Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 150

Banner in EU countries explaining dangerous European Parliament copyright proposal and linking to SaveYourInternet.eu
Background: please see this discussion started by Jimbo Wales on his talk page.

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

Note that the Wikimedia Foundation already has an official position on this issue: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/ Doctorow (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Background information
Collated information on the effects of the law on Wikipedia


 * The EU's Copyright Proposal is Extremely Bad News for Everyone, Even (Especially!) Wikipedia, EFF


 * 70+ Internet Luminaries Ring the Alarm on EU Copyright Filtering Proposal Update to EFF by Danny O'Brien and Jeremy Malcolm, June 12, 2018, including link to protest letter text

Filtering proposal
(taken from 's message on Jimmy's talk page)
 * Sites that make material available to the public are required to filter according to rightsholder-supplied lists of copyrighted content
 * Even if they do filter, they are still liable if infringing material is uploaded and made available
 * If you believe that you have been unfairly blocked, your only remedy is to contest the block with the host, who is under no obligation to consider your petition
 * There are no penalties for falsely claiming copyright on material -- I could upload all of Wikipedia to a Wordpress blocklist and no one could quote Wikipedia until Wordpress could be convinced to remove my claims over all that text, and Wikimedia and the individual contributors would have no basis to punish me for my copyfraud
 * There was a counterproposal that is MUCH more reasonable and solves the rightsholders' stated problem: they claim that they are unable to convince platforms to remove infringing material when the copyright rests with the creator, not the publisher (e.g. Tor Books can't get Amazon to remove infringing copies of my books because I'm the rightsholder, not them); under this counterproposal, publishers would have standing to seek removal unless creators specifically objected to it
 * There is a notional exception for Wikipedia that carves out nonprofit, freely available collaborative encyclopedias. This does get WP a lot of latitude, but Article 13 still has grossly adverse effects on WP's downstream users -- anyone who mirrors or quotes WP relies on the safe harbours that Article 13 removes. Think also of all the material on EU hosts that is linked to from Wikipedia References sections -- all of that could disappear through fraud or sloppiness, making the whole project (and the whole internet) more brittle

Position of Wikimedia organisations

 * Wikimedia Foundation position
 * Wikimedia Deutschland
 * Wikimedia Sverige
 * Wikimedia France press realease
 * Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position

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


 * Do we currently make use of copyrighted material in a way that would be affected by being in violation of this "law"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, "it could also require Wikipedia to filter submissions to the encyclopedia and its surrounding projects, like Wikimedia Commons. The drafters of Article 13 have tried to carve Wikipedia out of the rule, but thanks to sloppy drafting, they have failed: the exemption is limited to "noncommercial activity". Every file on Wikipedia is licensed for commercial use." ref.
 * No, no direct impacts on Wikimedia projects as the text currently stands in both Council and Parliament. All non-for-profit projects would be excluded, which means all our projects. If our content is used commercially this would happen on another, non-Wikimedia service. That being said, the wording is not final and sloppily written, so no guarantees it will stay this way. But there is a clear political will to exclude all Wikimedia projects. --dimi_z (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Supplementary
 * I asked how we would be in violation of it, maybe I was not clear. If this rule was in place now what do we do that would mean we would could be prosecuted for being in breach of it (assuming that it does not have an exemption)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What effect would this law likely have on sources Wikipedia uses for references? E.g academic journals and newspapers. John Cummings (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Under Article 11, each member state will get to create a new copyright in news. If it passes, in order to link to a news website, you will either have to do so in a way that satisfies the limitations and exceptions of all 28 laws, or you will have to get a license."refJohn Cummings (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What effect would this law likely have on websites that Wikipedia sources open license media content from? e.g Flickr John Cummings (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Flickr would have to filter all uploads. --dimi_z (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this law effect Wikimedia Commons? John Cummings (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, see answer to question 1.
 * No it doesn't affect Commons, as commons is also a non-for-profit service (but compromises not final).--dimi_z (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about EU banners

