPR covers non-profit board elections and I haven't evaluated the rest of the provisions at issue.)voorts (talk/contributions)02:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Huh, TIL. Good to know that the objection has genuine backing/precedent, albeit I still personally find the “human rights violation” description lacking perspective; again, this is an election for a medium-profile nonprofit, not something the average individual would consider a matter of human rights.TheKip(contribs)03:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
When multiple states have (and are attempting to) wage disinformation campaigns on and off Wikipedia, I hardly think this is the most pressing issue regarding open knowledge and civil society on Wikipedia itself, let alone society as a whole (see: literally everything the current American government is undertaking domestically).TheKip(contribs)03:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
This would be part of theliterally everything the current American government is undertaking domestically. I agree with you, disinformation is bad; so is engaging in an agitprop pressure campaign to force a candidate out of a non-profit board election because of their political speech.voorts (talk/contributions)03:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree that this falls under that; my point is moreso it’s not even close to the most pressing issue at hand regarding that, and I disagree with making it out to be bigger than it is.
It still shouldn't be a competition over who can make the worst decisions and create the largest problems, nor is it necessary prioritising some of these and ignoring others, broadly speaking that is. A weighted approach to caring about these things is usually a more desirable and effective overall. And per voorts comment, if the board that oversees the foundation of the largest open encyclopedia in the world is breaching human rights in elections, there are probably much worse problems to come in the sphere of diffusion of free information. It's not a good look either way.CNC (talk)12:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Update posted from the BoT
Nataliia, the chair of the BoT, has posted an update with answers to some of your questions on Meta.That update can be found here. She has asked for further questions or concerns to be voiced on that talk page, which is more actively monitored by the BoT since it's on Meta.ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!13:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm guessing the answer is no, but do you know if that session is being livestreamed (or recorded and put online subsequently) ? —OwenBlacker(he/him;Talk)17:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for flagging this! I will be there, and I am happy to ask any questions that folks unable to attend have, though this frustrating situation has left me with many of my own.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)01:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Here's my write-up, which I also posted tometa:Talk:2025 WMF Board reform petition#WCNA: During today's Day 2 of WikiConference North America 2025, Wikimedia Foundation CEOMaryana Iskander led a discussion on the WMF with Board membersMayree Clark andKathy Collins. This choice of panelists did themselves no favors, as our primary concern is that a ballot whose candidates are hand-picked by the Board makes community seats redundant with appointed seats, yet we did not have any community board members to explain why they joined the unanimous vote to drop Lane and Ravan. As Theklan put ithere, folks are especially concerned that Chair-Elect Lorenzo Losa was elected by the community on promises that seem directly contradicted bywikt:eleventh-hour unexplained removals of two highly qualified candidates. Instead of getting a response from our representatives, we only heard from those who naturally support Board appointments.
Mayree Clark,a recent appointee, began her remarks by noting her prior service on the board ofDeutsche Bank, and she praised its similar structure of evenly dividing its members between typical businesspeople and union-elected representatives. When I asked why that recognized strength of Deutsche Bank should not encourage us to have freer community elections for WMF Board seats, Iskander claimed that early in her tenure, she found community-nominated Board members to be at odds with appointed ones. I fail to see why this history should mean the WMF Board should effectively appoint all the seats, rather than have the community elect a greater share.
Most upsettingly, whenClovermoss disputed Iskander's view, she retorted that one could not question her decision-making until they served as CEO of such a large organization.Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown, butwith great power comes great responsibility. When paid ~$500K USD per year, Iskander has a responsibility to explain the Board's decision-making beyond its finality, rather than blithely dismiss the concerns of someone sorecently recognized for their value to the community.
I ended my questions by noting that Deutsche Bank workers achieved their board representation with the threat of strikes. I highlighted that if the WMF Board only offers platitudes in the coming weeks without serious consideration of reform, then Wikimedia projects will be left to exercise our similar threat of blackouts. Let us hope that this round of criticism yields rooms for reconstruction.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)03:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Isn't it time to have a "vote of no confidence" on the whole Board of Trustees? There is some limited precedent for this, seehere for such a vote about one BoT member (who then stepped down).Fram (talk)14:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
As that RfC noted, we lack the power to enforce a vote of no confidence. Whereas the Board could easily handle the resignation of one member based on their professional misconduct, the WMF being a board-only organization would mean that the only way they could resign en masse over election issues is if they first set a procedure for selecting their replacements, which brings us back to the present issue.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)15:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
It would at least make it clearer how the communities feel, and make it harder for them to continue as if nothing untoward happened.Fram (talk)15:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Why is it out of proportion when the BoT decides which opinions are allowed within it and which are stifled? How is it out of proportion if people feel that that BoT doesn't represent the ideals of the WMF (or at least of Wikipedia)? What is more appropriate than a "vote of no confidence" if people have actually lost confidence in them?Fram (talk)15:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
As far as powerful institutions that affect my life go, the WMF, while not flawless, is about the last one that I would sign onto a no-confidence vote for.signed,Rosguilltalk15:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
"That/It" is not a person in either case, in the first it is the proposed no confidence vote and in the second it is the framing. You are casting aspersions about the board that aren't supported by either the facts or the complaints being made by other parties. You're going so far that I think you're alienating people who would otherwise agree with you... But the issue at hand here is a lot more nuanced than the BoT refusing to allow disenting opinions.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
To quote from someone's else opinion on this very page: "I think it goes against every core principle of the Wikimedia movement to expect Board members to "speak with one voice", as opposed to coming to consensus after hearing differing views. The WMF Board has lost my confidence, and it's hanging by a thread in terms of losing the confidence of the editing community." So at the very least it seems that my "aspersions" are supported by the complaints of at least some others. Looking at the open letters I linked to below, I see e.g. this from LGBT+ group: "By corrupting the defined democratic process for its own elections after an open call for candidates and the voting immediately due to start, the WMF Board has exposed itself as either incompetent or being misused to pursue an unstated agenda. " At the meta discussions, I see e.g. a post titled "Value of an election where candidates are vetted for unanimity", with others stating "pre-filtering choices for the sake of “unity” or “alignment.”"
Other statements I read there (from different editors, not just rehashing one person's opinion):
"I find it really scary to read that candidates were possibly excluded because "the Foundation needs a strongly unified board committed to collective decision-making responsibilities". The strength of our movement is the diversity of opinion and being able to compromise without having the same opinions. In a world that's moving away from democracy, I'm saddened if we move the same direction."
"A closed circle decides who can join them. The WMF board is an oligarchy. "
If only you would be so good as to tolerate my dissenting opinion... A letter or motion of objection is likely proportional (we will know better once we have more communication from the two excluded candidates), but a vote of no confidence still seems to be out of order here... The board is following its rules and procedures even if many (including me) would like to see those rules and procedures evolve. TLDR I have confidence in the board to follow its rules and procedures, what I lack is confidence in those rules and procedures... Does that make sense?Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I have no problem with your dissenting opinion, only with your "framing" of this as a borderline BLP violation which isn't supported by anyone.Fram (talk)17:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Your comment was a borderline BLP violation, at best it was hyperbole. You responding to being told that with an attack on me simply isn't warranted... Take the criticism and adjust your argument accordingly, thank you. Now, does what I have to say make sense to you?Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I had been under the impression that I was up to date on WMF-related drama, but evidently was not. I'm uncertain as to whether a vote of no confidence is the best response, but I do agree with the general thrust of the letters of objection.signed,Rosguilltalk16:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Fram, I've still got some more reading to do. Have I got this right? 2 days before the election, 2 people were removed from the ballot? There was no public reason given at the time? The reasons were pertaining to 1 candidate being a journalist and 1 candidate being an activist but this was then denied by the BoT?Knitsey (talk)17:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think this was really denied, it is so far hard to find out what their official reasons for the rejection are (hiding behind "privacy" I believe). But yes, that's basically the gist of it.Fram (talk)17:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The issue seems to be that the board can't disclose what it told the candidates... Only the candidates themselves can do that and the candidates so far have been rather vague about it (I may be out of date on that though, or more may have been published on another language wiki).Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I didn't want to make any assumptions but that would make sense.
It seems like the candidates should provide that information if they want the community to support them... What reason would they have for not being transparent?Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I can't seem to find the info on timing for removal vs when they applied. 2 days before an election, that I assume requires quite a bit of preparation, seems poor timing. That would depend on the gap between application and refusal.
I meant that the BoT reason for removal of candidates from the list. Contacting them privately to explain why they were removed, rather then making it public would come under privacy issues? Then, if a candidate wants to make the reasons public, they can do so.Knitsey (talk)20:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
No. IMO, that "precedent" turned into an internet mob trying to destroy and harass a living person (perhaps more than one living person, members of the board also). That's what regularly happens on the internet, and we should not give occasion for it. (The irony, here, is it is likely that attack, that, in part, made the board screen of new members even more searching, to protect the person and the foundation. So, board members are damned if they do, and damned if they don't, that's also the way of the internet (and the way of diffuse and contradictory communities).
That people don't know or refuse to know how boards work, and what is legally and constitutionally expected of board members as fiduciaries, is no good basis for attacking them. I get it, some disagree, they would exercise their own judgement, and even insist that the board do what they want, and only what they want, but it is the members of the board that have thelegal duty to exercise their own independent judgement (not your judgement, and not people on the internet's judgement -- with respect to the board, people on the internet have no legal duty, no legal risk, and no legal responsibility, board members do). --Alanscottwalker (talk)11:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
No, I have my own problems with a bunch of what is being said and done within the construct of the BoT elections and as such have boycotted the elections. That being said, I don't see how veto/no-confidencing the entire board is in our interest at all. The correct approach would be to demand transperancy and move the board to reform the election procedure. --Sohom (talk)02:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement from SFR on the incident at WCNA
I’m writing because when I became an admin, and later an arbitrator, it was my intent to do everything possible to protect the community that I belong to and love. I work for that community, not for the WMF. Also, when I ran for the committee I committed to providing transparency whenever possible. The recent incident at WCNA 2025 has pushed me into breaking the ANPDP in order to make sure the community that I serve is safe, and has all the information they need to make informed decisions about their continued safety.
On February 20th, I blocked Gapazoid, who is Connor Weston, the person who brandished a firearm and threatened suicide at the conference. Any oversighter can look at their user page, which I suppress deleted at the time, to verify this. The Arbitration Committee is also aware of his name as he appealed my block to the committee via email. I blocked them for child protection/pedophilia advocacy. I also immediately emailed WMF Trust and Safety, seeking and expecting a WMF ban. The following day Risker pulled talk page access due to continued disruption. They were already blocked on Wiktionary for the same reason.
For the next several months I pressed with every tool at my disposal for a WMF ban. This included discussion on several Arbitration Committee calls with the foundation. My fellow arbs joined me in pushing for this ban. It was such a sticking point between the committee and the foundation that the WMF held a “Process sync” call on June 24th for us to explain how T&S makes decisions about WMF bans.
During this process, on April 25th, Weston sent an email to the info queue saying they were going to travel to the WMF offices to protest my block. The message states, in full:
<information redacted>
This email was forwarded to T&S who verified receipt. I am also aware that information regarding Weston threatening suicide was sent to T&S.
On August 11th they closed the case, along with a second child protection case, with no action. To quote the email sent to me personally in response to my initial report:
Having carefully weighed the evidence, we found no indication that Gapazoid’s contributions amount to advocacy or encouragement of illicit activity.
In their response to the Committee they said:
We recognize that taking no action in these cases may not fully align with what ArbCom expects or hopes the WMF's role to be in situations of child safety concerns, particularly given the importance and sensitivity of child safety matters on the platform and the fact that you, ArbCom, have been trusting the Foundation for years to handle these matters. The fact is, however, that while the community can sanction based solely on its own judgement, the Foundation must be able to legally defend our decisions to take action, including their consistency with our policies over time. This includes the need to have evidence of a risk of harm that violates our policies. We don’t think that either of the above two examples would be successful in meeting that standard.
This decision allowed a suicidal pedophile who threatened to travel in-person to WMF headquarters to protest a block to gain access to an in-person meeting of our community. Even if they didn’t plan on using a gun to end their life in front of all of us, this would still be unacceptable.
In the weeks and months leading up to the convention the committee and other members of the community brought up concerns about event security, and were assured that appropriate security measures would be taken. At the event there was essentially no security. No bag checks and no checks with a metal detector or wand. After the incident there was an increased presence of security personnel and bag screenings, but no additional searching or screening of carried belongings.
Every member of the community deserves, and absolutely must be given, the ability to make informed decisions about their safety within the community. The WMF is responsible for taking every reasonable action to keep our community safe. In this case, they made the unreasonable decision of not banning a suicidal pedophile who had made clear their intent to protest a community block in person, and in doing so explicitly allowed the incident at WCNA to occur. The foundation’s actions put everyone attending the conference in life-threatening danger. Thankfully, due to members of our community, the worst case was avoided, but this was in spite of the WMF’s decisions and actions.
From a personal perspective, before I left to attend the conference my wife expressed concern for my safety. She’s aware of the anti-abuse work I do, and the threats of harm and death that come along with that. I told her, based on the WMF’s assurances, that it was safe for me to attend, they planned on having enhanced security, and she didn’t have a need to worry. Days later I would be sending her messages after evacuating the conference due to a suicidal man that I’d blocked from Wikipedia months earlier charging the stage with a gun. As soon as he began speaking, I recognized with horror who it was. I immediately informed WMF employees on-site. I was not informed that Weston would be attending, and either T&S didn’t screen the attendees or screened the list and let this pass. Either situation is completely unacceptable.
Thankfully, no one was physically hurt. Due to heroism by members of our own community, the threat was mitigated, but that doesn’t mitigate the trauma we all suffered. It is essential that nothing like this ever happen again, and because of that the community must be aware of the extent of the failures that occurred. The community did everything right in this situation, from blocking a pedophile, reporting it to T&S, forwarding the suicide threats and intention to protest in person, and pushing in every conceivable way for a WMF ban, and due to systemic failures from the WMF we were almost all party to an incredible tragedy.
Global trends: We are seeing 8% declines in human page views on Wikipedia as some users don't directly visit Wikipedia to get information.Learn about this new user trend, how the Wikimedia Foundation anticipate these changes, and how you can help.
The naming contest for the new Wikimedia project, known until now as Abstract Wikipedia, is ongoing.
Making it easier to say thanks: Users on most wikis will now havethe ability to thank a comment directly from the talk page it appears on. Before this change, thanking could only be done by visiting the revision history of the talk page.
Account security: Improvements toaccount security and two-factor authentication (2FA) features were enabled across all wikis. Another part of the project is making 2FA generally available to all users. Along with editors with advanced privileges, such as administrators and bureaucrats, 40% of editors now have access to 2FA. You can check if you have access atSpecial:AccountSecurity.
Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week42 and43 including the community-submitted tasks that wereresolved last week.
