Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia response to chatbot-generated content

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) § Follow up on the temporary account discussion

 – —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NKohli (WMF): Sorry, I should have been slightly clearer, I'm asking whether the WMF has a stance on whether the ipinfo-view-full right can be added to privileged local groups that are not sysops or bureaucrats, given that it doesn't actually give temporary account access if someone does not have the TAIV group, but only gives more information in IPInfo about a temporary account. For example, all autoconfirmed users have the ipinfo-view-basic right, which gives very basic information about an IP address (I believe the version, approximate location, and ISP, though not data through Spur/MaxMind), while the ipinfo-view-full right gives more extensive information. The right itself is redundant without access to TAIV, but would provide more information for users who might not be in a sysop/bureaucrat group locally, but may also be benefitted from this additional information being given. I can think of other groups of people, such as SPI clerks, who might benefit from the right being added to other local groups. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 7:08 am, 20 June 2025, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC+8)

Thank you for replying @NKohli (WMF). Can you please also tell if it would be possible for us to communicate with temporary editors by messaging on their talk pages, if their TA keeps changing? I know a lot of people who clear browser history, cookies after each use, and those who use incognito. If I need to let them know something, what is the process I must follow? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:35 am, Yesterday (UTC+8)

@EggRoll97 @CX Zoom Apologies I couldn't reply sooner. I was out sick.

To EggRoll's question, we have overhauled the IPInfo policy to have only one right `ipinfo-view-full` going forward. It has the same access permissions as TAIV. Anyone who has TAIV on wikis where temporary accounts are deployed, will be able to also turn on IP Info. Like you said, the basic right was far too basic to be meaningfully useful.

To CX Zoom's question: If a user's temporary account keeps changing it would limit our ability to reach out to them. If users keep clearing their cookies they will not be able to receive notifications about messages like other temporary accounts would. Unfortunately there is no good mechanism to get around this. However, we are hoping this to be a minority of users instead of the majority.

Additionally, after 6 temporary account creations in a 24 hour period, there will be an account creation throttle (similar to how it is for registered accounts) and the user won't be to create any temporary accounts for a day. We will nudge the user to create a permanent account if they want to edit at this time. We have data monitoring in place to see how often this limit is hit. I've filtered this dashboard to show data from Norwegian, Korean and Czech Wikipedias if you are interested. The graph for "Temporary account creation rate limit hits" shows how often this limit is hit. Note that we deployed to Norwegian over 6 months ago and Czech and Korean were deployed to last week.

I hope this was helpful -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again @NKohli (WMF). Does that mean that IP talk pages will be useless going forward? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom Yes, pretty much. Unless some non-logged-in users have bookmarked their particular talk page(s) and use them to communicate (I don't expect this to happen much). -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most useless sections of articles about a (usually recent) event is the "Reactions/Responses" section. No one wants to know that the leader of some uninvolved country had "expressed condolences" for an XYZ event. I propose that there should be a MOS that prevents the addition of the reactions/responses (i.e., a tweet on x or whatever govt website a country uses) from countries uninvolved/irrelevant to the event. It's just bloat 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that routine condolences from random famous people are utterly useless bloat but responses in the form of concrete actions taken as a result of the incident can be encyclopaedic. The essay Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles (written by Fences and windows) however suggests that the community is not united in this view. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the worst things that has been added for any event, particularly when most of the reactions are along the lines of "thoughts and prayers" and not in any way of any actions or commitment for action made in response (eg along the lines Thyduulf is saying). We should be writing for a long-term point of view, so just listing non-action reactions, or at least not distilling these into brief lists (eg "The attack was condemned by many nations, including X, Y, and Z" is far better than sentence after sentence) is not encyclopedic, and better at a Wikinews article than en.wiki. Masem (t) 12:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ITNC, I always looked at it as cheap filler to pass the 1,500 character stub limit for recent disaster pages. —Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing. This section thing should be treated in the same way we treat the "Supported by" param of the infobox: Consensus must be reached in every article to include that section 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally oppose Reactions/Responses sections, but I would support guidance against including routine condolences/condemnations/statements of support, especially when it ends up being a bulleted list that seems to attract flagcruft. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty classic result of WP:RECENTISM, as various reactions are going to be in a lot of immediate news content. It is usually bloat. However, it's also usually not worth fighting against. Like other aspects of current event articles, it's easier to treat it as something to take a new look at down the line. CMD (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a larger problem that editors write breaking news articles as if we're a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia, these reaction sections are just part of that problem. We really do need to try to get back to writing current events as encyclopedic summaries, and if editors really want to write to the level of detail of news, that Wikinews is a far better venue for that. Masem (t) 02:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there just hasn't seemed to be a great solution to the problem. Who knows, it may even be something that draws in editors. CMD (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as something that is best to deal with on an article by article basis. In historical articles, such sections are very useful. For example, today's TFA contains a section mostly devoted to contemporary reaction, here--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is less the abstract concept of covering reactions, and more the usual bulletpoint newsline that tends to grow in current event pages. CMD (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between quoting parts of prose critical reviews and things like "Cricket players from Australia and South Africa paid tribute to the victims of the crash during the World Test Championship final held in London." from Air India Flight 171, and "The baseball team Philadelphia Phillies, basketball team Philadelphia 76ers, football team Philadelphia Eagles, and hockey team Philadelphia Flyers expressed condolences and thanked first responders in Twitter posts." from (this revision of Med Jets Flight 056). Those are far from the most egregious examples I've seen. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1, this is something I've been saying for a while. I believe reaction bloat is already disallowed per WP:BALASP and in some cases MOS:TRIVIA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the "Reactions/Responses" sections themselves useless, but some of the content in them (e.g. reactions from random, uninvolved politicians, celebrities, companies, etc.) is indeed irrelevant and should be removed. Some1 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Some1. "There was an earthquake, and the President of Ruritania said something socially appropriate" is as useless as saying a grant-dependent scientist saying that Further research is needed. But there are things that can be useful and appropriate, like "There was an earthquake, and Ruritania sent refrigerated tanker trucks full of milk" or "There was an earthquake, and Ruritania thought the resulting confusion made a great opportunity to invade the country". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1, impact/legacy is wp:encyclopedic, reactions/responses violates wp:nottrivia. Levivich (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction bloat should be removed but it would be better to pick battles worth winning. When something dramatic occurs, reactions are informative even if we are pretty sure it's just a tweet written by a PR hack. I would like a hidden template that activates in three months to say "Please remove WP:UNDUE bloat in this section". However, my advice would be to not fight plausible me-too additions when an event is current and everyone is excited. We rely on volunteers who come in all shapes and sizes and bludgeoning them with rules is not productive in the long run. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem starts because editors are adding every reaction they can find in the immediate wake of an event. Per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, this is not necessary. Short-term reactions should be limited to actual actions or call to actions (eg a country leader offering their financial or manual support to help in the wake of a disaster), and avoid any of those that are just "feelings". In the long-term, if there is sufficient evidence and weight that the "feelings"-type reactions are important, then they should be added. We should be encouraging editors to be far more selective off the bat. Masem (t) 00:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Johnuniq is correct that it's easier and more effective to address this problem later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Developing events will have details that may eventually be lost due to BALANCE, but we should not be adding anything to an article that we know is going to be removed later. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sections resemble the "In popular culture" sections. When not effectively curated, such a section can attract trivial references or otherwise expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies such as what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view. Their inclusion should reflect their prominence in relevant literature. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good comparison. CMD (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most efficient long-term method we can use is to stop the creation of articles about every news story and cover developments in existing articles where all of the information can be maintained in once place. The vast majority of the time, we don't need an article about a bridge collapse when we can have a section on the collapse in the article about the bridge itself. That would make it much easier to manage bloat where integrating it into the article is already part of the editing process and it's more clearly undue. All we need is a simple "hi, thank you for creating the article about this event, we've moved the information to the article about that place". There. No bite, no bloat, no big deal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still need to get my larger discussion on trying to get us back to respecting NOTNEWS, particularly in the current climate today, but this is absolutely a problem, part of it being an implicit desire to have article ownership and be the one to create a new article, rather than add to an existing one. It makes editors run to create articles on every event before its clear whether it makes good sense for a standalone. Flooding such articles with pointless reaction sections is a way to make the event look more significant than it is. A bridge collapse without any significant damage or death toll is exactly the type of event that's better covered in the article about the bridge (eg: I-35W Mississippi River bridge, Tacoma Narrows Bridge) Masem (t) 04:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... part of it being an implicit desire to have article ownership and be the one to create a new article ... I don't think it's usually a case of WP:OWN, per se, but there is a certain satisfaction in seeing "my" article. See the number of users displaying a list of their created pages. —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do manage to separate my desire for recognition for what I have done from exercising ownership over that work. That does require me to ocassionally bite my tongue. More to the current point, I spend days or longer (and in one case, 11 years) in developing new articles. I have, many years ago, started articles the same day I read something about the topic, but I now think that is a bad way to approach Wikipedia, and probably would support some way to slow down the process. As a wild idea, why not require new articles to be in Draft space or a user's sub-page for at least a day before moving to main space? That would force coverage of breaking news into existing articles for the first day. Donald Albury 14:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the right line. Czarking0 (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our current Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria prohibits the use of non-free content outside of article space, including in draft space. I think this is an error in law and practice, and that the policy should be changed to permit relevant non-free images in draft space to the same extent that it is permissible in article space.