 * Support as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for similar reasons as not doing anything about net neutrality and not coming off as political. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No using banners to advocate for or against political policies unless there's an existential threat involved. --Yair rand (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Further, even if this is an existential threat, the correct way to act against it would not be to link to an external site, and certainly not one like that. "The European Commission and the Council want to destroy the Internet as we know it and allow big companies to control what we see and do online." That's not a sentence Wikipedia can be associated with. --Yair rand (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As with the last time someone suggested a political banner, I see no reason that this is appropriate for wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is an existential threat, see the post by Doctorow at 19:44, 4 June 2018 here. This proposal should not have been made without clear information. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Doctorow is none other than Cory Doctorow. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The first link in this section includes that description. I agree it certainly does represent an existential threat to the freedom of content re-use, even if the exception for encyclopedias was carved out to prevent direct legal attacks on the existence of the wikipedias. Other projects such as Wikisource would certainly be directly at risk, but they don't reach as many EU citizens as enwiki banners would. EllenCT (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * European Copyright Law Isn't Great. It Could Soon Get a Lot Worse.
 * Updated position paper: Article 13 remains a terrible idea and needs to be deleted
 * Copyright wars are damaging the health of the internet
 * Article 13 could "destroy the internet as we know it": What is it, why is it controversial and what will it mean for memes?
 * EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line
 * European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers
 * Text of the proposal: English Other languages and formats
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. According to, "France, Italy, Spain and Portugal want to force upload filters on not-for-profit platforms (like Wikipedia) and on platforms that host only small amounts of copyrighted content (like startups). Even if platforms filter, they should still be liable for copyright infringements of their users under civil law, just not under criminal law."  There is a time to panic, and unless someone can come through and show that all this is not true, then this is that time.  If the EU enacts this, we should immediately and permanently block all access to Wikipedia from the EU, globally lock EU-linked editors on all WMF projects, and disband all EU Wikimedia chapters and liquidate any assets there.  For a start.  We should do that in two weeks.  Or we can do a banner now.  Your choice. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * European chapters have no legal responsibility whatsoever for Wikimedia sites, IIRC. Does the WMF even need to listen to European copyright laws at all? What we need now is an analysis by WMF Legal on what the ramifications of this would be. Panicking isn't helpful. --Yair rand (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a duty of care. If the above comes to pass, anyone participating in a European chapter would be subject to very extensive legal harassment and it is not reasonable to pass that responsibility on to them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not reasonable to claim that the WMF is not subject to EU law and thus action is not necessary. I'm skeptical about some of the claims made by opponents of this measure, but if they are accurate I would support an EU-wide blackout in response.  I'd like to hear whether the WMF or their lawyers have an opinion before !voting. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It may not appear reasonable, but it is the case the the WMF servers are in the US, and US opyright law is controlling, not EU copyright law. There may be personal risk for individual editors, but there's no more risk to the WMF's projects than if China changed its copyright laws, or Melanesia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m going to take the opportunity to point out that Wikimedians are already individually liable for every action we take on WMF projects, so if the concern here is that individuals will be held more accountable for stealing the intellectual property of others, well, good for the EU in my book. If there is actually an existential threat to the WMF, I’m sure their legal team would be on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * US copyright law is (fortunately for us) not all-controlling. Local copyright law is also important. WMF does need to comply. The point is the opposite; individual editors are not affected; WMF is. But it's not complaining.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you have it backwards, but I'm not prepared to mount a detailed exegesis. My understanding is as my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This has wide-ranging implications for the sources WP relies on, for downstream users of WP, and for WP itself. It's an unworkable and dangerous proposal that it antithetical to WP and any future project founded on similar principles. [Wikimedia has already taken an official position in opposition to this https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/] a year ago when the proposal was first mooted. Now it's on the brink of passing and it's actually gotten worse in the intervening year. Note that I'm a consultant to the Electronic Frontier Foundation which has opposed this since the start, so I'm hardly impartial, but WMF and EFF are on the same side here, and I think Wikipedians should be too. This is a real problem for the whole project and needs to be averted. Doctorow (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment added to Template:Centralized discussion. Holding off on a !vote per Power.  Tera TIX  01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support absolutely flabbergasted with the mountain of oppose votes solely on the grounds of "political bias". The proposed law has wide-ranging implications, which at worst could mean closing Wikipedia in the EU. It doesn't help that the proposal was made so soon after the net neutrality one was closed. Net neutrality was arguably harmless, but I just can't see how this law could possibly not have substantial negative effects on Wikipedia. We can't afford to gamble on Wikipedia exceptions being added to the final bill. The one political cause we should campaign for is our own. (see Headbomb)  Tera TIX  23:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there a Wikipedia article on this topic? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mike Peel I think it's called Digital Single Market, but I might be wrong.  Tera TIX  02:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. It's fairly difficult to find "neutral" sources here, and I'm not even sure how the EU makes legislation.  Hopefully the magic of collaboration will improve it. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 's concerns about being perceived as politically biased. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless the WMF is supporting such a banner (Jimbo != WMF) we have generally decided that politically-oriented banners are not appropriate. If the WMF want to enforce one, if they feel the issue is significant enough, they have ways to push that themselves. --M asem (t) 01:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: While I'm sympathetic to the arguments here, I am somewhat weary of requests for politically-oriented banners. If the Foundation wishes to do it themselves, they can (and, by all means, they should, if they feel that strongly about this issue), but the voters of Europe have made their choices, and it's not our place, as a worldwide community of editors, to browbeat, cajole, or even attempt to persuade them otherwise, through the usage of Wikipedia. So, just as I voted on net neutrality (twice), I vote again: please, no more political banners/alerts/whatever on Wikipedia. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for many of the reasons stated above. While I can see the harm to the wider internet if this passes, I'm not convinced that this poses an existential threat to Wikipedia which I believe is the only case where such banners are appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me!  02:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * this article outlines the direct threats of the law to Wikipedia, thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, that reads like it was written in response to this thread. I did find one factual error though.  Doctorow states, "Every file on Wikipedia is licensed for commercial use."  A relatively large amount of copyrighted content is already used under fair use doctrine and is not licensed for commercial reuse.  That said, this hardly rises to an existential threat.  Worst case, some European sources get harder to find.  I think Wikipedia could reasonably ignore most of what this is because it is US based and I seriously doubt that Europe has the political capital to block or fine Wikipedia. Winner 42  Talk to me!  17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose any political banners, as always. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above and echoing the oppose votes for net neutrality banner further up. We should be careful with political banners. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per  TonyBallioni and oppose Political banners and this is a political issue and feel there other fora are better for this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though I'm sure the proposal is with good intent, ultimately this is an encyclopedia and not a campaign rally. Chetsford (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest some plan to formally document somewhere that generally politically-themed banners from any country will not be run, to save editors time in discussions like this. It is all evident from recent proposals, that consensus cannot be reached on issues like this. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think we should be in the business of championing political causes, and adding a guideline to that effect sounds like a good idea. If the WMF decided this was a threat to the movement and wanted to campaign against it, that would be a different matter. That is part of their job, after all. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. On June 11, net neutrality will be adopted as official U.S. policy, and if internet can survive in America, it can survive in Europe too. w umbolo   ^^^  11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at this point we should ask WMF for more information and advice about this situation instead of speculating based on opinion pieces and advocacy sites (such sites may very well be correct, but they do not offer an unbiased perspective on controversial topics). Also, as already pointed out by others: it would be helpful to discuss a more general guideline about prohibiting political (and other) advocacy on English Wikipedia and to clarify the handling of possible exceptional cases (if any). GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Not an existential threat as Wikipedia can easily exist without the EU, see also the Turkey block. While bad for editors in the EU (including myself), if this comes to pass we might as well fork the encyclopedia, it seems a saner strategy at this point. I find it interesting btw. how people point at WMF whereas WMFs strategy has been to ask the community. Seems a bit circular. :) —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, for that matter Wikipedia can continue existing even if tomorrow a biological attack kills the entire humanity. It just won't have any user. --Nemo 21:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it's clear that the community is fine with that, isn't it ? The ideals have eroded to the point where we effectively ARE the Encyclopaedia Brittanica that we replaced. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, we need to be able to address laws that directly affect Wikipedia. (Note that I am not thrilled by the not very informative nature of https://saveyourinternet.eu/ ). We regularly have banners claiming Wikipedia will die if users don't donate -- the potential threat from bad legislation seems worse than two years without donations. —Kusma (t·c) 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the community is here to build an encyclopedia, not for political campaigning. Proposals like this are on their way to WP:PERENNIAL. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support compared to net neutrality, this appears to actually have a direct and major effect on wikipedia in the EU, closer to WP:SOPA. Hope to get a statement from the WMF on how exactly this would affect us though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As Galobtter and Kusma say, this is legislation which directly affects our copyleft and wiki model: not only it directly affects Wikipedia, but of all possible topics in the world it's the one where we can't avoid having an opinion and can't avoid being the most competent to talk (copyleft is the third pillar, folks). On the other hand, it's a bit hard for a community like ours to give a clear and short message among stacks of open letters signed by hundreds of organisations, piles of papers by hundreds of academics, hundreds of competing amendments. Realistically, the true menace will be clear after the JURI vote and the final call to arms will be before the vote in the European Plenary, like last time. After the committee vote, it's certainly too late to have a good law, but it won't be too late to stop a bad one. If we use all our bullets now, we will be harmless when the lobbies come up with yet another trick against Wikipedia. --Nemo 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support great idea. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * NEUTRAL Oppose yet ANOTHER PROPOSED WIKI-BANNER CRYING WOLF about the end of civilization as we know it. When can these well-intentioned—but badly conceived proposals—and the accompanying Wiki lawyering, just stop? If the WMF speaks out on the issue, ping me... GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping. This is highly relevant for everyone to read.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the article makes a good point. Particularly about how difficult this would make editing for our average users, per:
 * "...Third, the broad and vague language of Art. 13 and the compromise amendment would undermine collaborative projects that rely on the ability of individuals around the world to discuss controversial issues and develop content together. Free knowledge that is inclusive, democratic, and verifiable can only flourish when the people sharing knowledge can engage with each other on platforms that have reasonable and transparent takedown practices. People’s ability to express themselves online shouldn’t depend on their skill at navigating opaque and capricious filtering algorithms. Automatic content filtering based on rightsholders’ interpretation of the law would—without a doubt—run counter to these principles of human collaboration that have made the Wikimedia projects so effective and successful."