Wikimedia apps: The Wikipedia iOS App launched an A/B/C test of improvements to theTabbed browsing feature into Beta for select regions & languages. Called“More dynamic tabs”, the experiment adds user-requested improvements and introduces article recommendations within the tabs overview, showing “Did you know” or “Because you read” content depending on how many tabs are open.
CampaignEvents extension:Campaignevents extension will be deployed to all remaining wikis during the week of 17 November 2025. The extension currently includes three features:Event Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation List. For this rollout,Invitation List will not be enabled on Wikifunctions and MediaWiki unless requested by those communities.
Event registration tool: Autoconfirmed users onsmall andmedium wikis with the extension can now useEvent Registration without the Event Organizer right. This feature lets organizers enable registration, manage participants, and lets users register with one click instead of signing event pages.
Digital safety: Explore how you can help make Wikimedia safer by taking our new self-paced course,Safety for Young Wikimedians.
Wikimedia Core Curriculum: The Wikimedia Foundation has developedseven online video learning modules covering the core English Wikipedia policies. You are invited to use, adapt, and translate the course.
Advocacy: The Wikimedia Foundation has signedonto a statement that calls on governments and UN bodies to keep discussions about the future of internet governance accessible to non-government actors like industry and civil society. This statement is part of ongoing joint advocacy with affiliates to influence UN discussions about the future of internet governance such as theGlobal Digital Compact campaign andWSIS+20 deliberations.
GLAM: The Wikimedia Foundation and several affiliates have signed onto theOpen Heritage Statement, which supports galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM institutions) to have the legal rights they need to collect, preserve, and provide access to cultural heritage.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Our proposal in a nutshell: Temporary accounts offer improved privacy for users editing without an account and improved ways to communicate with them. They have been successfully rolled out on 1046 wikis, including most large Wikipedias. English Wikipedia has defined the criteria for Temporary Accounts IP Viewer (TAIV) right and granted it to 100+ users. We plan to launch temporary accounts on enwiki onOctober 7th 21stNovember 4th. If you know of any tools, bots, gadgets, etc. using data about IP addresses or being available for logged-out users, please help test that they work as expected and/or help update these.
Hello, from theProduct Safety and Integrity team! We would like to continue the discussions about launchingtemporary accounts on English Wikipedia. Temporary accounts are relevant to logged-out editors, whom this feature is designed to protect, but they are also very relevant to the community. Anyone who reverts edits, blocks users, or otherwise interacts with logged-out editors as part of keeping the wikis safe and accurate will feel the impact of this change.
Temporary accounts have been successfully deployed on almost all wikis now (1046 to be precise!), including most large Wikipedias. In collaboration with stewards and other users with extended rights, we have been able to address a lot of use cases to make sure that community members experience minimal disruption to their workflows. We have built a host of supporting features likeIP Info,Autoreveal,IPContributions,Global Contributions,User Info etc. to ensure adequate support.
With the above information in mind, we think everything is in good shape fordeploying temporary accounts to English Wikipedia in about a month,preferably October 7th [update: on November 4]. We see that your community hasdecided on the threshold for non-admins to access temporary accounts IP addresses, and there are currentlyover 100 non-admin temporary account IP viewers (TAIVs).
Project background
The wikis should be safe to edit for all editors irrespective of whether they are logged in or not. Temporary accounts allow people to continue editing the wikis without creating an account, while avoiding publicly tying their edits to their IP address. We believe this is in the best interest of logged-out editors, who make valuable contributions to the wikis and who may later create accounts and grow the community of editors, admins, and other roles. Even though the wikis do warn logged-out editors that their IP address will be associated with their edit, many people may not understand what an IP address is, or that it could be used to connect them to other information about them in ways they might not expect.
Additionally, our moderation software and tools rely too heavily on network origin (IP addresses) to identify users and patterns of activity, especially as IP addresses themselves are becoming less stable as identifiers. Temporary accounts allow for more precise interactions with logged-out editors, including more precise blocks, and can help limit how often we unintentionally end up blocking good-faith users who use the same IP addresses as bad-faith users. Another benefit of temporary accounts is the ability to talk to these logged out editors even if their IP address changes. They will be able to receive notifications such as mentions.
How do temporary accounts work?
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern:~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5). All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser. A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with Temporary Accounts IP viewer right (TAIV) will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
Impact for different editors
For logged-out editors
This increases privacy: currently, if you do not use a registered account to edit, then everybody can see the IP address for the edits you made, even after 90 days. That will no longer be possible on this wiki.
If you use a temporary account to edit from different locations in the last 90 days (for example at home and at a coffee shop), the edit history and the IP addresses for all those locations will now be recorded together, for the same temporary account. Users whomeet the relevant requirements will be able to view this data. If this creates any personal security concerns for you, please contacttalktohumanrightswikimedia.org for advice.
For community members interacting with logged-out editors
A temporary account is uniquely linked to a device. In comparison, an IP address can be shared with different devices and people (for example, different people at school or at work might have the same IP address).
Compared to the current situation, it will be safer to assume that a temporary user's talk page belongs to only one person, and messages left there will be read by them. As you can see in the screenshot, temporary account users will receive notifications. It will also be possible to thank them for their edits, ping them in discussions, and invite them to get more involved in the community.
User Info cardWe have recently released theUser Info card feature on all wikis. It displays data related to a user account when you tap or click on the "user avatar" icon button next to a username. We want it to help community members get information about other users. The feature also works with temporary accounts. It's possible to enable it inGlobal Preferences. Look for the heading "Advanced options".
For users who use IP address data to moderate and maintain the wiki
For patrollers who track persistent abusers, investigate violations of policies, etc.: Users whomeet the requirements will be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range (Special:IPContributions). They will also have access to useful information about the IP addresses thanks to theIP Info feature. Many other pieces of software have been built or adjusted to work with temporary accounts, including AbuseFilter, global blocks, Global Contributions, User Info, and more.
For admins blocking logged-out editors:
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects theautoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this.
See our pageAccess to IP for more information about the related policies, features, and recommended practices.
Our ask of you, and next steps
If you know of any tools, bots, gadgets etc. using data about IP addresses or being available for logged-out users, you may want to test if they work ontestwiki ortest2wiki. If you are a volunteer developer,read the documentation for developers, and in particular, the section onhow your code might need to be updated. If you know of tools, bots or gadgets that have not yet been updated and you don’t know of anyone who can update these, please reach out to us.
If you want to test the temporary account experience, for example just to check what it feels like, go to testwiki or test2wiki and edit without logging in.
Tell us if you know of any difficulties that need to be addressed. We will try to help, and if we are not able, we will consider the available options.
To learn more about the project, check outour FAQ – you will find many useful answers there. You may alsolook at the updates andsubscribe to our new newsletter. If you'd like to talk to us off-wiki, you will find me on Discord and Telegram.
We would like to thank stewards, checkusers, global sysops, technical community members, enwiki functionaries and everybody else who has contributed their time and effort to this project. Thank you for helping us get here.NKohli (WMF) andSGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)11:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
It's still not clear to me what would be allowed to discuss publicly.
Temp account X seems the same as Temp account Y
Temp account X seems the same as older IP editor Y
We should rangeblock IP adresses X to stop temp account A, B and C
Temp account X is a school account for school X / a government account for department Y / ...
...
Should all these only be had "behind closed doors" somewhere, or are these allowed in the same circumstances as we would discuss them now (SPI, ANI, ...)?Fram (talk)11:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Fram, first we wanted to emphasize, to make it just clear to everybody around, that temp accounts are just a different paradigm; they don't match 1:1 with IPs, and in some cases it doesn't make sense or there's no need to link them with IPs 1:1.
These restrictions only apply when you (1) use data from the IP reveal tool to make the link and (2) discuss publicly. All of the above can be discussed in a private venue where only TAIV users can see the information. Also if the link is only behavioral, then any user, including those who have TAIV, can make the link publicly. But if you do have TAIV and talk publicly, there may be an implication that you used the tool to make the link. CUs often get around this by declining to comment about IPs if they have run CU on a user, so they can avoid the implication that they linked the IP and user together using CU data.
Now to your questions:
This is OKif necessary for anti-abuse purposes, and you can even say "Temporary account X is using the same IP address as temporary account Y" as long as you don't mention the specific IP.
Not publicly, unless the link is made purely through behavioral evidence (i.e. edits).
Not publicly. You can, however, say "Please block the common IP ranges used by temporary accounts A, B, and C" publicly where the admin could use IP reveal to find which range you were talking about. Another option for non-admin TAIVs is to say "Please block this IP due to abuse from temp accounts" (without naming the accounts).
If you are using access to IP addresses to get this information, then probably not okay. If using edits, then okay.
Finally, a very important note just for context: on other projects, including large Wikipedias, we have seen a significant decline in IP blocks, indicating that temporary account blocks are often effective remedies for one-off abuse. Even if we agree that English Wikipedia is unique and whatnot, there is a pattern and hopefully discussions about blocking IPs won't be that frequent (phab:T395134#11120266).
Thanks. So access to IP adresses is treated as CU access basically? That seems like a severe step backwards in dealing with vandalism, sockpuppetry, LTAs, ... Curs both ways of course, we now also exonerate people with things like "the IPs used by that vandal located all in country X, but this new IP comes from country Y, making it unlikely to be a sock. This happens in standard ANI discussions and the like, not requiring any CU access, but will no longer be possible for most editors.
Your "Finally, a very important note just for context: on other projects, including large Wikipedias, we have seen a significant decline in IP blocks, indicating that temporary account blocks are often effective" seems like a non-existent advantage. We had many "single" IP blocks, these will be changed to "single" TA blocksn this is not an advantage or disadvantage of TAs. The issues are rarely with the simple straightforward cases.
A very simple example: when I look at the revision history of[12] I immediately see that the last three IP edits are made by the same person, using two IP adresses. If we are lucky, in the future, this would be one temp account. If we aren't lucky, then these would be two completely unrelated temp accounts.
Or takethis edit history for a school. Since March, I see different IPs in the 120.22 range; it seems likely that this is either the school or the village or city, so no socking, unless these 4 were all from an IP provider in, say, France, in which case it's much more likely to be the same person in each case. From now on, no more means to raise such issues or notice them if you are not of the few (and if you are, you can't raise it publicly).
Or to make it more concrete still: we havethis current ANI discussion where a non-admin raises an issue related to completely disparate IP adresses: "a certain editor who has been editing over several months from various IPs, all geolocating first to South Korea, then more recently to Japan. " If said IP disables or removes cookies, there isno way that most of our editors would be able to adequately see or raise such issues, they would just have to say "there is a range of temp accounts, no idea if there is any connection between them".
@Fram With respect toYour "Finally, a very important note just for context: on other projects, including large Wikipedias, we have seen a significant decline in IP blocks, indicating that temporary account blocks are often effective" seems like a non-existent advantage. We had many "single" IP blocks, these will be changed to "single" TA blocksn this is not an advantage or disadvantage of TAs. [sic] The point being made here is that even in larger wikis there has not a significant requirement to resort to IP blocks (which are still going to be allowed). It appears that based on the trends WMF is monitoring, there is evidence that most typical vandals are not shifting across temporary accounts by disabling or removing cookies.Sohom (talk)15:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I understand the point being made, and I don't see the importance of it. Most IP blocks that are now being made also don't require CU, SPI, ANI discussions, ... Basically, for the "easy" IP problems nothing changes, but the more complicated ones get harder to spot, discuss, ... "Most typical vandals" are not the ones I am talking about.
A report likethis one from this month could no longer be publicly posted. In the future, the editor who posted it has temp IP rights, so he could notice that a group of temp accounts is from "This large IP range in Australia ", but wouldn't be allowed to post this fact. They link to an IP range edit log[13] which would no longer be possible in such a discussion, as that would disclose the IPs of the temp accounts. It would lead to such discussions being had in back chambers, out of view of most editors, and more importantly still impossible to be initiated by most editors.That kind of stuff is the issue, not the "one-off vandals will get a 31h block on the temp account instead of on the IP".Fram (talk)15:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
There's also a lot of "appears to be a one-off-vandals" that with a quick check of some small ranges turns out to be someone vandalizing for months or years. That visibility will be gone, too.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)15:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish, @Fram You will still be able list temp-account edits by IPs and ranges at [[Special:IPContributions/<insert IP address here>]]. I don't understand how we suddenly be unable to make the requests that you are pointing to.Sohom (talk)15:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I will not request the temp IP viewer right under the above rules. I have had one ridiculous outing block for coupring someone's handle to someone's real name, even though they were listed as such on their Wikidata page and they used both in combination elsewhere as well: I will not risk getting another block because I somehow "outed" and IP address I learned through that right but was not allowed to share with the masses no matter how useful that might be. And no admin c.s. will be allowed to show such IPcontributions list when they may not reveal the IP address behind the temp account name.Fram (talk)15:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
That's on you, the above directive is pretty explicit that you can report "heySpecial:IPContributions/192.168.0.0/16 (not exactly that, but you get the drift) is a bunch of school kids, can a admin block it" or "heySpecial:IPContributions/192.168.0.0/24 appears to a bunch of temporary accounts with very similar disruptive edits to game engines". It's a change of vocabulary yes, but the kinds of reports you are talking about are definitely doable and not being explicitly disallowed.Sohom (talk)16:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
""hey Special:IPContributions/192.168.0.0/24 appears to a bunch of temporary accounts with very similar disruptive edits to game engines". " That makes no sense. IPs are not temporary accounts. And in any case you restrict such reportsand the checking of such reports!), now made by regular editors (see my link to such a report in the current ANI) to a much smaller group of people. By the way, the people with the right can see the IP address belonging to a temp account: but can they easily do the reverse?Fram (talk)16:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
appears tobe a bunch of temporary accounts sorry for the typo. (A IP range can map to multiple temporary accounts since a TA corresponds to a machine). Also, you do realize that almost anyone with rollback or NPR will be able to make the same report with no problems. The persons who will be able to take action (i.e. block, revert) is already limited and almost all of the folks who can respond will already have TAIV (or will be handed TAIV at PERM with zero questions).Sohom (talk)16:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, and when they state "Special:IPContributions/192.168.0.0/24 includes temp accounts X, Y and Z, two of which have been blocked already" or some such, they should get blocked for outing as making that claim publicly (linking IP to temp account name) will be disallowed. If we follow the WMF rules on this, people will need to be very, very careful not to accidentally break them. Even claiming "temp accounts X, Y and Z all locate to Perth, Australia, so are likely socks" is not allowed, as one can only know that through the IP adresses, and publicly stating anything learned by seeing the IP addresses is, again, not allowed.Fram (talk)16:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
So that'll add how many seconds to the average task that is done 10,000 times a month by a few dozen people? A ten second increase adds dozens of hours per month to an already overwhelmed workflow. Or this extra stuff doesn't get checked anymore, which is more likely, andeveryone wasteseven more time dealing with unmitigated vandals.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)16:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish, If your gripe here is "this adds 10 seconds to a existing workflow", I see that as a okay tradeoff to the other alternative, which is "WMF (and Wikipedia) gets sued out of existence by frivolous GDPR lawsuits" or "we lose legitimately a significant chunk of good contributions from IP addresses by blocking all IP editing".Sohom (talk)18:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
You forgot "there's not enough labor available to keep up with the increased workload and trying to keep up leads to administrator burnout and even less labor available for the increased workload which leads to increased burnout..."ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)18:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish Admin burnout and not electing enough admins is a "us" problem. The fix is nominating folks atWP:AELECT,WP:RFA (the very same processes you are defending as set in stone) and fighting to make it easier for the community member to elect worthy candidates to adminship, not arguing against the implementation of a system that has been brought on to prevent us from being sued from existence and where WMF has put in significant effort into reducing the friction down to 10 seconds.Sohom (talk)18:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Uh,the very same processes you are defending as set in stone, what?We don't actually know what the additional time required will be, and having worked with the interface to place over 13,000 blocks, I think 10 seconds is on the low end of the scale. Editor and administration time is not cheap and putting a system in place that will result in a huge increase in labor cost without looking at the available labor is probably going to be worse than what we've seen at ptwiki.We're routinely dealing with bot attacks that will require an IP block as well as a temporary account block that use multiple IPs a minute. The end result of increasing the workload of defending against these attacks is no one actually doing the work.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)18:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Uh,the very same processes you are defending as set in stone, what? - We are talking about the inflexibility of community processes to deal with TAs and why they might not scale.