Drafts are created for the purpose of eventually becoming articles, and ideally allow the entire article to be constructed, including images, so that it can be properly evaluated for suitability as an article. It is something of an annoyance that non-free images relevant to a draft currently can not be uploaded to Wikipedia at all until after the draft has been moved to mainspace.

With respect to intellectual property concerns, our prohibition on the use of non-free media derives from the limiting factors in the copyright doctrine of fair use, but that calculation does not militate against the use of such content in draft space, precisely because drafts are less visible to the public readership, and therefore present much less of a possibility for public presentation of copyrighted content. Because drafts are intended to become articles, they serve no less of an educational or journalistic purpose than published articles. I therefore think that our policy should specifically be amended to permit the use of non-free images in draft space to the same extent as they are permitted to be used in article space. BD2412 T 22:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this before.... even made up a bunch of different image size placeholders Moxy🍁 22:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stray more-of-a-proposal-than-a-policy-but-relevant-here thought: Would it be possible/make sense to just automatically block display of NFC if called from non-article space? That way, the draft article could be constructed with appropriate image tags in place (although I would not be of help for new NFC content only meant for the draft article, rather than reuse of of NFC content already used elsewhere in article space.) I see three routes to implement this... even though I know basically zip about the tech end and these all could be undoable:

1. Build it into the image server, which will only put out an NFC image if going to article space. Ideally, if it's going to Draft: space or to a subdirectory of user space (i.e., not User:NatGertler but to User:NatGertler/List_of_most_fabulous_things) would put a placeholder image there.
2. Create a template that goes around file/image tags that will simply put through the file if it's in article space, put through the placeholder if it's in draft space
3. Add an NFC variable to image tags that would cause the image not to be displayed if in inappropriate space. (Admittedly, no help with infobox images, which is probably a larger portion of what we're discussing.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ips and unconfirmed users - the only ones forced to use draftspace by the software (rather than just encouraged) instead of being able to create directly in mainspace - can't upload files locally either. Are you proposing to change that too? —Cryptic 22:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing a change with respect to upload rights. Any editor can begin an article in draftspace, and I typically do this, particularly for large-scale projects to fill out numbers of missing articles in an area. Some Wikiprojects do this for topics that will eventually merit mainspace coverage. We currently have project-created drafts for things like Draft:Cassie Lang (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Draft:Hank McCoy (film character) and Draft:Reed Richards (Marvel Cinematic Universe), which will need images that are going to be non-free. I have just started Draft:Plotkin's Vaccines, which would benefit from an image, and which I will likely not finish for months. BD2412 T 22:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you need the image before you finish the draft? Most comparable online encyclopaedias do not allow non-free content at all so it does not seem strictly necessary. —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant CSD criterion (F5. Orphaned non-free use files) contains the clause Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. without any definition or examples of what constitutes a "reasonable exception" or "upcoming article".

If this proposal is successful then other parts of the criterion will need to be reworded from "article" to "article or draft" but that should be uncontroversial, especially as I'm about to alert WT:CSD to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Note also that the need for pragmatic exceptions is also recognised in WP:NFEXMP. Draft space articles should be added to this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFEXMP is, as described, use of non-free outside of mainspace necessary for maintaining the encyclopedia or where there are technical limitations. It would be completely inappropriate to add draft space to be covered by NFEXMP because non-free in draft space is not essential towards maintaining the encyclopedia. Masem (t) 12:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this proposal. There is enough content in draftspace already, and much of it is frequently deleted by WP:G13 or at WP:MfD. Allowing non-free images to be uploaded for drafts would increase the burden of maintenance on administrators, who would have to delete more non-free images when drafts containing them are deleted, and Files for discussion participants who would have to discuss the images when their draftspace use is disputed, for very little benefit that I can see. For this proposal to be beneficial, there would have to be a convincing case made that uploading and adding non-free images after an article has been moved to mainspace from draftspace is somehow inconvenient or otherwise undesirable, and I do not see a compelling case here. If someone really feels the need to have an image ready right now, users are free to save one to their personal device with notes on where it came from and your rationale, and put it to Wikipedia when the article is ready. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I save an image on my hard drive as you propose, and then work for months on a project-based draft like one of the MCU characters, and then once the draft is published as an article and I upload the image, someone contests the usability of that image in that article. Isn't it better to have the image vetted earlier, so that if it turns out to be unusable, there is time to find an alternative before the article is published? BD2412 T 23:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel the need to make sure an image is suitable for the article, then you can go ask someone and link them to the image in question. However, generally speaking, fair use images uploaded by experienced editors are rarely contested, so I just don't see this realistically being an issue, especially for such a standard use case as showing what a character looks like in the infobox. This proposal feels like a solution in search of a problem. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilviaASH "If you really feel the need to make sure an image is suitable for the article, then you can go ask someone and link them to the image in question.", Why would a new editor submitting a draft think to ask (where?) about a non-free image? They'd (at best) follow our existing guide to upload it locally, and at worse upload it to wikimedia commons. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know. But this isn't a new editor proposing this policy change, it's an established editor and administrator who explicitly asked, Suppose I save an image on my hard drive as you propose, and then work for months on a project-based draft like one of the MCU characters and I responded to their question saying what I personally think they should do. I would recommend the same to a new editor, probably, but I wouldn't expect a new editor to know, which is of course why I'd tell them. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For files used elsewhere linking should suffice, might still be good to write the justification in advance could be converted by script when the page is accepted. For the more common case of a file that is only suitable for use on that one page, yeah that's thornier. One could tweak F5 to make any images linked on a draft covered under the upcoming article exception, but ultimately the nonfree images could sit in limbo for quite some time, which is rather undesirable.