 * For that reason alone, I would not condemn action by the site regarding this issue regarding Article 13, and change my opinion to Neutral for this activity if it is deemed by consensus that either a Banner or Blackout to be necessary by the WMF. Thanks for the input, Jimbo. Regards, GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all the oppose comments -  Exactly  as the opposition  to the US net neutrality banner. Also this would mean identifying from cookies/IP adresses the location of our users/readers. Our encyclopedia is international and it  must  remain  apolitical.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Also this would mean identifying from cookies/IP adresses the location of our users/readers" eh. we already do that for almost every single banner.. Since at least 2009. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have no  idea. I'm  an editor not  an IT  expert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apolitical? LOL. I have a list of articles I would like you to make apolitical.... HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * then as a Wikipedia editor there are things you can do  about it.  Hope your list  is not  too  long...Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some I can work on. Give me time. Some are owned by unprincipled Admins who would rather see me banned forever. There is no hope there. (For those articles or those Admins, and maybe Wikipedia.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not appropriate to push that POV, even though many of us might agree with it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GenQuest. Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs, in articles or otherwise. --Joshualouie711talk 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are not a forum, and that must just as much apply to this as anything else. Wikipedia must not and should not engage in advocacy. Once we do that then any claim of neutrality goes out of the window, we play into the hands of those who say we are not neutral.15:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
 * Support. Like the net neutrality proposal, this is not inherently political. Like net neutrality, this also has to do with something that threatens the very premise of WMF's purpose. But unlike net neutrality, this law may prevent EU users from accessing Wikipedia because Wikipedia doesn't pay the appropriate fees to news sources for using short snippets of text, and so forth.I initially thought this was about the image copyright law that banned images of certain structures in the EU, but this is much, much worse. Talk about heavy-handed... epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are not a forum, and that must just as much apply to this as anything else. Wikipedia must not and should not engage in advocacy. Once we do that then any claim of neutrality goes out of the window.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Too late. clpo13(talk) 17:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the project and the foundation is advocacy for free and open knowledge, for everyone to contribute, share and make money off. A highly radical concept in 2001 and still in most parts of the world. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely wrong. Not right at all.  100% wrong and 0% right.  The point of the project is to provide that free and open knowledge.  Not to advocate for it, or for anything else whatsoever. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: this law will have very serious consiquences for Wikimedia projects as outlined by the proposer, Julia Reda, WMF, WMDE and others. John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support although I doubt a proprosal on en-wiki can affect all other language wikis, so probably just here. I'm quite flabbergasted whenever I hear the "we shouldn't be doing advocacy"-line. Obviously we shouldn't be advertising for political parties or recommending the next big dietary supplement, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with telling our readers whenever a proposed policy would severely **** with our editing model. I wonder if one would get the same reaction if the proposal was more obviously authoritarian. It's also incorrect that the WMF hasn't said anything about this as explained above, and various elements of the WMF-affiliate ecosystem has been working against this, such as the WM EU-group (full disclosure, WMDK, which I'm a part of, has done so as well). Despite the carveouts for online encyclopedias in the proposal, it would still impact some of our other projects, as well as the general free-knowledge infrastructure, such as forced remuneration. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. This is not just a vague human rights thing, this is something that may well have direct financial consequences for WMF. On that bases I'd go as far as to support WMF overriding whatever consensus happens here to make the blackout happen.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  02:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for political statements supported by a majority of the few editors who happen to show up in a discussion on this page. That's regardless of the merits of the issues or how Wikipedia might be affected by them. We are Wikipedia editors, not political activists (although each of us is free to be a political activist off-wiki). In my view, this proposal should go the way of the proposal to show an anti-Trump statement before the U.S. presidential election. Furthermore, I think we should consider an explicit policy against using the encyclopedia as a platform for political statements. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Wikipedia is not a soapbox, whether political or not. But wait, why would we think this is a bad idea anyway? Isn't a robust and effective filter to prevent copyright violations one of the things we've repeatedly asked the Foundation for in the various community wishes consultation exercises? Isn't it exactly what we desperately need and want for this project, instead of relying on a script written by a user and the one dedicated admin who monitors it? Since the vote is imminent, can we take it that the WMF has already dedicated substantial human and financial resources to preparing an effective filter in case it turns out to be needed? Will it be ready in time? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * this article outlines the direct threats of the law to Wikipedia (and more generally why its a terrible idea). John Cummings (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Kusma, including caveat that the saveyourinternet link is not ideal. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Before it is too late. Yann (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Copied from the recent proposal for a Net Neutrality banner, after reading much of this discussion (I can't say it any clearer than this). I'll note that something does not need to be "partisan" to be political by my understanding and use of the word. First definition at m-w.com: "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government".