We don't actually know what the additional time required will be, and having worked with the interface to place over 13,000 blocks, - While I respect your opinions here, I think you are overestimating the amount of time here, you see a bunch of edits across different TAs, a non-TAIV editor starts reverting posts on AIV that a bunch of TAs are posting similar edits, a admin looks at the IP addresses for a few accounts (two or three more extra click than normal), clicks on the IPContributions and widens the search space untill all the TAIVs listed in the AIV report are covered and blocks the IP range and we are done. (If a TAIV editor sees the same edits, they directly report the IP address range and a admin blocks). I do understand your point about friction but I don't see it in the vast majority of the cases we aren't adding anywhere the amount of friction where folks will "just not do it". (and I assume with time user-scripts will be developed to make process smoother and less clicks).Sohom (talk)19:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
There isAutoreveal mode for users with thecheckuser-temporary-account-auto-reveal right, which reduces friction for users who need to be able to scan a list of IP addresses of temporary accounts when viewing logs.KHarlan (WMF) (talk)21:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Will the link from IP to temp account still be availble after 90 days? Meaning, if we have the IP, all temp accounts from any time can be shown.ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!02:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. So if, there is an IP vandalizing pages infrequently over months or years, and once discovered, I would like to go back to check if their previous edits were also reverted, that would now be impossible?ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!17:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
That was my thought as well. Even if someone who cleans up/investigates copyvio has TAIV, the lookback seems quite limited so you would have to hope that each temp account is doing something obvious on a behavioral level to link them. And then that circles back to if you can name a CCI after an IP address & list the temp accounts there.@SGrabarczuk (WMF): I'm not comfortable with "it may actually be OK to document IPs" - there should be definitive clarification one way or other before the rollout occurs.Sariel Xilo (talk)20:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Even if we agree that English Wikipedia is unique and whatnot, there is a pattern and hopefully discussions about blocking IPs won't be that frequent (phab:T395134#11120266). I hope we agree that if EnWiki isn't unique, it's uniqiue in size (though I would argue that EnWiki, like all other large projects actually is unique in its practices and challenges, even if much is common). And so even if the number of range blocks decrease, the scale of exceptions may cause more problems than even other large projects. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)15:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
This is OK if necessary for anti-abuse purposes... Why isn't it always okay to link two temporary accounts? Saying that User 1 and User 2 are the same person doesn't violate any privacy law.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)20:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I think this line of thinking (disabling IP editing) is short-sighted and will lead to a eventual demise of the the project (if we don't let people know we allow editing, we lose potential new editors/contributors). Weshould not' be making it harder for people to edit, instead we should be looking at ways to make it easier for folks to engage and edit our content (especially in the context of the fact that a lot of our content is being indiscriminately being remixed by AI).Sohom (talk)13:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Bizarrely, the only major test we have had of this has not in any way lead to the demise of said project. Protuguese Wikipedia has disabled IP editing since October 2020 (according to the Temp Accounts FAQ, question "Would disallowing or limiting anonymous editing be a good alternative?" where the WMF claims "there is evidence that this came at the cost of a significant reduction in non-reverted edits, weakening the growth of content in the Portuguese Wikipedia, and potentially leading to other negative long-term effects."
These claims seem false or at the very least severely overstated (no surprise, sadly, to see this kind of thing when the WMF wants to promote what they want or suppress what they don't want), there is no reduction in the number of editor edits[14] compared to e.g. 2019 (2020-2021, the Covid years, are a bad comparison). The same can be seen for the number of new pages[15]. The number of new editors is stable as well[16].
So contrary to what the WMF claims and what you predict, there are no negative effects from disabling IP editing (on the one large wiki who has done this).Fram (talk)15:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
The number of new editors is stable as well The chart you linked to shows a slow decline/downward trend since 2020 to the present day (August 2023 was 9K, August 2025 is 7K). Again, this is not aFreenode style sharp drop-off we are talking about but a slow downward decline not unlike stack overflow.Sohom (talk)15:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Er, August 2023 was 7894, not 9K. August 2025 was 7227. As comparison, enwiki August 2023 was 93052, August 2025 was 85195. So Pt is at 91.5%, and enwiki is at, hey, 91.5%. Frwiki 11989 / 10656, or 88%. Dewiki 5919 / 5594 = 94.5%. So it seems like the decline for ptwiki is exactly in line with that of other large Wikipedia versions in general, and identical to the enwiki one.Fram (talk)16:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I misspoke, I meant June 2024, I think we can quibble statistics for a hot second, but there is a significant anecdotal and UX research behind the fact that you present people with a "sign up before doing the thing" screen, you see a steady user-attrition in that area of the funnel. If you are telling me that Wikipedia is somehow so special that this doesn't apply, I'm going to need a to see alot more data than what you are showing me at the moment.Sohom (talk)16:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
So you have no evidence for your claims, you compared apples and oranges, but according to you itshould happen as you predict and I somehow need more than figures of the past 5 years to prove that this didn't that didn't materialize, actually didn't materialize? Perhaps what you and your "sighificant anecdotical research" e.g. haven't taken into consideration, is that there may be many more editors who stick around because they no longer have to deal with lots of IP vandalism?
Anyway, "I misspoke, I meant June 2024"? Oh right, that month with 7880 new editors, that makes all the difference in explaining how you came up with 9K... Please don't make such a mistake a third time or I will have to consider it deliberate.Fram (talk)16:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Fram, your message above is extremely adversarial and abrasive. I will refrain from engaging in this particular thread any further unless you reword your statement because your point here appears to be engage with me personally rather than with the issue more broadly. Your comment implies that I'm trying to deliberately misrepresent information in some way, which I sincerely am not and is a asusmption of bad faith.
To explicitly answer your question, there is a clear slow decline visible and yes, I misspoke, I meant June 2023. Also, here is the other thing, we do need some kind of IPMasking, otherwise we open ourselves to lawsuits related to GDPR. I do not have access to any data about editor attrition due to IPMasking, but the whole reason the WMF is doing IP masking is to make sure admins and patroller have the tools they need to still continue doing anti-vandalism even with the legislation-required changes. Best,Sohom (talk)17:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I see no reason to change anything in my statement when you cherrypick one month and rwice fail to pick the right one to boot. June 2023 is also a thousandup from June 2022, so what´s that supposed to prove? One doesn´t check trends over 5 or more years by comparing one month from midway in the set with one from near the current end, unless one wants to prove some otherwise unsupported point.Fram (talk)18:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
If temporary accounts goes poorly - something that seeminglyhasn't happened on other large projects - that seems like a logical response for the community to make. However, many people have been in favor of turning off IP editing for a while and so temporary accounts aren't forcing those people, or the community to that position. I have seen the value of IPs on their own merits, and seen the fromEditor reflections many editors with registered accounts started as IPs and so we should be careful about turning off that gateway. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)14:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
This is what's known as theBrussels effect. Its why for example, caps on bottles are tethered in the UK, even though its required under EU law. Countries outside the EU may have this treatment, so that companies don't create a queue for EU and non-EU lanes.JuniperChill (talk)18:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I’m concerned that IP info will disappear after 90 days. This will make it difficult to address long term abusers with stable addresses, of which there are a significant number. Instead, we’ll be playing whack a mole every 90 days or so, unless we can somehow retain info on IP use. — rsjaffe🗣️15:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
As I’m thinking about this some more, one way to retain the ip record is to block the ip rather than the temp account when we suspect a long term abuser with perhaps a stable ip. If the block of the ip isn’t sufficient,then block the temp account. — rsjaffe🗣️15:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
As I understand it, I as a CU cannot do this because the Ombuds have decided this is the same as the longstanding prohibition on connecting IPs to an account. But I hope non-CU admins could without jeopardizing the right. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)15:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Even CUs can block on behavioural similarities, unless that's changing too. A bigger question is perhaps, if an IP is blocked, is that block visible on the temp account and can others see the reason for the block as they do now?CMD (talk)15:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Correct. I could block a temp account based on behavior. But I can't do what SFR and rsjaffe are mooting: block the IP as a signal before blocking the temp account (or at least can't without obfuscating it in some other way). Best,Barkeep49 (talk)15:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
If the IP is blocked but not the temporary account: All temporary accounts on that IP address will be prevented from editing, because all IP address blocks apply to temporary accounts (even if the IP address block isn't a hardblock)
If the temporary account is blocked but not the IP: The temporary account targeted by the block will be unable to edit. Additionally, if autoblocking is enabled on the block targeting the temporary account then:
The last IP used will be autoblocked for 1 day (in the same way as autoblocking works for registered accounts)
Attempts to edit using that blocked temporary account will also cause an autoblock to be created
Thanks very much, hopefully this can all be collated somewhere. I suppose the remaining question is whether other users see IP blocks and their reasoning, and if so how.CMD (talk)16:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Blocks placed on IP addresses will continue to be visible onSpecial:BlockList and other places that show blocks. However, a user wouldn't be able to see that a temporary account is blocked by an IP address block, unless they use IP reveal (TAIV) to get the IP address and then look for the block targeting that IP (such as opening the contributions page for that IP).WBrown (WMF) (talk)08:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Really? If that is the case, how are admins expected to handle say vandalism reports of a temporary account where an IP is already blocked? Always block the temp account as well?CMD (talk)09:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
If the IP address is blocked, then the temporary account cannot edit. Therefore, the admin wouldn't need to take additional blocking action on the temporary account. However, if the temporary account switches IP addresses then they will be able to edit.
Given that, if the target of the block is intended to be the temporary account the admin should block the temporary account. This will usually mean that it is better to block the temporary account first as opposed to the IP address.
We have seen that blocks of temporary accounts on other wikis have been enough to prevent abuse in most cases. Generally an admin would want to block the underlying IP address(es) if:
If this user has evaded blocks by logging out, waiting for the autoblock to expire, and making another edit
Multiple temporary accounts are editing for a sustained period on the same IP (therefore, it's easier to block the IP than multiple temporary accounts)
The issue I raise is vandalism reports, as given we now can't see if an editor is blocked multiple reports could be made. I suppose an admin could reply "Already IP blocked" and that wouldn't disclose the IP connection, but I suspect if multiple reports come in a dual block of teh temporary account as well will provide the clearest information.CMD (talk)12:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, a dual block would be the most clear. Blocking just the temporary account should be enough for any user that has not used TAIV to view the associated IP address.
This is useful information. Is there any compendium of lessons learned so far? That would help reduce the disruption that I’m sure will occur as we learn over time how to address this new way of tracking unlogged-in users. — rsjaffe🗣️13:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Or rotate their IPv6 address by simply restarting their router. Autoblocks should inherit the block settings of the TA, and if they are using IPv6 addresses, they should apply across the /64 range as well.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)20:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@Barkeep49,I can't block the IP as a signal before blocking the temp account - I'm pretty sure you can, I'd like somebody else to confirm it but as far as I know, this happens on other wikis, it's a tradeoff Legal is OK with.SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)16:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear admins can. But (and I would hope @RoySmith or some other Ombud reading this corrects me if I'm wrong) the Ombuds have written that I cannot as a checkuser. They did so in a message sent to checkusers in March and when I wrote in replyI find the implication that CUs will have to take similar measures to blocking two connected IPs as we do to blocking a registered account and an IP address to be incredibly surprising. no one corrected me or said I was misunderstanding in anyway. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)16:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
It's great that we'll be able to block the temporary account MAB or Salebot is using, then spend additional time to view the IP and check if it's a proxy before placing the proxy block, and if we're lucky finish that process before their bot has moved onto the next temporary account on another IP that will require twice as many blocks and three times as much time to take care of. Or, as Barkeep points out, since we've gotten conflicting information I might have to block the temporary account, find an active checkuser or other trusted editor I can disclose the IP to, have them block it, and waste multiple people's time.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)16:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 I don't remember your specific comment, but I assume it was in response to the OC's email of 17 March, which is reproduced for public view atmeta:Ombuds commission/2025/Temporary Accounts. I encourage anybody reading that to note that it's full ofweasel words like "limited experience", "initial", "preliminary guidance", "evolving landscape", "current understanding", etc. I should also point out that just like ArbCom, the OC doesn't make policy; we (again, like ArbCom) just get blamed for trying to enforce it.RoySmith(talk)17:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
On the other hand, if an LTA comes back within 90 days on a new temp account and we can behaviorally link it to the prior temp account, and find that both are on the same ip, then we can go for a prolonged ip block. I think there’s going to be a significant learning curve to this as we figure out how to address chronic abusers. — rsjaffe🗣️16:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
There's also this:When it is reasonably believed to be necessary, users with access to temporary account IP addresses may also disclose the IP addresses in appropriate venues that enable them to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, the Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies. Appropriate venues for such disclosures include pages dedicated toLong-term abuse. If such a disclosure later becomes unnecessary, then the IP address should be promptly revision-deleted. (Source)SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)17:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Temporary accounts may be a pain to deal with, but the added privacy benefits make the trade-off worthwhile, imo.Some1 (talk)01:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I also think privacy is good, so why does this involve installing tracking cookies in my browser? Will there be an option to decline them?98.97.3.234 (talk)22:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
You can configure your browser to reject cookies, and in that case, a new temporary account will be created for every edit you make. Seethis FAQ entry. Note that if you do this, you can edit only 6 times/day before you have to create a real account, perthis FAQ entry.OutsideNormality (talk)03:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I want to note that we are not implementing any tracking cookies in your browser.Tracking cookies are used to track your browsing history and activities, typically across multiple websites. We are adding a cookie to attribute your edits to an anonymized username. And your data (IP address) will be stored for a limited amount of time and be exposed to a smaller group of individuals. We have a similar cookie for registered accounts, except that it lasts for a longer time period. --NKohli (WMF) (talk)09:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Cookies don’t anonymize edits, theyde-anonymize them. They enable activity to be tracked across IP addresses. (Or whatever you want to call it that isn’t “tracking”—haha, gotcha! It’s totally not tracking because we defined tracking as something you do with muffins, not cookies!) This cookie has no other purpose and I don’t want it.98.97.6.48 (talk)00:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
The alternative is the expose your IP address every edit. The purpose of temporary accounts is to de-anonymize your activities on Wikipedia (which must be done in some way so blocks apply to the same person) while hiding your real-life identity, the latter of which is what the WMF probably means by "anonymize".Aaron Liu (talk)11:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Some questions about temporary accounts:
Would there still be a way for an unregistered user to view all oftheir own IP's (post-rollout) contributions, or equivalently the list oftheir own IP's past temporary accounts?