I'd probably be inclined to note non-free images that may be appropriate along with the rationale on the draft talk page myself. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an article is entirely unsuitable for the encyclopedia (a notability or NOT fail) without a picture, how can a picture make it suitable? And vice versa, if an article topic is notable, and not otherwise barred, won't that be judged by the text and sources, not a picture? (As an aside, we already practically publish drafts in main space, in that they are likely to be further edited, sometimes continuously edited long after publication.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For that inquiry, it doesn't matter whether the work is in draft space or article space (with unsuitable things being created in article space all the time). In image, at least, demonstrated the degree to which the subject can be illustrated. BD2412 T 23:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may or it may not -- the 'wrong' image won't show that, under eg. irrelevance, misinformation, disinformation, misleading, confusing, or otherwise poor image selection/placement. And in draft space there are fewer editors to catch it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we clearly don't want is the allowance to have non-free images in draft space articles that never progress to main space, even if there was good faith intention to get it there and the editor lost track/left Wikipedia/host of other reasons. This is clearly set by the intent of the WMF resolution from 2008 on non-free content use. But I can understand the desire to have a brief period where the article is one or two steps away from going to mainspace to upload and populate non-frees before its moved to make sure that other factors (like facing, sizing, etc.) I don't know if we can set it up with the bots, but to allow a 7-day period for a non-free to be used in a draft (with the bot adding necessary warnings on the talk page), after which the bot can remove the non-free from the draft, and if that's the only use, to start the 7-day speedy deletion timer on the non-free content itself (effectively giving a 14-day window). We'd need to have the non-free rational included to what the target main page is and the bot smart enough to check a draft-space version if the mainspace article doesn't exist or just a redirect. But this all requires that the bot(s) can be set up to do this. Masem (t) 00:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with this. I still don't see myself ever taking advantage of this if it were implemented, but this sounds like a fair way to implement this without any significant increase in maintenance overhead. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not having looked at the source for the bot which removes nonfree images from drafts (courtesy ping its owner), I'd say it'd probably be relatively easy to get it to only remove an image if it shows up on the same non-mainspace page for seven daily runs in a row, or however frequently it runs. That's not the problem.

The problem is what to do when the draft's author immediately puts it back in, which will happen, and will happen very very frequently. Do you just not deal with it and wait another seven runs? Then the grace period for having non-free images on drafts is infinity days instead of seven. Take it off again the next run? Then you have to keep track, forever, of which images have been removed from which drafts, detect when it's a different image or draft that just happens to have the same name, etc, which starts being not so easy pretty fast, plus now your bot is effectively edit-warring. Log it for the bot op to deal with manually? Then you still have to keep track of it forever, plus the bot op has to deal with it manually, which isn't what he signed up for. —Cryptic 01:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is going to game the system that way, a way to verify what's going on is to make sure the bot logs all such draft image identifications, ideally tallying how many times an otherwise unused non-free image is being added to a draft. If that goes above 2 or 3 times, that should be flaggd to an admin to see if the user is actually gaming the system or if there's a legit reason for this, and take appropriate action. Masem (t) 03:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stary by saying I 100% understand our NFCC and the legal basis for them. That said, I tend to agree with OP that there is no legal distinction between a "draft" and an articlespace article. If an image qualifies as fair use in legal terms does not depend on where it's used. It depends on the circumstances of that use. I would be shocked if a court determined that an image would be fair use on a website but not on the same website just because of how that website internally calls that page. As such, I don't see any legal reason to prohibit NFCC from being expanded to allow it to be used on at least one article or draft article. That all said, my view here is obviously based on there being no WMF legal objection to this, since ultimately it's their lawyers that would have to defend anything. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its less of a legal issue in this case and more the explicit instructions from the WMF resolution that non-free should only be used for encyclopedic content (for the purposes of minimizing non-free use and supporting the idea that WP is a freely-licensed work), which is why we've always limited it to use in main space (no user spaces, no talk pages, etc.) Draftspace is not mainspace, but because the content is intended to eventually go into main space, there are some reasons to make allowances for it, but at the same time, draft space also frequently ends up as a graveyard for unfinished articles, so we don't want non-frees sitting there unused. Masem (t) 12:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: We already have that covered. Unedited draftspace articles are automatically deleted after six months. BD2412 T 15:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but non frees if not used in mainspace are to be deleted in a far shorter time frame (7 days normally). Plus one could game this by touching the draft every 5.9 months. If we are going to allow nonfrees in drafts for purposes of finalization before a move to mainspace, their use must be strictly limited to that purpose and thus a need to have nots help assist here (or not allow it all, the current situation) Masem (t) 17:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The non-free content criteria are fairly horrible and have long needed an overhaul. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. We're not here to provide a library of free content for scrapers and reusers, that's Wikimedia Commons' business.