 * Support per Guy Macon and Wnt. Jc86035&#39;s alternate account (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will abstain from voting. But just to point out that if we do it, we should have our own banner, as we did on de.wp and bg.wp. We are in a particular situation where Wikimedia projects have been carved out from the proposal as the text currently stands. We need to explain why we still worry with a little bit more nuance, at least on the landing page. --dimi_z (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia commununity get involved in any political issue which is an existential threat to Wikimedia projects. There is a preponderance of evidence that this political issue is an existential threat to Wiki and for that reason it is fine for us to take a political position. It is true that Wiki is "neutral" but neutrality is relative and rational and aligns with an ethical code. Our ethic code includes values like "publishing an encyclopedia" and "making the encyclopedia accessible". I feel that we have met an appropriate standard of evidence in this case, and I agree that WP:reliable sources say that Wikimedia projects are facing an existential threat with this political issue. It is fine for us to advocate, lobby, and demand our right to develop and provide access to the encyclopedia we are sharing. I also feel that it is not necessary to settle any political controversy around this issue. I am willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of critics' concerns about our incomplete information on the law and lack of total certainty that this law is bad. For me, it is enough that we are diligent to cite reliable sources which confirm that some authorities have identified a danger.
 * I see "oppose" !votes which suggest that Wikipedia should avoid reacting to any country's legislative process as a way of achieving neutrality. I feel that this is misguided, because while Wikipedia is neutral about many topics, we always take a position that every country should allow Wikipedia, access to information, and the educational resources we provide. I will not entertain anyone's arguments that restricting access to Wikipedia should be part of the Wikipedia mission. There is no reason why we should expect that the law of every country is best for Wikipedia. It is fine for us to say that Wikipedia is basically good, and to expect that the laws conform to the existence of Wikipedia. Citizens like us make laws for the public good. People do not exist to conform to laws which fail to consider the public good. It is right to start with the assumption that Wikipedia is good and that good laws will encourage its development.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support A lot of the oppose votes seem to come from editors who won't be affected by this legislation, which makes me question if they truly understand the potential consequences. Speaking as someone who will be, from what I understand of it (correct me if I'm wrong), it will make it nigh-on impossible to do anything more than trivial edits. We would no longer be able to upload fair use images, cite web sources, or even quote copyrighted material. How on Earth are we supposed to write decent articles with those restrictions? This could be detrimental to Wikipedia and those in the EU who wish to edit it. The WMF may not be bound by this legislation, but my ISP will be. This is not just a political crusade. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Then do something about your law makers. Do you understand the current legislative actions affecting internet, copyright law, and legality of use for our users in China? How about Turkey? Spain? Thought so. Wikipedia is here for people to access—or not. They can do so, as best they can from the countries they live in. These are countries where they have –politically– elected the officials who then propose, debate, and enact the laws they deem necessary. We are not here to advocate for or against any such laws, any such country, or any such lawmakers.  That's politics.  We're here to build an encyclopedia. Period.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 00:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember that proposed copyright legislation a few years back? It would have made many, many free images used here subject to copyright. We had a banner about that, because it would have directly and adversely affected us. I don't see how this is any different. Adam9007 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. And I was against that action too, but consensus was against me. I stopped editing for about year afterwards, too, because I saw that these kinds of political actions would become perennial requests. Judging from, counting this one, three discussions so far just this year, I guess I wasn't far wrong.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 16:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Conditional moot. This discussion will probably be closed after 20 June 2018. Steel1943  (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just like the net neutrality discussion we had a while back: I'm sympathetic to the ideals, but I'm opposed to Wikipedia being used as a political platform regardless of ideology. Unless of course, the Wikimedia Foundation itself decides to release a statement themselves, but in any case, there are alternative outlets for statements like these to be expressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Direct advocacy on a political matter is about the farthest you can get from maintaining neutrality. "Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles", to quote uw-npov2.  Go start a blog if you want to publicize your opinions about political matters, whether in your own country or another.  Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)  This is intentionally copy/pasted from my vote on net neutrality.  Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The oppose voters must be missing the fact that a major part of fair use methodology that is absolutely essential for Wikipedia's functioning will be rendered effectively illegal unless Wikipedia tithes to every news source it cites and quotes. If we're not going to protest for the sake of the internet, then do it for the sake of Wikimedia's budget.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  02:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. If the legislation passes, it would almost certainly be illegal to access most Wikipedia articles from the EU, and Wikimedia and/or individual contributing editors might be found liable for copyright violation.  Certainly downstream commercial users would be found liable if they did not block access from the EU, even if Wikipedia and individual contributors were exempt.  We need a banner within 3 days.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: SOPA is a precedent, but this actually is much worse. Wikipedia is a name synonymous with open content online, and if they try to assert the "it applies to any website which serves European users regardless of where its being run from" card like GDPR is, this is an existential threat that goes much farther than just Wikipedia. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Blue Rasberry. Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for the convincing reasons given in the proposal. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong possible support Being apolitical does not mean being blind to threats to Wikipedia. The Red Cross is apolitical. That doesn't mean they can't take a stand against a proposed law that would make it harder to give blood. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let me share you a Wikipedia [Hungary] story, happened a few years ago and handled by yours truly: a large number of Wikipedia editors (image uploaders) got email from a large lawyer firm which stated that they have violated the rights of a LargeImagePublisherHouse™ since they have illegally used their imagery without their permission and they are commanded to immediately remove the image (from WM Commons) and immediately pay a large sum of money or they will be brought to courts. Possibly hundreds of such. The users got really scared, and I tried to figure out what was going on. After contacting the lawyering gang it took a weird turn: turned out they have used a company specialising in content filtering to scan millions of web images against their image catalog and flag copyvio [and have paid a helluva lotsa dinero for that], then started sending out harrassing mail en masse. The problem was, however, that their library ("accidentally") have included lots of images from Wikimedia Commons! So they have "claimed" their copyright, matched against, well, the originals then sent out the pay-or-get-sued mail. Obviously when they've been shown this they were hugely embarrassed and apologised and sent out correctional mail in the following weeks. Nevertheless, the harm's been done: some people left Wikipedia immediately and disappeared for ever. This is the same principle and technology They™ would like to enforce on Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, and apart from that basically everyone around your internet cable. Whether this is existencial or not… decide for yourself. Compulsory monitoring by copyright owners (not the authors, mind you)? Veto right for them? And we have to pay for that technology, implementation, and by the way accept all responsiblity for misfiltering, either way? I do not think that would get unnoticed in Wikipedia and Wikimedia operations. --grin ✎ 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Unlike the US net neutrality issue, this impacts Wikipedia as a project much more immediately and negatively, and it is legitimate to oppose it from this operational perspective.  Sandstein   12:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support very clearly something that negatively supports our community's direct mission and activity, Sadads (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is an instance where being "political" is unavoidable: the political aspect is baked into the very idea of a free encyclopedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not a political platform, even if the policy issue impacts (to some) our continued existence. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reasons I've opposed other similar proposals, we shouldn't be using banners to urge action in a particular way. That said, the issue is quite important and under-reported. I could support a neutrally worded banner that linked to some neutral information sites, but not one that advocates opposition or support. I think most readers are smart enough to make up their mind, if they are given information.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose because Wikipedia should not be using its position to influence the way the world is run. Our founding principles stated in Five pillars include that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and that "We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them." SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that we already use edit filters on Wikipedia: Edit filter management and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The concerns raised in last year's WikiMedia blog do not appear to have considered our own existing filters and the way we operate them. SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per Blue Raspberry. --Carwil (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Has a significant risk of impacting our ability to function. Agree with User:Sandstein. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments below. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose a banner linking to a page explicitly in opposition to Article 13, Neutral on a banner linking to a NPOV summary of the facts. --Joshualouie711talk 00:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WAIT, how is this political?
WAIT. before you oppose on 'not-political' grounds, be aware that this is not something that it politicised in the EU, it is something that has not been reported on in the media, and the public are largely not aware of. This EU proposal is far more dangerous than any of the net neutrality debates, in a direct way to Wikipedia. Net Neutrality doesn't directly affect Wikipedia, but the changes to copyright that article 13 contains may make it impossible for Wikipedia to operate in the EU; the 'link tax' might completely shut down access to Wikipedia in Europe if enforced, and the rules for copyright basically eliminate fair use, making all the European branch language Wikis largely impossible. That is way more of a big deal than a bit of political activism. Please do not bandwagon this one, THINK. I was against the other net neutrality banners, but this is NOT THE SAME THING. I urge you guys to please reconsider, because this is not a partisan political issue in the EU, and that this is actually a potentially huge existential threat to Wikipedia itself. Even Jimbo Wales has said so over on his talk page. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is being done through the political process, thus it is political. The WMF isn't worried about it, so why should we be? TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where have you been told that the WMF isn't worried about it? It is not a partisan issue like net neutrality, so Wikipedia wouldn't be 'taking sides'. This is trying to be snuck through the political process with nobody noticing. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless, if this is a threat to the WMF model, then the WMF should be clearly issuing a statement against it and/or issuing something to say they support a message. (WMF supported the Protests against SOPA and PIPA). If we had this, I would see no problem then including a banner message to warn about this. --M asem (t) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Err, they already did: 2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/. Judging from the statement, WMF seems rather worried about article 13, which would probably make the WMF subject to some kind of liability. The European users and associations originally cared about other things, necessary for our copyleft wikis: freedom of panorama, public domain, orphan works. But then, maybe that's considered "political" too. --Nemo 21:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I detest hidden pings; if you're going to ping me, at least make it so I can see my name. Anyway, I agree with Tony and Masem; if it's an existential threat in the view of the whole of the Foundation, not just Jimbo, something will be done. Moreover, it's not our place to attempt to sway the minds of voters regarding the proposed policies of their lawmakers. (Hint: contact your lawmakers and spread the word about this.) &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the hidden ping, I pinged everyone that had made a 'political' oppose above, and it was a long list of names. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fine. I'm just a bit grouchy today, to be honest. Thank you for the ping; I probably wouldn't have seen this otherwise. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the WMF is worried about it, or whether or not I'm personally worried about it, I still oppose. While I understand the proposed banner would not be encyclopedic per se, I think the general spirit of WP:NPOV should still apply to publicly-facing content and the proposed banner - linking to a site that says a specific piece of legislation "threatens everything you do" - is not in line with that. That said, I appreciate the spirit in which the banner is proposed. Chetsford (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone here who would change their position if the banner was worded differently or linked to another page such as [ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/digital-rights-groups-demand-deletion-unlawful-filtering-mandate-proposed-eu ]? I am guessing that the answer is no. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your guess is probably a good one. I'd be opposed to any type of persuasive banner regardless of the specific words used or the topic referenced. Chetsford (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that it isn't clear exactly what consequences this might have, particularly for Wikipedia. Article 13 is pretty broad in its language, which makes it a bit unclear where it will be enforced and where it won't. When similar laws passed in Spain I know that google news shut down in that country (at least linking to Spanish publishers). A lot of these links are pretty fearmongery, and I am not sure anyone really knows what consequences this might actually have. Everyone seems to agree that it will be bad to some degree however. If a Lawyer from the WMF could give us confirmation on this (can someone ping somebody?) that would be the best. I'm not sure if 2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/ represents a WMF position on the topic or not... —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The worst case scenario, it seems, is that Wikipedia in the EU goes the way Google News did in Spain. That, in the future, Wikipedia will be inaccessible to EU citizens. However, I oppose the persuasive banner regardless of the consequences. If the citizens of the EU, acting through their MEPs, decide WP is not welcome in the EU we should respect their decision, not chain ourselves in the guest bedroom and demand to stay. Again, though, I do appreciate the spirit in which the banner is proposed and agree it would be unfortunate if the worst came to pass. Chetsford (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Meh, the WMF is not worried about it. They are insulated by being (as an entity) based in the US, the material based in the US etc. This will not impact Wikipedia or any of the major encyclopedias in any significant manner. It will be an issue for editors in the EU but as to how much - that remains to be seen. What it is highly likely to totally fuck right up is Wikia - a site that routinely (and is in fact built around) violates copyright. And since Wikia is a for-profit cash-generating machine of a certain someone, who happens to live in the EU and so is subject to EU law, its not surprising they are 'concerned' about legislation that will directly impact that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Julia Reda AMA
For those few interested, tomorrow Julia Reda (one of the few defenders of the Internet within the EU politics), is doing an AMA tomorrow at 12:00 CEST on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has started: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/8oywxz/i_am_mep_julia_reda_fighting_to_saveyourinternet/ --Nemo 11:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Article outlining the threats of the law to Wikimedia projects
Cory has written an article for Electronic Frontier Foundation that outline the threats posed by the law to Wikimedia projects and what can be done to oppose it:
 * The EU's Copyright Proposal is Extremely Bad News for Everyone, Even (Especially!) Wikipedia.
 * —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on the subject
Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market has been started, it is currently not very comprehensive, please help expand it. John Cummings (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the (fairly critical) de:Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger Germany has already such legislation, maybe that is something worth inspecting? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Germany already has the link tax aka article 11, see Google News (it failed miserably, so the EU lobbies are now proposing an even worse version). The biggest danger for Wikimedia is probably article 13 (mandatory upload filters and liability). --Nemo 08:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It also appears to be poised to but some real teeth in the EU right to disappear, with hefty daily fine if a US website like Wikipedia refuses to delete a BLP article on demand. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WMF position
Hi everybody, since some people have been asking about it, I wanted to confirm our position very briefly: the Wikimedia Foundation is deeply concerned about requirements for mandatory upload filtering to fight copyright violations or other problematic content that could appear in the future. Therefore, [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/ we oppose Art. 13 of the proposed Copyright Directive] due to its potential harm to freedom of expression, user privacy, and collaboration on the internet. We believe that a general monitoring obligation for platforms would threaten user rights. Best, --JGerlach (WMF) (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * JGerlach (WMF), As I pointed out at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 229 the WMF position you just linked to is over a year old, and the proposed regulation has changes significantly since then. See Talk:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (prepared by Cory Doctorow) for a list of the changes. The leaked secret proposal to make the upload filter in Article 13 more extreme especially troubling and might require an additional WMF comment.