Some questions about temporary account viewers:
If an unregistered user only edits constructively and without engaging in vandalism, trolling, or similar shenanigans, then would it be against the rules for a TAIV to check their IP address, or could they just decide to do it on a whim?
What's stopping a rogue TAIV user from programmatically checking the IP of every single temporary account that has edited in the last 90 days and dumping that list somewhere? Would there be ratelimits put in place or something?98.170.164.88 (talk)05:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
To answer your first question about temp accounts, what do you mean by "their own IP"? :) This was a fundamental concern with how we handle unregistered editors. IPs can change, sometimes very rapidly. We cannot say IP 1.2.3.4 is always User ABC.
Contributions made before the launch of temp accounts will not be affected. So a user can see edits made by logged out editors an IP/range from before the rollout. Post rollout, a temporary account holder can look at their contributions from their temp account. If they have happened to have other temp accounts in the past, they'll need to remember which ones those are if they want to see their contributions from those temp accounts.
To answer your questions about temporary account viewers:
Thepolicy lays this out so please refer to it. We tried to make it as succinct and clear as we could. If you have clarifying questions about anything outlined in the policy, please let me know. Happy to answer.
There is a log in place but we do not have any rate-limits. We trust that editors with this right will exercise their judgement and act in the best interests of the project. We also expect that admins will ensure users who are granted this right truly need this right to carry out anti-vandalism efforts.
Chipmunkdavis,Rsjaffe, and other interested parties: I have made an attempt to document the answers to questions in this discussion atUser:Perfect4th/Temporary accounts. It's roughly topical; anyone who wishes to or has a better understanding than what I wrote is free to correct it, reorder in a way that makes sense, add further answered questions, etc. Happy editing,Perfect4th (talk)18:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks for making this. Perhaps you should consider moving it to projectspace, or someone should create something similar to it in projectspace. I think a projectspace page to put tips, tricks, and notes on temporary accounts is going to be needed to help get everyone up to speed. –Novem Linguae(talk)21:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm just going to comment here that anyone who wants to see how temp accounts work in action can look at the other wikis, particularly Simple English for those who aren't bilingual (myself included).QuicoleJR (talk)12:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll admit I've for some time now been rather dubitante over this whole change, and my overall assessment is almost certainly irrelevant to the people responsible anyway, but I'm still not sure if it's ever been explained by the WMF or anyone else why masking schemes that preserve ranges were disfavored, if that has been explained somewhere a pointer would be welcome.184.152.65.118 (talk)21:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Will it be possible for editors on a temporary guest account to "upgrade" their guest account to a "proper" account during the 90 days, retaining their editing history? I an imagine quite a lot of editors might start as guests, but find they are making good progress, finding it fulfilling being part of the project, and want to keep going. It would benefit both the community and the individual if they can move seamlessly to a named account. That way, we have continuity in any ongoing discussions in which they're taking part, and in interactions concerning their edits, and they can still go back to their older contributions, which will count towards their extended-confirmed status. In fact if they get kicked off, start a named account, and immediately reinforce a view they've expressed somewhere controversial, we have to make sure they don't get instantly accused of socking.Elemimele (talk)14:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Disclosing another's IP would run afoul of TAIV rules. I'm sure whoever chooses to use the process would be warned about the chance risks.Aaron Liu (talk)19:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't believe that's possible, in the same way it's not possible now with an IP. But there's nothing to stop somebody from making an account and noting "I used to edit as ~2025-12345-99" on their user page if they want to.RoySmith(talk)14:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
ChildrenWillListen, I don't think so; I was under the impression that the main point of having the temporary accounts was to conceal the IP of the person using them, so that they offer logged-out users a better level of privacy, consistent with the way privacy law is going. YesRoySmith they can do so, but from a community perspective it still means we need to look back at a separate place for their edit history, and from their perspective they're back to square one for anything like extended-confirmed (not that that's tragic)Elemimele (talk)17:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Elemimele, I just wanted to confirm that it's not possible to "upgrade" into a registered account. Instead, temporary account holders will be (perhaps they already are, periodically) encouraged to create registered accounts.SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)12:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
There's a certain IP address whom I work with, as they periodically make NFL drafts and I come along to improve and publish them (I find the drafts by checking their contributions). How will I be able to continue working with the IP editor if this change goes through?BeanieFan11 (talk)16:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Ask them to create an account and edit using that. We are long past the "if this change goes through" point. It is going to happen, it's just a matter of the exact rollout date for enwiki having changed.RoySmith(talk)16:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
If they insist on not registering a "permanent" account, at least they will get a user page for the temporary account where they could note that they previously edited from an IP address. If I were regularly collaborating with an IP editor I'd find it hard to resist reminding them that a regular account would make communication and collaboration much easier.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)21:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
What I don't understand is the resistance to registering an account. Let's say, like Beanie's collaborator, you have a long-term static IP address that people know you by. That's essentially the same as having a registered account except that 1) there's a few editing rights you can't have and 2) anybody can find out where you are by looking you up in one of the public geolocation databases. So what are you gaining by not registering?
I'm not being facetious here; I really do want to understand why people are opposed to registering an account. Given the disadvantages of IP editing, there must be some offsetting advantages which makes it the right choice for some people.RoySmith(talk)21:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Wehave our reasons. And there are more of us still around than you might at first think.
Not everyone is so philosophical about it, and as tongue-in-cheek asWP:WNCAA may be, it's not actually unpersuasive on its own merits; for some that's sufficient. For others remaining unregistered is their way of trying to help others get involved with the project and indeed to induce future registrations[17].
Contrarianism also plays a role. And of course historically, and unsurprisingly given the type of people attracted to editing here, there were some who saw their role as challengers of perceived injustice and others who thought that by pushing back against needless demandsbeing difficult if you will they were performing a genuine public service by keeping the project from becoming too rules-bound and authoritarian. Never all that common, and rare now, but every so often I do catch a familiar old scent.
As for myself, I'll concede accounts offer greater anonymity, and access to some additional tools though making use of some script assistance while logged out isn't that hard if one is so inclined. Even so my ideals, however dated, are what they are. Editing unregistered is a matter not only of habit, but of fidelity. We all have our roles and for some of us that means being forever IPs. Not that in my case it really matters much given how limited my activity has been over the last decade.
I suppose one day all of us relics will be gone. Long-term trends are negative, quite the contrast with early wiki culture which was largely hostile to registration, when it was even permittedsome will ascribe that merely to the outsize influence of Ward's Wiki but believe me when I say it ran deeper. The net as a whole has just not come along as free and open as hoped. So some day yes, but not yet.184.152.65.118 (talk)01:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I was looking at the contributions pages for temporary accounts on other language editions of Wikipedia to get a feel for how this will work. I discovered that, under the new temporary account system, every time an unregistered editor merelyreads a Wikipedia edition they had not previously accessed, the date, time, and language of their reading will be publicly logged.
See for exampleSpecial:CentralAuth/~2025-54321-0, who made one edit to Polish Wikipedia on 7 September, then merely read an article on German Wikipedia on 3 October (without making any edits in German). Another example:Special:CentralAuth/~2025-100123, who edited Polish Wikipedia and then read the German, Serbian, and Chinese Wikipedias about 13 hours later.
I find this odd. Why does the software have to keep track of mere reads instead of actual edits? If the goal of the new system is to improve privacy, then this seems like a step backwards.98.170.164.88 (talk)04:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello. This is a quirk of the account registration system in MediaWiki. Every time a user visits a project that they haven't visited before, the account "attaches" to the new wiki. This works similarly for registered accounts too (example). Since temporary accounts use the same mechanism to generate accounts, the same behavior applies to temporary accounts. --NKohli (WMF) (talk)09:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
It does the same for us logged-in users too. This is currently the only way to automatically log-in on wikis you haven't visited before that share your account because the account-creation date is a required field on each local wiki too.Aaron Liu (talk)11:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I have some questions regarding not-logged-in participants in deletion discussions and other situations where consensus is being determined. Under the old system it is allowed for these editors to participate, but it is not allowed for one person to create the appearance of being multiple people by using multiple accounts. (1) If comments by multiple temporary accounts appear to be in good faith, are we therefore forbidden from checking whether they are actually the same IP? That is, does this count as "investigation of or enforcement against vandalism, abuse, spam, harassment, disruptive behavior" or do we have to have more direct evidence of disruptive behavior to look at the IPs? (2) If a not-logged-in editor participates in good faith in a discussion but ends up getting multiple accounts (because their 90-day window expired or they disallow cookies), should they be required to disclose that these accounts are the same editor, or if not how are other editors without IP view access supposed to know this? (3) If they are not required to disclose the continuity of their identity in such cases, how are we supposed to distinguish a good-faith not-logged-in editor with multiple temporary accounts from a not-good-faith editor who is deliberately creating multiple temporary accounts to create the appearance of being multiple participants? —David Eppstein (talk)05:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: (1) I would say that you need some kind of reason to suspect disruptive editing in order to look at the IPs, so ifcomments by multiple temporary accounts appear to be in good faith and are not disruptive, then it doesn't seem like we need to check the IPs. However, if there is some kind of reason to suspect that the temporary accounts might be the same person masquerading as multiple people, we can look at the IPs. It seems to me that the bar for looking at the IPs of a temporary account with TAIV is lower than the bar for looking at the IPs of a regular account with CheckUser: you do not have to explicitly provide a reason in the log to check the IP of a TA like you would for CU, and thelog of temporary account IP accesses is only available to checkusers, and it does not seem like anyone is really auditing it at the moment. (This is merely an observation... not an encouragement for people to start revealing all IPs willy-nilly.) (2) I see this as not too different from before, in the case where a user was on adynamic IP address that changes frequently through no fault of the user. If one person ends up with multiple TAs in the same discussion, they should not intentionally participate in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Relevant policy here would beWP:EWLO: I don't think they would necessarily berequired to always make a disclosure, but they should not be actively trying to deceive or mislead us. (3) We would look at the behavior to distinguish between good-faith and bad-faith users of multiple temporary accounts. Specifically, are the accounts engaging in the behaviors that are prohibited atWP:ILLEGIT? Are they deliberately trying to mislead us, or did their TA change naturally? If we ask them directly, do they answer truthfully? For what it's worth, the criteria forWP:TAIV access is pretty intentionally low, so hopefully it should be easy to get IP access for most members of the community that would need it.Mz7 (talk)18:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I cannot emphasize this enough, with a level of privacy now afforded to logged-out editors, certain admins need to seriouslystop letting schoolchildren inserting random characters into articles hurt their feelings, because now if they're not careful they're outing the identity of a minor with the block logs (whereas before the minor did it to themselves). If they're on a vandalism spree that needs to be addressed, but a little kid writing "hi" or "poop" on an article one time (and self-reverting on top of it) after the IP (which represents thousands of users) came off of a ten year block is not "persistent vandalism" (it's arguably not even vandalism under policy; "test editing" isn't considered vandalism). Personally, I think there needs to be some training for some of these networking-illiterate (for lack of a nicer term) folks who can't tell the difference between the inevitable (i.e. out of over 60,000 people, someone in Port Charlotte will vandalize or test edit Wikipedia once in a while, and ditto for a school district/university population of comparable size) and a problem that needs to be addressed, and there needs to be consequences for anyone who decides to be heavy-handed. Just my two cents.PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk)00:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It depends on the range. On one hand, if an admin blocks a temporary account along with a /24 belonging to theOkaloosa County School Board (for example) in response to a complaint atWP:AIV, or if that temporary account stops editing shortly after the range block, people can connect the dots and it suddenly becomes easier to identify Jane who is in fourth grade and is obsessed with carrot cake because someone can find aPinterest profile of a person named Jane Doe located Okaloosa County, Florida who is obsessed with carrot cake, or maybe aMinecraft user whose handle is her real name Jane Doe and has a carrot cake themed world. Now in an absolute worst case scenario the news channels could be reporting that a little kid connected with a predator because he was able to identify her partially because her IP was leaked over a series of dumb Wikipedia edits that were easy enough to recognize as unhelpful and revert with the click of a mouse (or even the action of a bot). The headline would be ridiculous, but it's still something wedon't want to deal with. CheckUsers already have to be careful about accidentally making such connections, and now a lot more people with less experience are going to have to exercise the same discipline. On the other hand, if an admin is blocking /16 range for a major ISP like CenturyLink or Comcast to block one school, maybe the admin is being a little overzealous with his/her blocks. There's no reason to block millions of people to stop one kid or even 50 kids from writing something silly on an article.PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk)13:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Users stop editing for far more reasons than simply a range block being issued. And you'll find a ton of users that become inactive all the time, and some of these inactivities are bound to coincide with a rangeblock. Not everybody with an extremely common name that stops editing after a range block did so because they fell within the range block. Far more commonly, they stop editing simply because they do not decide to continue editing.Aaron Liu (talk)14:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm speaking from experience with CheckUsers issuing blocks on IPs; there have been times I've been able to identify the IP address of a user just by looking at their block log. The exact details of how or why do not matter as much as the obvious increased probability of someone's identity being outed with less experienced administrators (and even non-adminstrators) now having access to private information (which would have been public before and therefore no big deal). Also, I'm well aware of wide range blocks. To say I think they're detrimental to the project is sugar coating it for the sake of civility.PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk)14:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Sometimes you can assume who a rangeblock is intended for, but the common practice is to have another CU place a rangeblock or long-term IP hardblock for you to obfuscate such connections. Most of those possible connections you've assumed are likely a CU picking up a block for another CU. As far as the type of disruption that the wide rangeblocks are most often preventing here's a recent example from my own talk page,I will work to ensure you never feel safe at an WMF event ever again... I'll find your wife and tell her exactly what you are, a pedo£%ile protecting scumbag who tried to cover his tracks when he got caught. Maybe she'll be the one to shoot you? There is an enormous amount of serious abuse and threats that too many editors have to deal with on a day to day basis. Having to block wide ranges is unfortunate, but they are a necessary part of dealing with abuse on Wikipedia. Or maybe people should have to just deal with death threats and abuse? I guess that's always an option, too.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)16:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I should clarify that there is a huge difference between enacting a large rangeblock toattempt stop a dedicated idiot like the one you have descibed andephebiphobically enacting a large rangeblock to stop sporadic test editing and silly vandalism from elementary and high schools (and blocking public libraries, research hospitals, Ivy League univerities, and whatever else falls in that wide /16 range in the process), something I know for a fact some admins do. I've been on the receiving end of what you are describing and am well aware of the disruption someone like that can cause.PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk)17:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Another factor is that many good editors get fed up and leave after spending a year defending the articles they wrote or maintain from test edits and other idiocy. Many passing IPs (now TAs) change dates or remove critical words likenot to change the meaning of a sentence. Hilarious, but significant numbers of very good editors abandon Wikipedia because they feel that they are not supported. In addition to what has been described above, a range block can help retain good editors.Johnuniq (talk)04:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Clarification
Just checking —The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation means that the cookie expiration isnot refreshed by subsequent visits by the same browser? So an "IP editor" will get a series of user names – a new name per browser every 90 days? Which means that any discussions in the user's talk page will need to be linked or moved to the new account if the discussion is to continue? Is the cookie lifetime 90 days on all wikis? —GhostInTheMachinetalk to me15:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Since its not possible to delete an account on Wikipedia due to attribution issues, does it mean temporary talk pages will be kept after 90 days? Messages from IP users get deleted after a few years, but remains visible in the edit history.JuniperChill (talk)18:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
It is up to each wiki to decide how they want to handle the talk pages of old temporary accounts (leave them unchanged, blank them, or delete them). I don't expect enwiki to delete them.jlwoodwa (talk)23:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
@KHarlan (WMF) "Yes, the cookie is per-browser..." If a user has 5 or 6 browsers, like one of my test computers has, this means they would get a different temp account on each browser, right? Does this have any real ramifications?