As a matter of principle, any file that we can legally and ethically use to build an encyclopaedia, should be allowable anywhere in the encyclopaedia. The NFCC should be rewritten to delete any rule that obstructs this goal.—S Marshall T/C 08:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until the WMF changes their stance on non-free content use, we can't change NFCC that way. And using NFC is antithesis to the idea that WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can use and importantly, modify and redistribute. Masem (t) 12:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to say we can't get all the way there because of WMF obstructionism, but we can certainly push back the free content maximalists and swing the balance more in favour of the people who're actually here to write an encyclopaedia. Wide latitude to publish fair use images, where it's ethical and lawful to do so, in draft space would be a helpful step along the way.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the WMF has said non free images can only be used with encyclopedic content, and while the content remains in draft space, draft articles technically are part of the encyclopedia. (for the same logic that drafts made in user space would also be a problem). I'm all for a short term allowance for non frees in draft space as long as their is a good faith attempt to bring the article to main space on a prompt manner, but a reality is that many drafts linger up to the six month limit without any effort after an initial burst to improve for mains pace. Hence allowing the use of nonfrees for a short time enforced with the help of bots seems a possible route. Masem (t) 13:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did draftspace even exist when the WMF established that limitation? BD2412 T 15:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No (resolution was 2008), but we did have the common practice of drafting in user space. And keep in mind en.wiki had established the NFC before the resolution was made, as early as 2005, established that non free should only be used in mainspace [1]. Masem (t) 16:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with S Marshall's comment above, and I disagree that it's important that the encyclopedia be freely modifiable and redistributable -- it should be "free as in beer" not "free as in liberty." I've never thought that letting anyone modify and use the content for any purpose should be a goal of Wikipedia.

But that aside, I think fair use in draftspace is a non-starter for legal reasons: one of the requirements of fair use is that use has to be limited, and allowing fair use content in draftspace would probably not be limiting enough. The difference between draftspace on Wikipedia, and a person's offline draft, is that Wikipedia's draftspace is published (on the web). There really isn't any need for images in draftspace at all -- placeholder images are a perfectly fine substitute -- so it's probably hard if not impossible for fair use images in draftspace to meet the "necessary" or "minimal use" requirements of fair use law. I don't think WMF Legal would ever allow it for this reason. (If they did, then fine, let's do it.) Levivich (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's less of a WMF legal than the main WMF board position that all works they host support reuse and redistribution outside en.wiki, so seeking to reduce the reliance on non free contents aids on making the work as reusable as possible. The specfics on how we document non free is more to bolster the fair use defense that would be a legal issue if challenged. Masem (t) 17:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a WMF board position, Wikipedia (and Nupedia before it) were open content as a founding principle long before the WMF was created. Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia has more detail on the topic. Anomie⚔ 22:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I have practiced intellectual property law since 2005, nearly as long as Wikipedia itself has existed. I am very confident that no court would ever look at content on Wikipedia and say that it would be fair use in mainspace, but not in draftspace. That is not a distinction of any legal weight at all. If anything, draftspace is less susceptible to copyright infringement claims because it is not indexed, and therefore cannot be found through regular search engine usage. I would also note that in its now-decades of existence, virtually all legal challenges to Wikipedia's use of images have centered on images asserted by Wikimedia to be in the public domain, and by the other party (whether a national museum or just a man who set up a camera for a monkey to take pictures) to be covered by copyright. BD2412 T 01:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if it's legal, then we should allow it. Levivich (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in context that was addressed to Masem rather than Levivich?—S Marshall T/C 08:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, between the WMF resolution and the NFC and existing enforcement, we are very unlikely to see out non free image use challenged on copyright infringement.

The factor that focusing on the legal side skips is the goal in WP to be a freely reusable and redistributable encyclopedia, and the use of non free endangers that. That's the essence of the WMF resolution. (it's why we call it a non free content policy to put emphasis on the licensing issues, a fair use policy which would be towards the legal side). Because of that goal, we purposely limit when non free can be used to prevent abuse of non free images not associated with encyclopedic content. Masem (t) 13:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so, and obviously, the purpose of this discussion is to establish whether that rather extreme level of free content maximalism still enjoys consensus, or whether in the alternative the community might feel we could allow encyclopedic images in draft space where it would be lawful and ethical to do so.—S Marshall T/C 15:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to stress, I would be willing to allow such use in draft space for a very limited time frame (a week) with the good faith assumption this is to prepare for moving to main space. Masem (t) 16:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Levivich and S Marshall, of course free as in liberty is a wonderful side effect for most of the content on WMF projects, but an actually complete encyclopedia has to exist in the world as it exists (with mass media and copyright laws). To not avail ourselves of fair use allowances (or comically limit ourselves with WP:IMAGERES nonsense that claims to be a "suggestion" but has a bot actively running around resizing images to resolutions that are only viable if you're viewing on a screen from circa 1999) is counterproductive to that goal. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking a stance one way or the other on what is legal or optimal, but I will note one point of frustration that this is likely to cause: Articles For Creation. A person with a conflict of interest who is using that system cannot tell how long it will be between the editing and the approved moving into article space, and even the last-minute adding of NFC before submission could have the images disappear before approval. Then if the page is approved, restoring the NFC presents COI problems. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this any different from having public domain images in drafts, which is unequivocally allowed? Or having either kind of image in an unreviewed BLP in mainspace? There is no actual legal distinction between draftspace and mainspace. BD2412 T 17:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a legal issue, its a WMF requirement to maintain this work as a free content encyclopedia. Masem (t) 17:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all clear to me that the WMF had draftspace in mind at all. BD2412 T 18:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC #9 was added in October 2005, in the second-ever edit to the page, and subsequently edit-warred over in December of that year.

The creation of the Draft: namespace was formally proposed in November 2013. I think it is fair to say that the Draft: space was not considered when the NFCC rule was put in place. However, given the blanket ban on not using fair-use images in User: space (where editors sometimes drafted articles), I doubt that the result would have been any different if they had. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have indicated, I don't think the "suitability" argument is very good, as suitability will be judged by text and sources. But balancing that against the apparent desire to do it and the credible claim that a 'completed' draft that is 'good' does not run afoul of 'fair use' in almost all cases, how about an 'intended to be published 'in main space within 48 hours' (to be enforced by a bot if possible or ordinary editing enforcement) while maintaining the ban in draft-BLPs (just because less eyes will be on a draft). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One example where something like this would be helpful is when an article has to be re-created after being blanked for copyvio reasons. Files which are quite legitimately used in the deleted article get deleted in the time it takes to re-create the article in draft/temp space. An example is No. 144 Squadron RAF - The main article was blanked on 11 May 2013, was recreated on a sub page on 12 May 2013, but was not reviewed by an admin and returned to mainspace until July that year, by which time the non-free image used in the original article had been deleted. While this was a considerable time ago, would this still occur, and would this proposal avoid the problem?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft space is an extension of article space. Articles and drafts share the same guidelines and policies. The difference between the two is that drafts may be deficient, in some way, towards meeting some combination of guideline and policy. Drafts are supposed to move closer to ending up how an article should look. It seems an odd aberration to have a not uncommon part of creating an article be barred from being used on a draft. Some problems this causes are mentioned above, but another key one might be that this prevents someone working on a draft from figuring out how NFC should be included in an article, defeating the purpose of draft space in that regard. This means that any experiments/learning regarding NFC must take place on live articles, which doesn't seem a sensible policy place to be in if we are concerned about the correct use of NFC. CMD (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An issue is that draft space articles are not always "live" in that the editor might start it and then walk away without doing any further updates, which then after six months they should be deleted. But then keeping NFC uploaded to support that draft while those six months progress makes no sense when unused NFC in mainspace is supposed to be deleted after seven days.

  Perhaps when checking for non-free through bots we try to identify that there is reasonable work over time to continue to improve the draft then the NFC can be kept in the draft, the idea that the draft article is still "live" because there is active work to get it ready for main space. Masem (t) 19:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  unused NFC in mainspace is supposed to be deleted after seven days If it's currently in use in a draft that has yet to be deleted, then it is not unused. We don't need a different time limit for Draft-space NFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about this type of scenario, and in combination with CMD's comment, if we made so that a draft article could keep NFC as long as it was determined to be in active development, that would allow images from draftified articles to remain as long as there was good faith effort to improve the article. But we still have the issue that articles get draftified from AFD the time and no one spends any time to improve it to get it back to mainspace in the short term, so we have those existing NFC going unused in a "dead" draft outside of mainspace, so we eventually need to remove those images to meet the WMF mission. Masem (t) 19:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the WMF will let us know if we run afoul of the mission. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The proposal is clearly sensible for the reasons given. Articles are supposed to be moved to-and-fro between article and draftspace and it would be disruptive to treat them differently in this respect. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, yes, I had not even touched on the fact that sometimes articles containing fair-use images are moved to draftspace for improvement. BD2412 T 20:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We already allow non-free images outside the mainspace (in the File space). The proposal to allow images in the Draft space is both reasonable and sensible. Articles not being worked on in the Draft space get deleted, and the non-free images used will then get automatically deleted too if they are not used by another article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, (a) articles are usually drafted in user space (WP:DUD). (b) Non-free files are not needed in unfinished articles not shown to readers. Minimal use of non-free clearly means we restrict to articles. —Kusma (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kusma: This proposal is only for draftspace. From the perspective of the real world outside of Wikipedia, there is no legal distinction between these spaces. BD2412 T 16:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no legal distinction between any of our namespaces; user space and MediaWiki talk are covered by the same laws as draft space. Our non-free content criteria are deliberately much stricter than what is legally possible. You have been here long enough to remember the time before non-free images were purged from user space and when people were claiming fair use quite liberally. —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We have had a long history of editors using userspace as if Wikipedia were Myspace or Facebook. I can see a legal factfinder being skeptical about the presence of copyrighted works in such spaces. Not so with a draft space set aside by policy as a place to develop main article content. BD2412 T 17:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    But we have had editors use users pace to develop draft articles, and I am pretty sure (but not in a place I can easily search to verify) we've determined that user's pace even if used for this purpose should allow for non free use. Yes, draft space is meant to be exclusively on draft development, but at the same time it is not part of mainspace nor searchable like mainspace. As the WMF has said NFC should only be used in conjunction with educational content, draft space articles, even with good faith to be made into mainspace, are not educational materials until they are actually moved there. Masem (t) 17:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per BD2412 with no different timeline for deletion just because NFC might be used in draft-space. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not really seeing much positive given the place holders and could see negative since it is against WMF requirements and has legal implications. PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What "legal implications" do you see? Other commenters have explained how in their view that there is no legal relevance to article space vs draft space, why do you think they are incorrect? Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you think they are correct? Levivich (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not expressing an opinion on which is correct, but the reasoning behind the view that there are no legal issues has been explained in detail and contains no flaws that are glaringly obvious to me. In contrast the view that there are legal issues has not been explained so I have no idea what part(s) of the contrary view they disagree with or why they disagree with it, so I can't tell whether it is based on incontrovertibly sound logic and legal principals, is pure hogwash or somewhere in between. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The legal implications would be WMF getting sued for using non-free images? We have legal saying dont do it and the only counter I see is someone who claims to work in that field saying trust me a judge totally wouldn't take it seriously. That does not inspire confidence. So unless we have our legal giving the thumbs up or we can point to ANY tangible evidence from legal experts I'm going to side with WMF's guidelines to keep us from being sued. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the reasoning behind the view that there are no legal issues has been explained in detail and contains no flaws that are glaringly obvious to me Huh? We must be talking about different comments. I thought you were referring to this comment and this comment, neither of which contain any explanation of any reasoning at all, they just contain assertions (that the authors would be surprised if courts cared how many web pages on the same website contained a fair use image). (That's not a criticism of those comments; nobody is required to provide any legal explanations, and we're not going to resolve any legal questions on this website anyway.) Which comments were you referring to that explained in detail the reasoning behind the view that there are no legal issues? Can you quote the detailed explanation for me?

  In contrast the view that there are legal issues has not been explained... Well, I'm not sure if there are any legal issues or not -- I think we should just ask WMF Legal to tell us the WMF's view on the matter rather than debating it amongst ourselves -- but I can imagine at least two issues that might be legal issues:

  First, one of the four factors of fair use under US law is the impact of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Now I have no idea whether a court would consider a website that has a fair use image on multiple web pages to have a greater market impact than a website that has the image on only one web page. But I know that when it comes to the old-fashioned paper photocopying of copyrighted works, e.g. by a professor to hand out in a class, the number of copies that one makes is considered relevant to the market impact of the fair use, which is why university libraries will caution people not to make too many copies (example). Do "multiple copies" on a website work the same way as multiple photocopies? I don't know, maybe? I don't know of any US court decision about that particular question (doesn't mean there isn't one out there).

  Second, US law provides statutory damages for copyright infringement, between $750 and $30,000. Some lawyers say that the "number of violations" is relevant to where in that (very wide) range of damages a defendant lands (example). Does having the image on multiple web pages mean you will get whacked on the higher end of the statutory damages range? I have no idea. I don't know of any US court decision about that particular question, either (doesn't mean there isn't one out there).

  That's all just armchair speculation, there could be completely different issues/factors at play. That's why I'd defer to WMF Legal on the question. I'm not particularly swayed by other editors saying they think it's not an issue, just like nobody should be swayed by me saying it might be. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not an issue at least for en.wiki as our non free policy, which the WMF uses as a template for what is expected, addresses how all the NFCC steps are there to try to address the fair use defense, that should someone ever sue the WMF over our use of non free, WMF legal has a solid basis for evoking all four points of the fair use defense. It helps to remember thst on en. Wiki, this was a fair use policy starting around 2005, and built to aid in the fair use Defence. The focus shifted to NFC when the WMF made it a goal to make this a freely redistributable work and thus minimize the amount of non frees used. The fair use reasoning is still in NFC's DNA, to speak. Masem (t) 19:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Masem highlights most of my concerns here. I could see the argument for allowing temporary stays on images as they're moved to draft space, but that would just encourage gamesmanship and an additional layers of rules and bickering we don't need. The reality is drafts languish all the time, and as a result non-free images would be parked in what is functionally userspace or back-of-house areas. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is built into draft-space that those that languish get deleted. Any parking is inherently curtailed. CMD (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC on the new temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2006, political userboxes were userfied per WP:Userbox migration as a result of the Great Userbox War. Since then, it appears that a lot of them have popped up again in the Template namespace. Also, the index page for WP:Userboxes/Politics by country, which had been userfied following MfD in 2009, was moved back to Projectspace in 2020 by a now-indeffed user, apparently without discussion. I was would revert the move, but then 16 years is a long time for consensus to possibly have changed, so I thought I'd ask here first:

1. Is current consensus in favour of allowing political userboxes in the Template namespace? Where is the line drawn for those that should only be in Userspace?
2. Is it acceptable that WP:Userboxes/Politics by country was moved back to Projectspace in contravention of the 2009 MfD?