I don't see how this is any different than people with dynamic IPs completely changing their identity (my old ISP would give me a IP on one of several /16 ranges for example) in the same amount of time. Plus things have changed a lot since the 2000s (which is where a lot of people on the wiki seem to be stuck, no insult intended), a person can walk through downtown somewhere and access a variety of IP ranges like flavors of ice cream at Baskin Robins thanks to Wi-Fi using different ISPs at different businesses.PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk)13:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
How do blocks interact with TA expiration?
A couple of related questions:
Is the expiration time of a TA visible (publicly, to admins, to CUs?)
If I try to block a TA for longer than its remaining lifetime, what happens?
To the best of my understanding: 1. it is 90 days after the temporary account was created (globally, not locally), which is public information, and 2. it has the same effect as blocking it for the remainder of its lifetime (modulo a brief difference in autoblock behavior at the end, perhaps).jlwoodwa (talk)01:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
To answer your first question: When a temporary account has expired, this information is shown publicly on Special:CentralAuth. For example, at testwiki the temporary account~2024-10120 is shown as having expired. I am not aware of an interface that shows when a temporary account is expected to expire (though you could estimate this by looking at when the account was registered and comparing it to the current date)
To answer your second question: Any block placed on a temporary account for longer than it's remaining lifetime will succeed. We do not prevent the blocking of temporary accounts for more than 90 days. One advantage with this is because there may be a need to track block evasion. For example:
A temporary account is editing disruptively and an admin decides to block the user behind the temporary account indefinitely (intentionally)
The admin communicates that this block is indefinite and editing the wiki again would be considered block evasion
The user ignores this and, after waiting till their old temporary account expires and waiting for any autoblocks expire, they edit again getting a new temporary account
A different admin receiving the report of block evasion can more easily see that there is still an active block on the first temporary account that applies to the user behind the account. Without a block longer than the expiry time of the temporary account, then the different admin would need to check that the intention was to block the user for more than the lifetime of their old temporary account
If there is no need to block the user behind the temporary account, then a block of 90 days as standard would be enough to always ensure that they are prevented from editing throughout the lifetime of that temporary account
"If there is no need to block the user behind the temporary account, then a block of 90 days as standard would be enough to always ensure that they are prevented from editing throughout the lifetime of that temporary account" Under what circumstances would we ever block a temp account without the need to block "the user behind the account"? Blocks (excluding some username blocks, which aren't relevant here) arealways for the user behind the account, and not for the account itself.Fram (talk)09:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that blocks are intended for the user behind the account and so in probably all cases the best approach would be to block the temporary account indefinitely.
I mentioned the last point primarily from the point of view that some wikis have requested that we change the default blocking period for temporary accounts on their wiki to 90 days (T398626). Without a change in blocking policy to indicate 90 day blocks apply to the user indefinitely, these 90 day blocks would no longer prevent that user from editing under the blocking policy after their original temporary account expires.WBrown (WMF) (talk)09:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps one nice thing about temporary accounts will be that they can be blocked like regular users, without special rules about block duration. There are many IPs out there that have only gotten 36 hour blocks or one week blocks, when a full account would have normally been indef'd. In other words, it simplifies blocking. (And of course the normal indef appeals process can be used. Indefinite is not infinite.) –Novem Linguae(talk)21:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
It's also quicker to not have to change indef to 90 days. And it also signals that the admin's intent is an indef rather than a time duration. –Novem Linguae(talk)22:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Are blocks on previous temporary accounts only visible to admins, or are they visible all editors with TAIV permissions?CMD (talk)03:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis the latter - TAIV gives you access to other temp accounts from the same IP.
To check the blocks on previous temp accounts from the same IP, use IP reveal, check the list of temp accounts using the IP, and then see if any have been blocked.
In addition (thanks to @WBrown (WMF) for this part), if the active temporary account is editing similar pages to other inactive temporary accounts, you could initially assume that these older temporary accounts are the same person as the active temporary account (especially if the topic isn't that active for editors). You could then confirm this by using IP reveal to look up the IPs of the temporary accounts you found and compare to the active temporary account.
Hey @ChildrenWillListen, yeah, I'm almost certain I've seen that question too but I'm not sure what you mean. A couple of thoughts:
How would you like to have them flagged, given that there are so many IP ranges? You can see different temp accounts using the same IP onSpecial:IPContributions (it will be blueified once temp accounts get introduced). You can read more about this page in the guideTemporary Accounts/Access to IP.
Definitely it's not possible to flag any connections publicly.
In the context of tracking abusers, we're trying to move away from treating IPs as the main identifiers. The connection between a person and a temp account, their editing patterns and other metadata is much tighter than that between the user and the IP. As an example, we expect thatIP reputation filters will be useful in mitigating abuse without needing to target a specific IP address.
If the address is an IPv6, any temp acccount within the same /64 should be flagged. It is practically impossible for it to belong to someone else. We can filter by user agent here, particularly for IPv4 addresses since there's a possibility they're behind a NAT and the address is shared with multiple households.
Why not? We're just linking ~2025-3999-1 with ~2025-4002-3. No IP info is revealed. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be totally wrong here.
Currently, for people with TAIV access, you need two operations to find temporary accounts within an IP range, much like with the CheckUser tool. The more time you spend combating abuse, the less time you have to, well,build an encyclopedia. If this feature is introduced, a person can simply see at a glance that these accounts belong to the same network, and report/block if needed, which also reduces the number of IP reveals needed, improving temporary account privacy in the long run.
As forthe connection between a person and a temp account, their editing patterns and other metadata is much tighter than that between the user and the IP, while this may be true in the short term, people can and will change their behavior, and sometimes technical evidence is the only way you can link them.
The answer to 2 is because you could link one temporary account to multiple IPs, eg. home and work. However, I agree with 3. RegardingHow would you like to have them flagged, it would be useful if a temporary account contributions pages included any underlying blocks for IPs, and this could just include the type of block and reason without specifying the IPs. Similarly, any IP contributions page should on that page include blocks given to linked temporary accounts (presumably there is no need to hide the account name that way around).CMD (talk)13:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
The answer to 2 is because you could link one temporary account to multiple IPs, eg. home and work.: No, because no IPs are revealed in the process. All you see is ~2025-3999-1 and ~2025-4002-3 share the same IP addresses. Unless you use the TAIV tool to reveal the actual IP addresses, you cannot come to that conclusion.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)13:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Has it always been permissible to link IPs to accounts publicly. For example, if an IP user gets blocked, and a new user does the exact behaviour (or vice versa)? Of course, CUs are not allowed to use the tool to link IPs with accounts.JuniperChill (talk)00:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
If the behavioral evidence used to come to that conclusion is all public, then I believe it's always been allowed. Unlike things like a logged in user's IP address, there is no expectation of privacy for two accounts that behave the same and someone simply points out the similar behavior.WP:DUCK comes to mind. –Novem Linguae(talk)03:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): This is definitely a welcome step, but I have a few more comments:
numbers are bucketed to protect privacy: 0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11+: How does this protect privacy? If the exact number of TAs is leaked, how would a bad actor be able to find the IP address of a temporary account?
We should *not* provide any details about which specific temporary account names are active on the same IP / IPv6 /64 range. Again, why? The whole point of temporary accounts is to prevent most users from seeing the IP addresses of anonymous contributors. It isnot meant to conceal connections between different accounts operating under the same IP address/range. This information cannot be used to find the IP addresses of the underlying TAs.
Even if you don't agree with the above statement, it would be nice for people with TAIV access to be able to list the specific accounts with one click, since they would be able to do that manually anyway.
@ChildrenWillListen thanks for these questions and my apologies about the delayed response. Bucketing the numbers was a suggestion from Legal. We are talking with them about making these exact and we should have an update soon. Same goes for the second point you made -- we are currently looking into a way to show connected temporary accounts. I will be able to share more details once I have more clarity from engineering and legal about these. Thanks. --NKohli (WMF) (talk)11:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
@ChildrenWillListen: There is nearly the same probability of two or more people sharing an IPv6 /64 as being NATted behind a single IPv4 address. Homes and small organizations typically get a temporary IPv6 /64 assignment from their ISP for use on their internal network. All devices connected to the same internal network interface use one or more IPv6 addresses from the assigned /64. If you block the /64, all of the people connected to the internal network interface where it is assigned will be blocked. If you block a dynamically assigned /64 and it gets reassigned before the block expires, all of the people connected to the internal network interface where it gets reassigned will be blocked.216.126.35.228 (talk)01:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Some mobile providers will assign the same /64 to all users within a certain area, though those often are already getting anon-blocked for long periods. Workplaces yes, but Wikipedia editing is not a common enough hobby where that's an issue unless the number of employees on a network is largeand of course many employers don't want their employees editing on the clock anyway. That same relative rarity usually prevents issues when /64s are reassigned between end-users.
There have been a handful of genuine cases where one user within a household was blocked but the other, but it is to be sure an exceeding rarity. Admittedly I'm not around much, but I can't think of a case where someone's been unambiguously subject to a mistaken block for that reason since Roger Hui, and that was almost a half-decade ago.184.152.65.118 (talk)00:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Public libraries, airports, schools, and universities all come to mind. Some of these have tens of thousands of people accessing the internet at the same time.PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk)02:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I do not think those APIs currently return whether a temporary account is considered expired. We can expose this information via the API if this would be useful for scripts (thepagetriagelist API returns whether temporary accounts shown in the API results are expired, so it should be easy to replicate this in another API).
If you could file a feature request on Phabricator for this along with any relevant use cases you see for it? If you'd prefer not, I can file it (if you give me a ping with any relevant examples you would see it being used for). Thanks and happy editing,WBrown (WMF) (talk)20:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
WMF, in theFAQ it is claimed in the section "Would disallowing or limiting anonymous editing be a good alternative?" that this is "unlikely" because at the Portuguese wikipedia "On the other hand, there is evidence that this came at the cost of a significant reduction in non-reverted edits, weakening the growth of content in the Portuguese Wikipedia, and potentially leading to other negative long-term effects." As I described above, these claims seem false, and the growth or decline of ptwiki seems exactly in line with that of other large Wikipedia versions. There is no significant extra loss of new articles, user edits, or new editors compared to these other Wikipedias. See e.g. the number of active editors[18]. So based on what numbers do you claim these statements to be true?Fram (talk)16:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm very curious about this as well. Because the public research I've seen suggests it didn't harm ptwiki, but have had multiple conversations with various WMF staffers who firmly believe it did. While Iexpressed reasons other than this above why I supported keeping IP editing, that was before I realized thatno matter what temp accounts reset after 90 days. So understanding what evidence we have about this would be important for me in any such discussion about disabling IP editing. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)16:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I too am interested in this question, and shareFram's concern that causal inference in statistics is very hard and at minimum a properdifference-in-difference model is necessary to attempt to capture the causal effect of disallowing IP editing on content, which we don't seem to have.KevinL (akaL235·t·c)17:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I want to first clarify about the metric. The leading metric we looked at for ptwiki isNet non-reverted content edits - defined as the number of content (main-namespace) edits that were not reverted within 48 hours, excluding bot edits, reverted edits, and edits that reverted other edit. We chose this metric because we felt it was most representative of the impact on the community's content health as a result of this change. Unfortunately this metric is not displayed by default onstats.wikimedia.org.
We have measured the impact of this change three times since the change was implemented:In August 2021,June 2022 andApril 2024. Each time we saw a similar downward trend inNet non-reverted content edits. You can see how the numbers compare over the four years in themost recent report, Table 6. In Q1 of this year we saw a decline of as much as 36% compared to pre-restriction days. We also compared this trend with Spanish, German, French and Italian Wikipedias and did not see the same trend on those wikis.
You are right in noting that there have been many positive outcomes from this change as well - lower blocks, reverts, page protections -- all point to a decrease in vandalism on the project. The feedback from the survey was quite positive as well. However, we do not think the decline in net non-reverted content edits is worth the trade-off. @Benjamin Mako Hill and his team wrote about theValue of IP Editing to offer their perspective on this too in case you haven't seen it.
Lastly, I want to point out that before embarking on temporary accounts our team seriously considered turning off logged out editing as a viable alternative. Some of you might recall that we put out acall to communities that want to experiment with this change. TheFarsi Wikipedia experiment was a result of this call. If this option did turn out to be viable, it would have been the easier way out - way less work than temporary accounts. Unfortunately the results from ptwiki and fawiki were not what we had hoped for. --NKohli (WMF) (talk)13:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I find it disingenuous that you never mentioned the only metric that matters: the editors of ptwiki are happy with banning IP edits, and they have no intention of going back. Moreover, the metric you do focus on,net non-reverted content edits clearly shows that ptwiki was already in decline before it.Tercer (talk)14:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that editor happiness is the only metric that matters. I am here to serve our readers and so if our readers are being hurt by having old information, when new information would be possible, or (more importantly) incorrect information when correct information would be possible, that matters a great deal to me. It also matters a great deal to me about whether turning off IP editing harms the pipeline to gaining more new registered editors. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)17:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
You don't get new information or new editors if editors are unhappy. If editors are unhappy they leave and the project dies.Tercer (talk)20:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I generally tend to express my unhappiness instead of leaving right away if there is something I don't like, since I have invested a lot in the project. I imagine it's the same in other wikisIta140188 (talk)16:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you are a very dedicated editor that will stay no matter what, but you can't generalize this to everyone. Editors come and go all the time. I don't think there's really any doubt about whether unhappy editors tend to leave the project.
And in this particular case WMF has already been clear that it will push through regardless of editors' opinions, so "expressing your unhappiness" won't make any difference.Tercer (talk)15:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, it's not a good look reputation-wise if readers are exposed to more vandalism or long-term abuse, which they most likely will be in the long run with the temporary accounts feature. Not all vandalism is reverted quickly. For instance, to pick a relatively low-stakes example, if temporary accounts had been active here in May, I would never havediscovered this edit because of the 90-day cutoff for retrieving IP information (seethis comment of mine for more context). If push came to shove I would absolutely support discontinuing IP editing ... but we're basically damned if we do, damned if we don't. When I was invited to participate in theWMF's let's talk program, one of the reasons I agreed to do so was to bring up my concerns about this cutoff. ButI well know why it's been implemented.Graham87 (talk)09:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the only big issue with this is that everyone's complaining about traceability, since this doesn't really affect the reverting vandalism side of things aside from tracing. And this whole TA thing is literally reducing traceability, so you can't really get around that despite any attempt to do so. The alternative would be to set no expiration or longer expiration to the cookies, but then it would be basically 'we replaced IPs with something that looks a bit better but functions like an IP'2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:900C:A6A9:FD99:F70 (talk)14:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Traceability is my main concern as well (see my comments above). In their FAQ, the WMF said that they are "open to extending" the 90 day period for IP retention. Maybe it should be increased?
In the same answer, they mention we could use "behavioral evidence or patterns of editing" but that's a bit hard to do for the occasional vandals with little edits.ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!14:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I could also see cases where a range IP user that clears cookies could either purposely or accidentally sock in a low volume way that would be really hard to notice based on behavioral evidence alone. In a recent AfD, I encountered an IP who nominated the article and then later voted when their range changed slightly. I don't think they intended to be malicious but I was able to flag that I thought these two edits were by the same user. But there wasn't really anything behavioral that stood out to connect the two edits and in the case of temp accounts, I wouldn't have been able to identify them as being from the same editor. Non-admins who frequently close discussions should probably have TAIV.Sariel Xilo (talk)16:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the metric was already in decline before the date. It seemed to be just jumping up and down within the same range, but after that there was a very clear downward trend.Aaron Liu (talk)11:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
There were roughly 195k non-reverted edits in 2017, 132k in 2019 (the baseline), and 107k in 2023. The decline from 2017 to 2019 was roughly 47%, much larger than the 22% decline from 2019 to 2023 that WMF considers so disastrous.
I don't think these numbers can be correct. I just checked, and the last 5000 non-minor mainspace non-bot edits on ptwiki[19] go back 2 days and 3 hours, which equals some 70,000 edits this month. This would mean that about half of those edits are not counted as "net non-reverted content edits", despite the much lower revert rate since disabling IP editing (revert rate in 2024 was below 6%). Is there any explanation anywhere what they actually consider to be "content edits"?Fram (talk)16:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Content edits are identified based on whether they are from a content namespace. This is themonthly average data (no idea why it's the heading of the first column instead of the last four); the numbers average all the monthly totals within that quarter instead of being a sum total.Aaron Liu (talk)01:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree withWe chose this metric because we felt it was most representative of the impact on the community's content health as a result of this change. If community systems are overwhelmed in a community that has IP editing (with or with-out Temp Accounts) the edits that stay unreverted may be, on the whole, a net negative to the project and to its readers. Put another way: if a community is overwhelmed then the net non-reverted edits are lower pre-change than policies and guidelines would suggest they should be and if they are then not overhwelmed afterwards, may be showing the true rate. I also am not sure I agree that it is the only metric worth looking at - as I indicated above statistics about overall community health in terms of editor registration, retention, and "moving up the ranks" - also feel worth examination. I would suggest English Wikipedia is not currently overhwelmed and so we do have a good baseline - something I don't know was the case for ptwiki - but I do worry that these changeswill overwhelm the system because of the extra work that it is going to require to dealing with unregistered accounts. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)17:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 I did not mean to imply that this was the only metric worth looking at. Like you can see in the report we did examine multiple other metrics and also carried out community survey(s) to assess how the editors feel about the change. However this metric stands out as important to us because it indicates a sustained loss in high-quality contributions and has consistently been on a decline in ptwiki since the restriction was in place.
I would also like to add that our team has been continually working on delivering tools to assist with anti-vandalism work. hCaptcha, GlobalContributions, IP Info, AbuseFilter improvements (including IP reputation filters), UserInfo card etc to name a few. We strongly care about moderator burden and this is reflected inour team's priorities. If you have ideas for how we can do these better, your thoughts are welcome on thetalk page. --NKohli (WMF) (talk)11:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@NKohli (WMF) I did read the report and did see other metrics. In the most recent report the two other takeaways were favorable on disabling IP editing. The fact that the foundation has decided that the metric which showed a decrease is so alarming as to say it's a failure suggests that the WMF does think it's the only metric that matters. I appreciate you answer my question - I really do - but I think my original assessmentthe public research I've seen suggests it didn't harm ptwiki. needs to be amended tothe public research I've seen suggests mixed results on ptwiki which does not, for me, justify the labeling the Foundation has chosen to attach to it. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)14:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that@MuddyB: complained about the surge of vandalism on the Swahili Wikipedia (where he is an admin), following the enabling of temporary accounts, though as I understand IP editing may have been previously disabled outright on this wiki.[20]Hemiauchenia (talk)23:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
And of course WMF couldn't care less about the wishes of swwiki, and rammed temporary accounts down their throats anyway.Tercer (talk)08:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Temporary accounts are going to be "rammed" down everyone's throats as they are being made for legal reasons. For better or worse, office actions exist for these sorts of matters. (And curiously Swahili Wikipedia was another one that had Vector2022 imposed over the wishes of the community. That said, Vector2022 has also now become universal across all wikis, as temporary accounts will also.)CMD (talk)10:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Please read the thread before commenting. The subject is banning IP edits as an alternative to introducing temporary accounts. It would also solve the legal problem.Tercer (talk)11:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding the implications of the proposal. Banning IP edits is not an alternative to temporary accounts, both actions are technically independent of each other. Temporary accounts are becoming implemented whether IP edits are allowed or not. Even if en.wiki responds by banning article editing by IPs, we will still have to figure out how to work with temporary accounts on talkpages.CMD (talk)14:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Of course it is an alternative. If IP edits are banned there's no longer a legal reason for implementing temporary accounts. Are you claiming that WMF would nevertheless implement temporary accounts? Just out of spite? I find that hard to believe.Tercer (talk)14:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Why do you assume that when people say we should ban IP editing they are only referring to mainspace? But, yeah, as a practical matter, anonymous editing exists (and thus temporary accounts also exist) and that's not going to change any time soon. So the community needs to figure out how to handle them.RoySmith(talk)14:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the WMF would implement temporary accounts because they already exist and have already been rolled out and will continue to be rolled out as a standard part of the underlying software for every wiki, whatever en.wiki does, rather than out of spite.I assume that in general the IP editing bans will be likely called for with the main space in mind because of the consistent raising of the pt.wiki precedent, as well as on-wiki precedent regarding how we currently handle protections and even weird situations like the ARBPIA ECP talk page restrictions.CMD (talk)15:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
To be fair I don't think the latest surge in vandalism on swwiki is related to temporary accounts.WP:LTA/Wikinger decided to target swwiki in the past weeks/months on an almost daily basis. The LTA uses rapidly changing proxy IPs which is a burden to admins with or without temporary accounts.
I did a quick check and it seems to me that none of the swwiki admins enabled their access to temporary account IPs which also means they can't use features like IP autoreveal – and have no way of knowing (except based on behaviour) if a temporary account is a newbie or a potential LTA.
@Johannnes89 It's chaos—completely. Temp aacounts actors aee now on my blog, commenting gibberish. Good thing Wordpress can't comment without approval. Ditching them every now and then.Muddyb (talk)13:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I can’t see the blog comments but I bet all of them were written byWP:LTA/Wikinger. I don’t think the situation on your home wiki would be much different without temporary accounts (except that some tools currently require a few more clicks). Wikinger has annoyed different projects for years and unfortunately he currently chooses to annoy swwiki. You might want to checkmw:Extension:IPReputation/AbuseFilter variables in case that’s helpful to fight against his proxy abuse (unfortunately many open proxy IPs are not known to IPoid).Johannnes89 (talk)17:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
What's the point of comparing different months in different years (August 2021, June 2022 and April 2024)? This will not eliminate seasonality effects. Maybe it's not that 2024 saw less edits, but that April has generally less edits than August or June?Ita140188 (talk)16:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it inevitable that Wikipedia projects will disable anonymous editing in the future. As projects grow, the opportunity for anonymous editors to do anything productive continues to shrink. (1) The level of knowledge necessary to contribute positively to the projects keeps increasing. More policies, more guidelines, more standards, more templates. This growth in required knowledge is glacially slow but inexorable. (2) There is ever increasing lack of ability for editors to contributein general due to the (ever unattainable, thankfully) goal of completing the project. The lack of productive work possibilities gives ever decreasing opportunities to anonymous users to contribute positively. (3) The ratio of administrators to the amount of work administrators need to do continues to worsen. Those are just a few of the factors in play that are driving this reality. Imagine, if you will, Wikipedia 50 years from now. There will always be growth to be sure, but the opportunity for anonymous users to do anything will be almost absent. There needs to be a long term strategy to reverse these trends, else new blood coming into the projects will die. We're already in a long term drought. --Hammersoft (talk)14:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
There won't be any wikipedia 50 years from now. What wikipedia does is harness the energy of many people to read books, newspapers, journal articles, etc, and distill them into encyclopedia articles. In way less than 50 years from now, AI will be good enough to make that an obsolete concept.RoySmith(talk)01:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, 50 years is quite optimistic. I can see the project lasting for another decade or two, but beyond that... I'm not so sure.Some1 (talk)01:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
AI will be good enough to decide what is true? Leaving this to AI (ie. most likely to a private corporation) will never be acceptable, no matter how "good" the AI is. Wikipedia works because it's based on consensus among people.Ita140188 (talk)16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Nah, there's enough spare capital Wikipedia won't go under. Most likely in 50 years it will be likeJane's Fighting Ships, minimal readers, but powerful nostalgic legacy project the caretaker's won't let go of. Server load drops with readership, and hosting fees are minimal. I would even venture the brand will be around in some form a century from now.184.152.65.118 (talk)23:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I would second what Aaron Liu says. Doubtless editing has become more difficult than it was on average even a decade ago. At the same time we are always building new things and updating old ones. Massive amounts of information are added by casual and one time editors and quite often fully in compliance with policy, or easily tweaked to be so, without those doing the edits knowing the name of even one policy here.184.152.65.118 (talk)23:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I think, let's see how it goes, but certainly keep this option open if it proves untenable, as I suspect it well might. I'm not tremendously impressed with WMF over this whole thing; there was a lot of pushback on the idea, so they came up with "We're legally required to do this!", but then when they were asked "By what law, where?", they wouldn't answer that.SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person’, including an online identifier that identifies the person directly or indirectly. Like an account identifier created just for that person that persists across IP addresses? I still think it's a lot of work to have gone through just to have communities disable IP/anon editing entirely.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)10:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the defense is that it is the equivalent of a anonymized, randomly generated username. The data is (for all intents and purposes) anonymized and after 90 days, and a "random party" will not be able to map your TA to you with any level of certainty.Sohom (talk)16:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade, You are framing the events in the wrong order: "We're legally required to do this" (WMF does nothing for a while) -> "We had some light regulator scrutiny" -> "WMF scrambles to implement IP Masking" -> "Community outrage at the initial idea" -> "WMF slows down, spends a lot more time building some anti-abuse tooling around it" (and now here we are). Also, the reason the WMF is cagey about why they need to implement it is because it's typically bad legal strategy to publicly proclaim "we are currently breaking this exact provision of GDPR". (And, yes we are probably flouting multiple privacy laws including but not limited toGDPR's absolute stance on IP addresses andCCPA's slightly more nuanced take on IP addresses) It's frustrating as a volunteer but I think understandable from the point of the view of the WMF.Sohom (talk)16:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
It’s also bad legal strategy to publicly proclaim that you’re going to violate theePrivacy Directive instead of the GDPR, by openly admitting in an FAQ that your cookies are not strictly necessary. But here we are.98.97.4.79 (talk)02:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
This cookie is necessaryiff you chose to edit. (If your argument is somehow "we should not ever set a cookie", I'd like to see you defend the concept of a session identifier.) Regarding the ability to refuse the cookie, you are welcomed to refrain from editing and the cookie will not be set at all. (And if you clear your cookies regularly, a new one will be set, every session). If you do edit, you will be given a anonymous identity that will be destroyed/expired after 90 days. I don't see how any of this violates the ePrivacy Directive.Sohom (talk)02:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
The cookie is not “strictly necessary for the delivery of a service requested by the user”, because the FAQ admits that editing will work just fine even if a browser discards the cookie. The purpose of the cookie is apparently to reduce the number of extra database entries created by the WMF’s own software, which is not a service requested by the user, so users must be presented with the option to accept or decline it. Sites can’t just say that cookies are “necessary” for their own private reasons; the law would have no effect if that were the case.98.97.4.79 (talk)03:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Again, you have the explicit ability to click cancel on a edit or not edit at all which would be a declination to the cookie (and a declination does not adversely affect your reading experience). Also, the cookie is required not because of "the number of extra database entries" created, but rather for attributing the edit to a user, a service you request and agree to by clicking the big blue "Publish changes" (or the large "Reply" button). By doing that you are agreeing that the cookie essential for attribution is set on your device. Your argument does not make sense in this context.Sohom (talk)03:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, to put things into context Wikimedia's infrastructure is largely open-source in a way that no other top-10 website is. The Foundation does not share any identifiers, and has a privacy policy that is much more detailed than any other top-10 site. If you are looking for technical privacy violations, you are barking up the wrong tree here. The search engine you used to get to this site probably collects a order of magnitude more data about you than Wikimedia will ever get from it's temporary account rollout.Sohom (talk)03:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
“Agree to the tracking cookies or else we won’t let you post” is exactly the sort of arrangement not allowed under the ePrivacy Directive.98.97.4.79 (talk)03:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose.