I recently posted this at WT:Userboxes, though it that page doesn't appear to get a lot of traffic, so also asking here. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any content that's "inflammatory or substantially divisive" is not allowed in userboxes, per the guideline at WP:UBCR. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That describes userboxes that are not allowed, period. My question, however, is about userboxes that are only allowed in Userspace and not Templatespace. The relevant guideline is under WP:UBXNS, which is rather vague. The convention was developed way back in 2006 and doesn't appear to have been clearly documented. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to what is sufficiently divisive to be banned. This user has an “anti-UN” user box, in addition to multiple pro-2nd amendment userboxes. They popped up in the anti-AI discussion using a signature saying “Hail Me” and crosses that are similar to the Iron Cross. This was addressed on their talk page; where they disclaim any connection to Nazism, but refuse to remove the crosses. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to see why the ✠ have to be connected to Nazi Germany. I failed to see why multiple pro-2nd amendment and anti-UN statements are regarded as supportive to Nazism. I would again claim that I have no love for Hitler and Nazi Germany. I refuse to remove the ✠ from my signature as I didn't think that it is a symbol of Nazism. If you feel that the ✠ are sufficiently divisive to be banned you can go to WP:ANI for that. Have a good day. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 10:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I do not think the anti-UN and pro-2nd amendment userboxes are supportive of Nazism of themselves. But including them, along with several pro-Trump userboxes makes it clear you support fascist causes. Hope that helps clear things up! 173.177.179.61 (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this comment. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least the 3rd time I've seen someone bring up the iron crosses. At what point do we get to call a dogwhistle a dog whistle? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sock-the-guy and IP editor 173... this is the wrong venue for discussion of a specific editor, if you believe action should be taken then make your case, with evidence, at AN or ANI. If you don't believe action should be taken then stop talking about it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I’ll restate my original question then. Is a userbox for being “anti UN” sufficiently divisive to be removed?

For clarification, I have only been browsing these boards for a couple weeks. I saw that this user was asked to adjust their signature, but there was no comment about the userboxes, so I was unsure if they were allowed or not.

I don’t know how to file an ANI unfortunately. That said, I’m not really interested in helping out a community that is pro-Trump, so as a queer Canadian, I guess I’m outta here. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If User:SunDawn wants people to assume that they support fascist causes, then they are quite welcome to keep their signature, as long as they don't complain when people call them out on it. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The swastika predates the Nazis, but if you buy it in your signature you will end up having to explain why all the time. In the same way the iron cross predates WW2 but is now heavily associated with the Nazi's use of it, don't be surprised if people are offended by it's use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the other option for using the Iron Cross is generally to show allegiance to outlaw biker clubs. But this all seems something of a digression from the key question of the thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Userboxes should be moved out of template space. If you find one, move it.

The unresolved question is whether political Userboxes should be moved out of Wikipedia?

If Wikipedia:UBXNS is vague, fix it. Userboxes don’t belong in template space. Userboxes are Userpage content and are not real templates. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of any guidance to that effect. Presumably you don't mean to include Babel boxes? But what about user group userboxes? WikiProject membership userboxes? Legitimate areas of expertise and/or interest? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) All Userboxes should be moved out of template space. If you find one, move it. is this just your opinion? It's not something I've ever heard before and doesn't seem to match what is written at WP:UBXNS,

If Wikipedia:UBXNS is vague, fix it. this is what they are explicitly seeking to do. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userbox migration SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a historical page that proposes moving some userboxes to userspace and which explicitly eschews being a policy or guideline, it does not support your statement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It describes the rationale and the practice, and it still occurs, and is often an MfD result. In my opinion nothing needs fixing, if someone doesn’t like a template space userbox, Userfy it to User:UBX. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's same shit, really. They can be probably deployed as templates, they can be coded, they can be in Template: or User: namespace (not projectspace though, because that IMHO is supposed to be somehow related to Wikipedia's functioning). It's like arguing over whether we want to put our luggage in locker 26 or 38 when they are the same size. The only thing that really matters is the userbox's content.

There is a userbox discussion going on (at MfD) and I see some support for blanket removal of all political userboxes, userspace, templatespace or elsewhere, essentially per WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTSOCIAL and as being generally not conducive to editing.

And I suggest that we consider that option as well.

Also, unwritten conventions like the one described just above me suck. If it is a convention that actually has much influence on outcomes, it ought to be a rule. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit… I’m going to be real for a second. I’ve been hanging around reading things for a bit still cause I was like “well okay… maybe I jumped off the handle… it’s not like anti-LGBT userboxes exist, right? I mean, that would be crazy offensive.”

OH! Oh wait they do and people have to argue politely and civilily as to why it might be considered upsetting to realize the person editing the same niche article as you disrespects you on a fundamental human level. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Userboxes don’t belong in ProjectSpace because that gets read as implying official Wikipedia status. They don’t belong in TemplateSpace because they don’t function as templates, and because template gnomes don’t like them there and are template-deletionists. They do belong in userspace because they are a form of user expression. If they are idiosyncratic, keep them in their creator’s userspace. If they are broadly used, put them under USER:UBX.

Let’s make this decades old practice “the rule”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a clearer definition is needed for "directly collaborative in nature," as currently stated. Logically, it should be fine for a userbox (even in Templatespace) to say "This user is interested in the history of Nazism," but not "This user identifies as a Nazi." The former identifies the user's area of interest in contributing to Wikipedia; the latter is just plain inflammatory (or a bad joke). Requiring such wording may be a way to draw the line. On the other hand, it might be opening a loophole for people to exploit. Anyone got better ideas? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would prefer, even if it is a small preference, for project supporting Userboxes to be organised in Projectspace, not Template space. I think many would belong in a WikiProject.