Surely "the service as can be provided with a specific amount of labor" is the service? We could, in a strictly literal sense, serve pages as printed paper via FedEx, employing millions of clerks and envelope-stuffers, and this would require no cookies at all, but I scarcely think this would prove they were unnecessary all along.jp×g🗯️09:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@Sohom Datta I wonder if the cookie would be unnecessary if it was technically possible to store all the device-identifying info at the host. Or is that even worse from a data collection standpoint? If course, the mechanism won't change this late in the game.David10244 (talk)06:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
So the take away here is that despite claims to the contrary, there is no evidence at all that the disabling of IP editing at Portuguese Wikipedia had any actual negative consequences (i.e. results not also felt at languages whichdidn't disable IP editing or which weren't present at Portuguese Wikipedia before the disabling)? It seems that Portuguese wiki flourishes just as well (or as badly) as other languages in all meaningful statistics, that they are not considering reversing their choice, and that they have a lot less vandalism to revert. I suppose the WMf will adapt their FAQ and other documentation to correctly present this?Fram (talk)10:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
The "Portuguese wiki flourishes just as well (or as badly)", I would not term a "reduction in good faith unreverted edits" in such a manner. Yes, editor morale is up, but there are less contributions overall potentially having less vandalism to revert but also potentially hurting the readers in terms of how updated the information is (or not?), make of that what you will. The answer is up for debate and to my understanding the WMF has decided to take the more pessimistic interpretation of data here (which is still valid within this context and does not constitute a misrepresentation). From your POV, you want to take the more positive interpretation due to your entrenched position/expected outcome of "turning IP addresses should not cause problems and instead will improve morale". What you have identified are a bunch of threats of validity, but these threats of validity are coming from a position of "I expected to see a different result" and the real answer is "there are indicators of a reduction in the number of edits but we don't really know for sure".Sohom (talk)12:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
They have taken the one metric which vaguely supports their position if you don't consider that the same trend was visible before IP editing was disabled. And from that, they decide "Would disallowing or limiting anonymous editing be a good alternative? Unlikely." But sure, my "entrenched position", which is not the "real answer", is the issue here. Your "we don't really know for sure" is not the same as stating "unlikely".
I do wonder how many of the "non-reverted edits" prior to the disabling of IP edits were just unconstructive edits which were not found because the other editors couldn't catch them all. When I e.g. think back to the time IP article creation was allowed on enwiki, I recall that while many poor creations were found quickly, we still had a much larger number of unacceptable new articles which lasted for longer than 48 hours. If the same applies to "non-reverted edits" on ptwiki, then the decline in that number is even less of a sign of a problem. It's too bad that this metric happens to be the one we can't compare for ourselves (unlike the other stats, which turn out to indicate no problems at ptwiki compared to other wikis).Fram (talk)15:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm saying is that I think the data is up for interpretation, you are interpreting the data in a very specific way (that reflect your biases) and then heavily implying/making loaded assumptions about the WMF intentions based on that and trying to strong-arm that conclusion. (to be blunt) I think the WMF's interpretation of the data is also a valid perspective on the data (which does not invalidate other perspectives including yours). While I disagree with your heavily implied conclusion of "they cherry picked data", I agree that the WMF should have done a better job of distinguishing between subtle vandalism and good-faith edits, but I view that as a much more subjective metric that can be infinitely bikeshed and argued about, so I do understand why the WMF went with the specific parameter that they did.Sohom (talk)16:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
You should read again the FAQ entry. WMF wrote that "The results have been largely harmful", and "we cannot say that disabling logged-out editing on any project is a beneficial solution". Such strong conclusions simply do not follow from this ambiguous data. And yes, it does reek of ideological blindness.Tercer (talk)17:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I have read the FAQ, you are quoting editorialized text out of context. Most studies/report/research present a broad conclusion ("we found X"), while underlying that are always caveats and assumptions about other factors (X, Y, Z) possibly being (ir)relevant. If we decided to demand the level of rigour that you demanding from the WMF, such that no statement can be ever be stated unless every possible confounder (X, Y and Z) was fully resolved, we'd need to start revising a large majority of academic literature. Yes, the WMF should have done a better job of representing the other relevant factors but that does not detract from the fact the interpretation is valid within the data they had and you are within your right to disagree with that conclusion since you interpret the data differently.Sohom (talk)17:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Trying to get my head around the WMF claims about why the Portuguese experiment is not successful. Their 2024 study[21] claims:
Revert rate decreased by 47%
Non-reverted edits is 20% lower
Non-reverted mainspace edits 22% lower
They compare 2019/2020 with 2023/2024, which is partially a bad fit because 2020, the Covid year, was an outlier in nearly all statistics. So let's compare 2019 to 2023. This[22] is the total number of edits by editors per month. Comparing 2019 to 2023, we get
January: 155613 vs. 183959
February: 137478 vs. 156183
March: 155340 vs. 174412
April: 139152 vs. 144277
May: 169299 vs. 155512
June: 160814 vs. 150569
July: 175301 vs. 148916
August: 162330 vs. 151748
September: 158192 vs. 146822
October: 151785 vs. 156850
November: 158451 vs. 139514
December: 139242 vs. 147410
Total: 2019 = 1862997, 2023 = 1856172. I hope I have not miscalculated anything, please check!
So 6 of the 12 months show an increase in edits, 6 show a decrease. In total we have an extremely feeble decrease of 6825 edits, or less than 0.5%!
But we have a 47% "revert rate decrease", which are at least 2 edits each time which are no longer being made (1 or more edits to revert, plus the revert), for which we sadly only have a percentage, but which dropped from 10% of the edits to 6% of the edits. Meaning that (4*2) 8% of the edits being made in 2019, some 150000 edits, no longer need to be made in 2023 (and of course this also means that 75000 vandal revert edit, which are "non-reverted content edits", no longer need to be made: perhaps these are the "missing" edits in the WMF reasoning?)
Overall, it seems that we have an actual clearincrease in good edits on ptwiki between 2019 and 2023, instead of the decrease the WMF claims and uses as its basis to declare the ptwiki disabling of IP editing unadvisable.Fram (talk)16:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Edits reverting vandalism were not counted as "non-reverted content edits":
Net non-reverted content edits are defined as the number of content (main-namespace) edits that were not reverted within 48 hours, excluding bot edits, reverted edits, andedits that reverted other edits.
Thanks. Then I understand even less where they have found such a drop, when the tital number of human edits is nearly the same and the number of vandal-revert couples clearly dropped.Fram (talk)17:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello again, on behalf of theProduct Safety and Integrity team. First, thank you for all the comments above and all the effort you are putting into making this a smooth change. We wanted to acknowledge all the discussions here and on Discord, changes to existing tools, updates to meta-pages, themention in yesterday's Signpost, and other steps you've taken. We are grateful for your openness and curiosity about temporary accounts and new tools.
Technically, everything appears to be ready for deployment next week. However, we have decided topostpone the deployment to October 21st (by two weeks). We are going to take this time to hold more discussions – we want to meet with you to discuss the deployment and clarify anything about the tools you may still be unsure about. We will also put together some additional guidance and documentation to help you prepare to use the new system.
Taking this opportunity to look back at all the discussions, we wanted to comment on a couple of points:
Users who currently can block IP addresses will still be able to see and block IP addresses from temporary accounts.
From our deployments so far, we do not see evidence that volunteers are experiencing increased burden in managing abuse from logged-out editors. Since 2023, we've been working with stewards and other trusted volunteers to figure out what is needed to effectively handle abuse from temporary accounts. This appears to have been successful on other wikis, and we would not be proposing deployment if we were seeing evidence that this was going to increase community burden.
Since this project was first announced years ago, our approach has changed. Initially we called it IP Masking, which focused on just one problem – IP addresses being so visible. Now, it's called Temporary Accounts, which is not only about hiding IPs – it's an additional and separate layer, with new tools built specifically to allow more precise actions (perWikipedia:IP addresses are not people).
Some tips on the tooling:
Weupdated AbuseFilter to support matching against the IP address of a temporary account, though this isn't technically bi-directional support.
Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range. (Bear in mind that a temporary account may be using multiple IPs though.)
We expect thatIP reputation AbuseFilter filters will be useful in mitigating abuse from logged-out editors, without needing to target a specific IP address.
TheUser Info card makes it possible for anyone to see the bucketed count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
My primary ask is that you seriously consider extending the duration IP addresses are available (currently will be set at 90 days). Please monitor this experience closely, as I believe that erasure will cause us to lose some control over persistent threats. Among other things, we'll be unable to assess collateral damage from blocks as readily as we currently do, and we'll lose the ability to track periodic IP hoppers to identify the proper breadth of a range block. — rsjaffe🗣️21:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
It seems highly unlikely that will happen. However, I could see it making sense to spin up a TAIV wiki, similar to checkuser-wiki, where TAIVs could maintain data on an as-needed basis. I suspect there will be some pushback to that idea, but consider that if we provide people with a secure and convenient way to store the data, they will use that. If we don't provide that, the data will still get stored, except now it'll be on post-it notes, files on people's laptops, Google Docs, and all sorts of other places where we have less control over it.RoySmith(talk)22:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Most permanent accounts have little to no edits. Of the almost 50 million accounts we have on Wikipedia, only 2,5 million are autoconfirmed, and even then, the vast majority of them are inactive. The original reason why I wanted to create an account was so that I don't reveal my IP address, but I didn't notice I have other benefits like editing semi-protected pages (although I almost never edit protected pages even if I have the ability to), moving/renaming pages directly and gaining additional permissions (I have page mover and template editor, both of which have <500 users). I only made a few edits on the month I created the account, before properly editing from 2023.JuniperChill (talk)17:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
We've said why multiple times in this thread, if you didn't take the time to read through it, please do before commenting.Sohom (talk)02:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I have an idea to help track IP hoppers while still preserving privacy. My initial thoughts are that, when a temporary account is blocked, to add a block log entry to the underlying IP(s) as well, so that retrospective analysis could detect the amount of disruption occurring from a specific IP. To protect identity, the log entry could have a different time (e.g., rounded to the hour or to the day), and would only list the type (partial vs regular) and duration of block. Omitting the text entry from the original block prevents leakage of any identifying info in the narrative the blocking admin added. Any thoughts? — rsjaffe🗣️18:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
A minor addendum to the list of feature changes - we alsoupdated Nuke so that when temporary accounts are deployed, administrators entering an IP in the tool will fetch all pages created from any temporary account which used that IP.Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk)07:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah yes, that FAQ, where you still use the debunked claims about Portuguese wikipedia to dismiss calls to simply disable IP editing instead. Please see the sectionright above this one on the discrepancy between the numbers used by the WMF (from the sole metric which supposedly supported tjhis), and the actual numbers from this metric, and the evidence from other metrics. If you can't present this fairly, then why should we believe any of your other claims about experiences with temp accounts on other wikis?Fram (talk)09:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
What’s even the point of all this? Wouldn’t it be objectively more efficient, and far less time and energy consuming when it comes to fighting vandalism, to simply allow only registered accounts to edit? The way this entire process is being handled feels like the WMF is forcing temporary accounts on everyone without genuinely considering the many meaningful and well-reasoned concerns and proposals raised by numerous editors. Based on evidence from the Portuguese Wikipedia, it seems clear to me that disabling IP editing had no negative consequences and actually freed up a significant amount of time and energy for editors and administrators there. I genuinely don’t understand the rationale behind the WMF’s refusal to consider proposals allowing only registered accounts to edit. —EarthDude (wannatalk?)14:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
A very minor counter-vandalism consequence is that you now have to use regex search if you want to monitor talk pages by individual IP range (or do any other kind of searching-based review of temporary account edits), since the only searchable identifier unique to temporary accounts is a tilde character. Temporary account viewing permissions won't do anything to help there. Monitoring all new talk page edits by date still seems to work, though.Gnomingstuff (talk)20:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm really late on this (but still aware that this has been going on for a while), and I honestly think that this change, while probably necessary, basically kills my motivation to continue tracking LTAs on Wikipedia (I've already been inactive due to real life stressors, but I still sometimes have a few LTAs/anon vandals I look at).
As one example, I often check multiple IP ranges for evidence of a specific LTA or vandal, and with the hiding of IPs, I'll have to make way more assumptions about a particular anonymous user rather than saying "yeah, they're editing these pages + I know they've used this IP range before, so this is probably X vandal." This especially will happen when I talk to admins and "vandal fighters." I'm not sure if I'll be able to use the TAIV right to keep checking specific ranges for vandals.wizzito |say hello!16:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
e.g. I check the range50.48.0.0/16 (block range ·block log (global) ·WHOIS (partial)) pretty regularly, because I am aware of two disruptive editors on there - one (actually active right now) makes bad copyedits to racism and hate crime-related articles (seeUser:Beyond My Ken/Bad copyediting IP) and the other makes unsourced edits to mostly voice actor, Pokemon, and political articles (although theydid acknowledge their behavior relatively recently). I guess I won't be able to look at that /16 anymore and have to monitor specific pages for specific behavior, which is hard but somewhat doable.wizzito |say hello!16:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Nope, they won't yes, looking at the range will be logged (for compliance purposes), but a reason will not need to be provided.Sohom (talk)16:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, I mean, you have a pretty good justification, and they're not going to check on every single person accessing IP addresses unless they detect bot-like behavior or something like that. This is allsecurity theater for legal purposes, not something actually meant to protect the IP addresses of anonymous contributors.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)16:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@NKohli (WMF),EMill-WMF,SGrabarczuk (WMF), andSamwalton9 (WMF): we have tried to duplicate the figures you (WMF) have provided to justify why the ptwiki example shouldn't be followed, but no matter how hard we try, we don't come anywhere near the given reduction in non-reverted content edits which is used as the sole justification for this. Depending on how we count, we get no reduction at all or a very minimal one, not the 20%+ one you use (see the latter parts of the above section, with calcs by me and byUser:Aaron Liu). I (and judging from the above discussion quite a few others) really would like a better answer to this before proceeding with this.Fram (talk)08:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't involved in that experiment, just the work to ensure Nuke would continue to work & expand its capabilities for temporary accounts. Hopefully someone with more insight can get back to you soon, though it may take some time since this is about the details of data analysis.Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk)09:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Self-selection bias towards experienced editors in this thread
@Fram,Tercer, andEarthDude: You're experienced editors, and I'm an intermediate editor. Beginner editors can't find this thread. If IP editing gets disabled, what stopping experienced editors from demanding that registration also get disabled and put behind areferral system?
Why is the top 0.01% of editors ignoring thecurse of knowledge and speaking for the bottom 99.99%? When impatient new users face theuser friction of mandatory registration, they also becomeunhappy[,] leave and the project dies. On the internet, there are many existing projects that frustrate power users, but projects that frustrate new users are dying.
@Graham87:Reputation-wise,vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing is a relatively minorcriticism of Wikipedia. Immediately after, the lead section criticizesclique behavior (from contributors as well asadministrators and other top figures),social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, ... and ..., which would be worsened by disabling IP editing. Most vandalism isn't the sneaky kind that would affect ourfactual reliability. Furthermore, opponents of TAs appear mostly male, so how would disabling IP editing affect women wanting to start editing, and thesystemic bias alonggender ... lines?173.206.134.138 (talk)00:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With respect, I don't believe that your comparison to Nupedia isrelevant. Nupedia was not a wiki and was written predominately by SMEs. Wikipedia and its sister projects are by nature collaborative, so I don't think that anyone willdemand...that registration also get[s] disabled. The disabling of IP editing on ptwiki was a choice by that community and they have seen a reduction in vandalism on that project. Keep in mind that ptwiki is a lot smaller of a project than enwiki. I concur with CWL in that your accusations of gender bias in the opposition of IP editing here also appear to be unfounded;opponents of TAs appear mostly male is roughly in line with the overall gender bias of the project, which is mostly male, though in recent years involvement by female and LGBTQ+ editors has steadily increased.Aydoh8[what have I done now?]01:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
To answer the direct question, there is nothing stopping experienced editors demanding anything. Self-selection towards experienced users is always going to happen naturally. However, experienced editors are the group who have developed a variety of onboarding or outreach tools, so the potential that they would decide to end registration seems a small concern. As for the idea that social stratification would beworsened by disabling IP editing, that seems quite back to front. Disabling IP editing means there won't be a "class" of users flagging themselves as new and/or unwilling to be a recognised member of the community.CMD (talk)03:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh no, Wikipedia is going to die if we require users to create an account. Like almost every single website on the internet. That's why theinternet is dead, right? So much friction! One has to think of a username... and a password. No, that's too much effort we would be demanding, clearly our very survival depends on implementing temporary accounts.Tercer (talk)09:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I am an experienced editor, but I will oppose any proposaldemanding that registration also get disabled and put behind a referral system and I would expect others to do the same whatever happens to IP editing. That's what stops it happening.Phil Bridger (talk)17:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Mass message to administratrators about temporary accounts
With the rollout of temporary accounts in just over a week, I think it would be a good idea to send a mass message to the user talk pages of all administrators of this imminent substantial change. We can useWikipedia:Administrators/Message list for this purpose. For reference, in the past, we have used the list to inform administrators about the extended-confirmed protection level back when it was brand new, see e.g.Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 17#Draft mass message to administrators. If we sent one for that, then I think it makes sense to send one for this as well. I'm thinking we could send something like this, much of which is copy-pasted from above (see above for attribution):
Hello, {{subst:ROOTPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November 2025, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have atemporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern:~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet thecriteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. atWP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators arenot permitted to assign the right without a request.
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects theautoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. OnSpecial:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should useSpecial:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access isgenerally not allowed (e.g.~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g.~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward3RR, but notHey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
Excellent idea, thanks @Mz7 for working on this! Tbh I had the same idea and was going to start a draft today :D I was/am going to send this message to CUs, TAIVs, basically anybody with access to temp account IP addresses.SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)14:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Agree that this should be a MassMessage (in addition to a watchlist notice). That MassMessage should give a brief rundown ofWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer#What can and can't be said. If you can be desysopped for sharing information with unauthorized parties, you should get a clear warning; not all admins are active every month of the year, so a watchlist notice would be insufficient in my view. On the other hand, to alert non-admins, a WLN would be great. Maybe include do onenowWP:PERM/TAIV applications, hopefully decreasing the rush?HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)16:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
This is a good idea. I am a little worried the mass message might be getting a little too long, but I do think it is important to note that directly connecting IPs to temp accounts is going to be against the rules.Mz7 (talk)02:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm trying to get my head round the "Guide to temporary accounts" that we have now received, and what I see is that it just got a lot harder to be an admin. I haven't noticed this question being put above or below: isn't there any concern that the new system will lead to a drain of active admins present and future? Especially of the not-very-technically-minded admins such as myself. (We exist, and we even have some uses.) I'm really not sure I want to be an admin any more, with this tricky roundabout method for avoiding the disallowing of IP edits. Compare the discussion of Portuguese wikipedia above.Bishonen |tålk14:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC).
Same for non-admins with TA access, the chances of e.g. inadvertently "outing" someone (by e.g. linking temp accounts through stating their IP addresses where it is no longer allowed) seem to have increased significantly, and I will not ask for that right to avoid just such issues. I still see zero benefits from this whole system over disallowing IP editing completely (or in the mainspace at the very least).Fram (talk)15:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Per the comment below there are some improvements on the way to reduce the amount of clicks required to reveal the IP information. The IP auto reveal should be on for 3 months at a time which for all intents and purposes should mostly return the state of things back to normal-(ish) for 3 months at a time. My personal thought is for us to atleast give the feature a try.Sohom (talk)15:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Bish, you can just ignore them or post it to someone else to deal with, eg me while I'm around! Not sure where the tools menu to turn it on permanently is meant to be.
I don't know from trick or treaters, but I did see an orangeT-Rex shuffling down the street this afternoon. Which is kind of weird because I thought T-Rex season was over by now.RoySmith(talk)01:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I'm planning on not enabling the ability to view the IPs, and leaving it all to people who're comfortable being mini-checkusers with all the restrictions that implies. I don't do much work in the areas of adminship that deal with IPs as anything other than just-another-identifier anyway.Anomie⚔17:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
That discussion is disappointing to me. There was all this talk about sending out a mass message to all admins, making a guide for this, discussion about changes before this happens, and even videos to help guide people with using the system. But yet, the same users avoided the questions asked to them, with one exception who said they were not involved.
Personally, that is making me distrustful of this whole thing. Hopefully things go smooth as there seems like there is the potential for it to be a problem. --Super Goku V (talk)23:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The mass message was sent out, the guide was community driven (there is a bunch of WMF docs and those are being improved) and the changes below are being worked on.Sohom (talk)00:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Yep. My point was that so much was done here by certain editors, except answer the questions regarding the Portuguese Wikipedia numbers. That is why I am starting to be distrustful as the claims from the FAQ are not being backed up. --Super Goku V (talk)03:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
There have been many questions and I believe many people have been doing their best to answer them.@Super Goku V: Is there a specific question that you want to be better addressed?jlwoodwa (talk)01:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
There is a question, but it can only be addressed by certain users. The question is to the WMF employees about how they got the 20% reduction in edits for the Portuguese Wikipedia. There was one employee who did answer, but only to say that they were not involved with that. --Super Goku V (talk)03:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
This does seem helpful. Thank you very much for including it, Sohom.
(I will need more time to fully read it, but having done a quick read I find the lineWe find evidence for this tradeoff even within the editing activity of editors registered prior to the cutoff, demonstrating how participation by unregistered editors stimulates activity across the board to be the most significant so far.) --Super Goku V (talk)15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Chiming in here because I got the admin mass message, I wanted to share a few things that are relevant I think. Many years ago at the Foundation, I did some work with data scientists to measure anonymous editing andexperiment with inviting (not requiring) them to log in. I had this hypothesis that many anonymous editors simply didn't realize or hadn't even considered signing up. It essentially didn't work. It increased registrations, but resulted in a net loss of total unreverted edits. We even tried several different approaches, like both before and after someone saved.
Very interesting to note as well is that the results differed slightly across English, German, French etc. (though none of them worked overall). This is the most important lesson to me, because it reinforces that there are significant differences in how policy or software changes work on different Wikipedias. For context, ptwiki isheavily dominated by Brazilian editors. In Brazil, culture is extremely social and it's the number two country by total time spent online per person[23][24]. When we talked to Brazilian editors, many experienced editors said that they wouldn't even mind if we offered Facebook login to make signing up for Wikipedia easier (obviously this wouldn't be allowed by the privacy policy and we never even considered doing it).
TL;DR: Even if you think disabling IP editing was good for Portuguese Wikipedia, it might not have the same impact on English-speaking readers and editors. In my view, it is pretty likely to be more negative here, given the cultural dynamics of ptwiki in general. Our past experiments indicate that even optionally asking people to log in just distracts them and doesn't increase high quality edits.Steven Walling • talk02:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Which may all be true, but it doesn't explain why the WMF needs to make apparently false claims about ptwiki and the results to justify their decisions. Not the first time their "research" and "claims" turn out to be incorrect and skewed to support the WMF narrative. And then they wonder why some people are so negative and distrustful about the WMF...Fram (talk)10:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I think you've just done the same thing you're critizing the WMF for, which is also harmful. The WMF hasn't made false claims it's made incomplete or if one wants to reach for the maximally strong word misleading claims. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)12:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
They claim a 20% reduction in productive edits, but this isn't true. When asked about this, no reply, and no change to their claims. There is nothing "incomplete" about these claims, and yes, they are misleading, because they are wrong. And the longer they remain silent about this, the more it looks as if they are deliberately wrong. But if it makes you feel better to claim that pointing this out is the same thing as making these claims, be my guest.Fram (talk)13:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the link to the report and for trying to answer this Barkeep49. However, this was already discussed above in the same areas I was talking about.
If the WMF editors asked would be able to answer the questions asked or explain why they cannot, then I would appreciate it as it would at least attempt to address my concerns. --Super Goku V (talk)14:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello all, sorry about the radio silence here. We are taking some time to review the different points being made in this thread and asking our research analysts to evaluate some of these questions, on top of their existing work. Our apologies that this is taking a bit of time but we do still plan to post some substantive thoughts here once we have them. --
I appreciate the acknowledgement of this. While this isn't an answer, it does explain why there hasn't been one so far. (As an aside, thank you to the analysts for reviewing this.) --Super Goku V (talk)19:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Update: Removing clicks and tightening rate limits
Hey again! This is another update from theProduct Safety and Integrity team. We took the time to meet withfunctionaries about how to make the temporary accounts deployment go smoother for your community.
A big theme of these discussions was that requiring users to make even small amounts of clicks and choices can add up to real time and cognitive load being piled on top of a community's anti-vandalism work. We also identified some relatively low-lift technical improvements to make it a little harder for vandals to engage in common block-evasion techniques.
Based on our talks with functionaries, we made two decisions:
We are introducing technical changes tosignificantly cut down clicks and choices needed to show IP addresses, and to tighten up how temporary accounts are rate limited.
To avoid these last-minute changes creating bugs or instability, we will delay deployment one final time, toNovember 4th. This lets us deploy these changesthrough our normal processes.
The biggest change is that we will allowIP auto-reveal to last for up to 3 months to reduce the practical and cognitive load involved in showing IP addresses. (T407222) This doesn't change who can see temporary account IP addresses, but should make the work easier for many of those who do.
We're also updating theonboarding dialog to allow users to turn on 3-month auto-reveal at the same time as they opt into generally having access to temporary account IPs. (T407257) This dialog is displayed to all users who can view temporary account IP addresses, the first time they visit relevant pages.
For rate limiting, we added a 10-minute limit to temporary account creations on top of the existing rate limits of 6 accounts per IP per day. (T405565) We are also now applying IPv6-based rate limits to an entire /64, rather than a single unique IPv6 address. (T406710) These changes are already deployed, so please do let us know if you see any issues.
These are the last changes we will make before deployment. We know that last-minute changes and delays are not ideal, but we felt that on balance it was worthwhile to take this bit of extra time to remove more friction and respond to community feedback.
We have also edited Mz7'sdraft of a mass message for admins to help introduce the feature and these changes. We'll coordinate on who will send a similar message for other users with access to temporary account IP addresses.
Finally, we've also created some instructional videos, to better explain how to work with temporary accounts:
10-minute limit to temporary account creations Should there be an exemption for the second account of the day? MediaWiki bugs gave me multiple TAs. Using Firefox, I received different TAs for frwiki and mediawiki.org. I also got blocked on zhwiki as a bot for clicking "Show preview" too many times in Firefox. After switching to Chrome, my first TA had an error with SUL cookies in incognito mode.66.49.187.185 (talk)04:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know. I'm sorry this happened to you - this sounds like a bunch of problems, each worth investigating. I'll let the engineers know.SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)22:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
SGrabarczuk (WMF), aside from the five projects who are converting from LiquidThreads to read-only Flowand from November 4 being the TA deployment date for this project, there is no specified date for the implementation of temporary accounts for the remaining projects (Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, etc.) onphab:T340001.Codename Noreste (discuss •contribs)04:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Codename Noreste, that's correct, Commons and Wikidata must go after most large Wikipedias, and Spanish and Russian had their reasons to be excluded from the earlier deployments. We'll talk to these communities soon; we're just focusing on English now. Do you have a specific question about the remaining deployments?SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)21:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
And it seems like according to the Phabricator link you posted, TAs are coming to the other WMF sites by the end of November (after English Wikipedia's introduction in five hours), with the notable exception of Russian Wikipedia.JuniperChill (talk)19:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I was gonna ask the same question (but say 00:01 to reduce the confusion between the start/end of day).But anyway, I would assume so given that computers (as well as Wikipedia itself) use UTC due to issues with DST in some regions. If so, TA implementation would begin in 4 hrs and 40 mins. UTC is also called GMT, but the latter is not used in the context of computers.
So in the US (assuming it starts midnight GMT), it would begin 3 Nov at 19:00 (ET) or 16:00 (PT). In NZ, its 4 Nov at 13:00.Edited 23:27 GMT: Actually, it turns out that TA implementation is from 4 Nov 08:00 UTC (midnight PT, 03:00 ET), per below comments.JuniperChill (talk)19:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
That's why I said ET and not EST/EDT (I even checked if NY is 5 hours behind London, which it is). Its even more confusing that in the UK, winter time is called GMT while in the summer, its BST (British Summer Time). So when I see EST, I thought it meant EasternSummer Time, not EasternStandard Time (see articleEastern Time Zone for more). Plus the UK changes clocks at the last Sunday of March and the last Sunday of October while the US does it on the second Sunday of March and the first Sunday of November. This means that NY would be 4 fours behind London for a short period of time, until the UK catches up. Australia has three time zones in winter, but five in summer because not all states observe DST. Therefore, this is where the confusion lies regarding DST; hence why UTC exists.JuniperChill (talk)22:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Everybody should just use UTC and let people do their own local conversions if they want. This is why I have a UTC clock on my toolbar (in addition to the local clock). Computers are good at adding and subtracting. People, not so much. (Obligatory whine about why my damn car, which has 47 more computers in it than any vehicle should, makes me fix the dashboard clock manually twice a year).RoySmith(talk)22:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I struggle with the conversion, so I just leave it in local time so at least I know how long ago a comment was. (As an aside, you do not want a device that assumes the time change, in case they change the rules. I had an alarm clock as a kid that I had to change four times a year.) --Super Goku V (talk)02:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
.jpg)
Enable theuser info card