2. I suggest NOT seeking to define a good and proper userbox. This could be constraining on future good ideas. Instead, I suggest that if someone wants to challenge a userbox as not being for the benefit of the project, that they consider migrating it to userspace, to the authors userspace or to User:UBX. If definitions are wanted, define unacceptable Userboxes. This has already begun. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note the userbox in the MFD linked earlier is already in the author's userspace. But since it touches on an area where we have many people intent on promoting the victimhood of certain groups, it's getting a lot of delete votes based purely on that activism. Perhaps we really do want to ban userboxes that take positions on divisive social and political issues, but that environment (or any where discussion is going to be dominated by people throwing around WP:NONAZIS or its various clones) is not a good place to make a reasoned decision. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I’m having trouble understanding your argument. Is your claim that LGBT people are “promoting victimhood” by voting to delete a userbox that reads “This user does not support the LGBT ideology” and that the delete votes are therefore insincere? They seem to come from genuine users. I don’t think it makes a difference who is placing the votes so long as they arent breaking rules. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misinterpreting basically everything there. And this isn't the place for a political discussion. Anomie⚔ 17:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would you like to explain why you think only the Delete votes are due to activism? 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anomie⚔ 17:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGF be damned. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest. I deleted all the userboxes from my user page a while back. This was principally because of two reasons: one - they'd got rather multitudinous and some of them were a snapshot of who I was nearly two decades ago more than now and two - the political userboxes never brought me anything but grief. I'd be supportive of a blanket elimination of political userboxes from Wikipedia full-stop. Frankly it would probably improve general adherence to WP:AGF even if it meant that we would lose the opportunity to occasionally have a bigot out themselves before they disrupt the encyclopedia meaningfully. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the deletion of all such boxes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be neutral to deleting all such userboxes. They can be useful to get an idea of someone's interests or possible biases. But I'd oppose deleting only the ones for positions an angry mob opposes while keeping the ones for their side, since the angry mobs seem to have difficulty distinguishing between actually-bad and just-expresses-an-opposing-viewpoint. Anomie⚔ 16:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that "political" may be conflated to end up supporting the removal of anything queer-related. Could we have assurances in any official thing that that wouldn't happen? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a total ban on political infoboxes. Addressing your concern, it's one thing to say "This user is queer" in the infobox. I'd question their judgment of posting their sexual orientation on the Internets, but if they really insist, there isn't much we can do. Just like editing under real-name identities - questionable practice but allowed.

It's another to say "This user feels queers are being discriminated against" or even "This user supports LGBT rights". The first is an open invitation to a shitshow; the second is quite innocuous in most Western societies but this is a political statement nevertheless and has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia - and it may be very controversial in, let's say, Pakistan. Also, consider this for comparison: "This user supports LGB rights", which will inevitably start all sorts of drama over transgender editors. Yeah, just sit back and get some popcorn.

If you are interested in queer topics on Wikipedia, "This user is part of WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies" is a great way to signal your editing preferences. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly my concern, thank you for the transparency Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the ban of political advocacy Userboxes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Wikipedia.

Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT.

Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. Please allow official sites be used AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can? An airport's website would be a primary source, which can be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts like whether that airport has certain flights. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a moderator on Wikipedia? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with The Banner (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. The Banner talk 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:The Banner/Archives/2024/July#Shannon Airport from last year, because apparently these two have been edit-warring over this for a year now.

A simplified story might sound something like this: Is it okay to use a public blog post from an airline to say that they're going to offer a route between Airports A and B, or a press release from one of the affected airports? Or should we require a local newspaper or radio station to repeat what the press release says, because – I don't know – maybe the airline doesn't know where it's sending its planes? Or there's some secret skullduggery going on, and the local news outlet will ferret out the malfeasance involved in claiming to offer a route to the local airport?

Aer Lingus clearly is offering flights between Shannon and Paris–Charles de Gaulle; drop by your favorite airline website and see what happens if you try to book at flight between "SNN" and "CDG". It's a 1 hour, 45 minute flight, and the price for departures this Thursday is only US$156. Flight "EI 908" is scheduled to depart at 7:10 a.m., and if you happen to be in Shannon that morning, you could be on it.

So can we stop fighting over this? @The Banner, it's good to have the best possible source, but it's bad to leave something completely unsourced merely because the most easily available source isn't the best possible source. Two self-published, non-independent primary sources are available and reliable for the fact that Aer Lingus flies between SNN and CDG. If you want a better source, then find it yourself, but until then, don't remove primary sources and replace them with a {{citation needed}} tag. If you feel you must tag it, leave the mediocre source in place, and add {{better source}} after it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, Wikipedia's purpose is not necessarily to be a conduit for an organization's PR, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY might be relevant for an airport's connections. Editors might want independent sources to show that sources actually care about a given announcement and establish WP:DUE for inclusion. —Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know we just had in the last year a large discussion about airline destinations and connections from airports, with the consensus generally supporting these, but I think this argument above (how we are sourcing information only stated by a company) is why these types of articles are problematic, violate NOT#CATALOG if they aren't using predominately third-party sources. this type of information at this type of detail is far far better located at Wikivoyage, whereas the encyclopedic article should be focused on the high level descriptions of routes and destinations as reported by third-party sources. Masem (t) 03:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is smaller than that. The Banner doesn't seem to have said "Eh, this whole list is WP:NOT something the article needs". It's just been "Bring me a source. No, not that source." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true sometimes. However, when Wikipedia is providing a complete list of certain facts (e.g., airlines that fly into this airport, or destinations with direct flights from this airport, or – to switch subjects – a complete list of books by this author, or albums by this band), then it's not a matter of an organization's PR: It's a matter of making it easier for editors to figure out whether or not the item belongs in the list.

Whether the information should be included at all is a different question. What I'm saying is that you don't get to blank reliable sources and then add a {{citation needed}} tag, or use an edit summary of "Vandalism" when you remove someone's addition of a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LISTSOFWORKS supports a complete list of works. I have no current opinion re: airports' flights. —Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... you don't get to blank reliable sources and then add a {{citation needed}} tag, or use an edit summary of 'Vandalism' ... Yes, if an independent source is desired, {{Independent source inline}} is more appropriate, and WP:NOTVANDALISM is a relevant policy. —Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this is suddenly showing up with my name ping, but we have WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. The Banner talk 09:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the advice page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body contains what that small group of editors believes is good advice, but that doesn't change the fact that non-independent primary sources can be 100% WP:RELIABLE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have this RFC and the review of this RFC. The number of participants of RFC and its review is - in my opinion - not a small group. But feel free to start a fourth RFC. The Banner talk 02:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That RFC does not say that that non-independent sources are unRELIable. It says that content (NB: content, not sources) that can only (NB: not "presently is") be cited to a non-independent source is unDESIRable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC says the such content should only be included if it's verifiable to secondary sources, duplicating the airlines website is NOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the RfC closing statement says. It says "airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE." That doesn't mean "only be included if it's verifiable to secondary sources." It's possible for independent, reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate that destination tables meet WP:DUE whilst at the same time using newer primary, about-self sources to provide the most up to date verifiable details about those WP:DUE destination tables. The RfC does not require destination tables to be verified to independent secondary sources. Levivich (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry poorly worded. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries (I'd say it's the close that's poorly worded, causing this confusion) and I think this is the crux of the dispute: TheBanner seems to think that only independent secondary sources can be used as references for airline routes, whereas AVGeek thinks airline websites can be used to provide up-to-date information. I think AVGeek is correct--independent/secondary sources are needed to show destinations are a significant WP:ASPECT at all (WP:DUE is the wrong section of WP:NPOV), but about-self/primary sources are OK to provide the latest/most accurate information. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a statement that I hope we can agree:

• If we are going to have a list of destinations, that list should be accurate and up to date (Per the very first sentence of WP:NOTNEWS: In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information) – even if the cost of being accurate and up-to-date means citing a non-independent, primary source in the list.

If any editor actually prefers out of date and inaccurate information, so we can match an older, outdated independent secondary source, then now's the time to express that view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "cost" is the right word. There's no cost to using a reliable primary source for straightforward descriptions of things that happened / are reasonably assured to happen, barring unusual circumstances. Whether or not a list should be present in an article, or all-inclusive, is something that editors need to evaluate separately from the concern of where the data is coming from. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with official sources is that they are frequently the subject of contention but if there is none, then what's the objection? Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with that take on NOTNEWS. We do want editors to add up to date information on a topic but with the intent that that information will have some permanence in the article. For example, updating a death toll in a natural disaster as reports come out. But for information that is widely transient, like television network schedules, we don't want to encourage that per NOT Guide, or at least wait for that onfoation to be filtered through third party sources to show why it has permanence (like historical television schedules that showed how networks competed against each other) since airlines can shift schedules on a whim, this is the type of detail that feels needs to have third party sourcing to show relevance in the long term. Masem (t) 16:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem, if there is going to be a list of destinations in the article at all, do you prefer that it to be factually wrong because it uses outdated third-party sources, or do you prefer that it be factually correct, even if that means (at least temporarily) using an up-to-date non-independent source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should only be including what has been identified in third-party reliable sources. We don't need complete listings, that's something far better suited for WikiVoyage. Instead, our encyclopedic coverage should be what third-parties consider to be the significant destinations. There's nothing that requires us to try to include 100% of all destinations. Masem (t) 19:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth investigating if it is really true that low-cost airlines rely more on corporate sources than other airlines, as I sincerely get that feeling. The Banner talk 16:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective is that official sources can be used in any article, but official sources are not to be used as indicators of notability. --Enos733 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If, by "official source", you mean a non-independent source (e.g., from an airport or airline, about their own doings), then I agree with you.

However, some "official" sources probably do indicate notability, because they're independent of the subject. (For example, if the "National Department of Education" provides information about local schools, then that "official" national source is probably independent and probably does contribute to notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement here. There are a (very small) subset of articles where verification may be sufficient. - Enos733 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through recent changes, and Draft:WishGxd caught my eye; it was created by User:WishGxd Official who has publicly stated that they have a conflict of interest. Additionally, I'm not sure they're notable enough for an article. I added the autobiography template, but should anything else be done? Feel free to do it so that it gets done soon, but please explain to me what should be done so that I can learn.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and complicated situations like this. Crazy chicken nugget (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough tagging. {{COI}} is another possibility. Since it is in draft space, less harm is done by leaving it there. It has already been declined by an AFC reviewer. Autobiographies may be promotional and so may be tagged for g11 speedy deletion. Autobiographies by children probably need to be WP:Oversighted to avoid information disclosure. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. That all makes sense! Crazy chicken nugget (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are very clear for Good Articles (i.e. "no drive by nominations") but I have not seen a similar provision when it comes to nominating Featured Articles. Is there something I am missing? Plasticwonder (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can technically start a nomination without being the primary contributor, but it is highly inadvisable to do so. The rules were seen as necessary to add to GAN because it was a persistent occurrence adding to an already overloaded system. CMD (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the overview. Is it inadvisable because it will eventually lead to a backlog of Featured Articles? Thank you again for replying. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's inadvisable as someone who has not been involved with the development of the content is unlikely to be familiar enough with the content to effectively engage in a review. FAC has coordinators who can close a nomination, but it's not a good use of community time to get to that point. CMD (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FAC instructions do contain such a rule: Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. The FAC coordinators can archive unprepared nominations – a quick look back through the logs suggests this one from October 2024 is the most recent example. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I totally missed that. Plasticwonder (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a mail of a user whom I know for many years (not personally though) and who is mainly active on other Wikimnedia projects. Without giving too much detail, their account got caught by an IP block (only on the English Wikipedia, other projects are fine). The administrator who imposed the block is barely active or inactive. What would be the best course of action to proceed? I am willing to help them but I am obviously not a CU and I am not sure how appropriate for me would be to give them an exemption? If not, what it the best place for them to request the exemption? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Appealing a block says: The preferred way to appeal a block is to place {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your talk page ... — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but this is not an account block, this is just a technical issue. The account is in good standing. And I am not sure they want to associate it with the IP in public. Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry. Comes of drive-by checking of my watchlist while making a coffee. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is a CU block, it should be fine to grant IPBE, because the blocking admin could not have possibly matched a registered account with the background IP without CU rights. Some accounts may get caught mistakenly. (Non-administrator comment) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If only every user experiencing an IP block was collateral. Technically and in policy, admins retain the ability the grant IPBE, and in some cases that's entirely appropriate. It is advisable to consult a checkuser, and that's strongly recommended by policy, because checkusers have a unique perspective on the risks associated with any address or user (they are also well placed to 'fix' any blocks). Admins however often have good judgment about their fellow users. I see two ways forward (ignoring the OTRS and UTRS routes by the user themselves): either do it yourself and mention it to a checkuser, or ask a checkuser to look first and do the granting. You might also decide it's not worth doing either. The main question you need to ask is what is the probability that the IP block is aimed at an account operated by that user. Knowing there are often delays with the other routes, I'll offer up the option to email me. If you do decide to grant IPBE, please grant it for no longer than necessary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, WP:SPI#Quick_CheckUser_requests is a designated venue for such requests, mainly for admins. Options for the user are listed at WP:IPBE. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot everyone, it is a clear way forward. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. As a CU who does a lot of IPBE grants, I'd say to admins that they should give only limited-period grants: no more than 6 months, and preferably only 3 months. Please, please admins, do not give indefinite IPBE; if you think a user should have IPBE for longer than 6 months, refer them to a checkuser. And now having said that, I should go and work on the backlog. Risker (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say basically the same thing, and also that just about any checkuser ought to be willing to handle this sort of request privately by email for users who don't want to plaster their IP all over an unblock request. I certainly am, and frequently do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's supposed to happen at the end of the short-term IPBE? Ask again (and again and again)? I've heard that editors using Apple's Private Relay frequently need IPBE, and that Google Chrome was planning a similar IP-anonymization think. That could be a lot of editors making a lot of requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Level crossing#Unmanned or Unstaffed regarding what phrase should be used regarding level crossings. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]