 * May I request an updated position statement? If there are no updates, may I request a simple republishing with a comment to the effect of "in the year since this was published, our position has not changed"? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, I can confirm that our position has not changed and we oppose Art. 13, in its amended version too. Even with the recent changes and the exception for non-commercial purposes, we oppose this proposed norm because it would establish a dangerous precedent and threaten user rights on the internet. --JGerlach (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass ping
--Apologies for the mass ping.But, I feel it might be prudential to inform you of the WMF 's stand on this issue, which has been clarified at this thread, since it has the potential to affect your !votes.Best, &#x222F; WBG converse 04:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Still oppose as bringing politics into Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would still think that if the WMF felt this needed to be known, they can force a banner across all projects. limiting to just en.wiki is not a good idea. --M asem (t) 05:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Same view with Masem. If the Foundation felt it is "necessary," just run banner across all projects as non-overridable Office action. But waiting for en-wiki crowd to agree first means it is not as "dangerous" as pro-banner camp are making it to look like. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Still oppose. To be clear: the WMF statement contains many valid thoughts and concerns (although a bit vague in some parts), but it does not demonstrate an immediate threat to Wikipedia's core mission. GermanJoe (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I remain opposed to a banner of any kind. Regardless of the WMF's position, I remain unconvinced that Wikipedia should be used as a platform for programs such as this. This would violate NPOV and other related policies, including the Five Pillars. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Still oppose. We have to be careful about hosting political banners. Think of the unintended consequences... doktorb wordsdeeds 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Still oppose It is not an issue of the rights and wrongs of this directive, but out commitment not only to the concept the the principle of neutrality. I believe that you should obey not just the letter of the law (or you should stop using commitment to the law as a kind of Moral VC to tell people how great you are).Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not one bit different; WMF's stand does not change the fact that this would put political advocacy atop every page. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, but I already commented on that year old blog article in my oppose. I'm not sure that the Foundation is aware that we already use edit filters created by our users, some of which are designed to combat copyright violations. But even if they are, I think it's OK for the Foundation to say that they are opposed to stuff which they feel impacts on Wikipedia. What is wrong is for anyone to use Wikipedia as that platform. Those folks who are opposed to this (and that includes our blessed Jimbo) should use legitimate platforms to express their concerns or disagreements. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No change, if the WMF wants to take an office action to run a banner I could tolerate that but I wouldn't be incredibly happy about it. That said, I have already been mass pinged twice to this discussion and would appreciate it if this was the last one.  W 42  13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Continue to oppose: Thank you for the ping, but this has not affected my position, either, nor the ones of my fellow editors, I daresay. My position may best be summed up as a combination of Ammarpad's thoughts, Narutolovehinata5's beliefs, and Winner_42's hope to not be pinged again. If you care to read it all, it's below. First, the Foundation may say whatever it likes, naturally, but they don't post their (inherently political) statement on English Wikipedia: neither should we. As it stands, there are other platforms that should be used to political lobbying and discussion instead of our collaborative encyclopedia. Moreover, of course, the Foundation could force Wikipedia to run a banner, and there'd be bobkes we could do about it, but they haven't; whilst one may see that as respecting the autonomy of our efforts here, I see that much in the same way GermanJoe and Ammarpad do: this isn't something that is wholly inimical to Wikipedia as a core threat to our mission and our future. Finally, as a standard matter of policy, we do not engage in political campaigning on the encyclopedia, and we do not allow campaigning or WP:ADVOCACY (our stance against SOPA and PIPA being a notable exception). It would behoove us, in my opinion, to continue such a policy. &mdash; Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 15:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WMF's opinion never made any difference to me; I find them despicable. I still oppose this political jousting being hosted on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with the comments on this matter made above by TonyBallioni, Doktorbuk, and Nyttend. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * continue to oppose If WMF wants to influence EU legislation, they should hire a lobbyist. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming oppose per TonyBallioni. --Joshualouie711talk 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I had reasoned that my !vote would stand unless I modified it, but a large number of editors appear to feel that it would be effectively withdrawn if I didn't re-affirm it here. Shrug. Still oppose as there has been no counter to my argument, let alone a persuasive one. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Time to close?
Reading the discussion above, while of course voting is not consensus, as of this comment, there are 27 26 support comments versus 30 oppose comments. Even if the support comments were more numerous, considering the amount of participation here (far less than the unsuccessful net neutrality proposal a few months ago) and the narrow gap in numbers, it's becoming clear that there really doesn't seem to be consensus at this point to implement the banner as proposed. With that said, some users from both sides have stated that they are open to either a neutrally worded banner that merely discusses the proposal and its details, or a WMF-implemented banner. But from the looks of things, with discussion having slowed down over the past few days, it seems unlikely that the numbers are going to change. As such, I would suggest that this proposal be closed, albeit without prejudice against continuing discussion of the EU proposal itself elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes time to close I think. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, clearly there's no consensus.  Tera TIX  11:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A neutrally-worded banner, moreover, still announces to the world that we believe it a really important thing about which tons of people need to know; the details of the wording wouldn't affect the fact that its mere presence is non-neutral. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also support close at this time. A "neutrally worded" banner would need a separate new discussionthat was not the topic of this one, so absence of comment cannot be fairly interpreted as absence of opposition. To avoid unnecessary confusion, the close should be clear that the "neutrally worded" option remains unresolved. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Post-closure discussion
Post-closure comments, including discussion of the EU directive, can continue in this section. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Appears that Art. 13 was adopted on June 20th by the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee. Next this will go July 4th to the Members of the European Parliament and if 10% oppose the proposal than a more formal vote will be required.
 * With respect to us being "political", Wikipedia lives and functions within a political and legal reality. We should engage "politically" when laws are being proposed which will affect our ability to function or our future.
 * This should include efforts to oppose the blocking of Wikipedia in Turkey and attempts to censor Wikipedia in France. It should also include opposing unreasonable burdens, such as upload filters, which would affect how we work. A banner should educate people in Europe about what this law would mean for us and others.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a side note, it.wiki decided to advertise the potential issues with a banner, obscuring Wikipedia for few days, and –eventually– to share an open letter with other projects addressed to the UE representatives. The decision was made basically because we belong to a movement that promotes open knowledge, thus we should stand to defend the right to free education and culture, even if the UE decision wouldn't directly affect us (but it would do anyways). -- Ruthven ( msg ) 14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It is now 2 July. If we are to have a banner, it should go up now.
Noting that whether to put up a banner is a WMF decision not subject to community consensus, are we going to put up a banner? If so, it needs to go up now; we need to give the readers at least a couple of days to read it. If not, may we please have an official statement from the WMF that you have decided against a banner? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon Banner is up now...
 * Can be seen here
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note, a banner was added as meta:Special:CentralNotice by WMF staffer User:Seddon (WMF):. It is targeting viewers in the following countries: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK.  This banner is currently set to expire on 2018-07-04 23:59. —  xaosflux  Talk 13:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see any banner. --Robertiki (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * On 3 July 2018 at 04:05 (UTC) the Wikimedia Foundation placed a banner on the English Wikipedia to run until 4 July 2018 23:59. The banner is displayed to readers in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cypress, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxebourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The banner reads


 * "To all our readers in [name of country], we need your help. On 5 July 2018, the European Parliament will vote on a new copyright directive. If approved, these changes threaten to disrupt the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of. You have time to act. Join the discussion. Thank you." with links to "Contact your MEP" and  "Read about it on Wikipedia".


 * The banner should be extended a day to run until 5 July 2018 23:59 so that while they are voting they can read it, show it to other MEPs, etc. It can then be manually removed when we get word that the voting is done.


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * the EU copyright banners have inconsistent end times. Everything should run until the vote. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As this was a foundation action by meta:User:Seddon_(WMF), please contact him directly if you would like the centralnotice changed. — xaosflux  Talk 03:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Anyone else we can ask? It is now 3 1/2 hours past the expiration. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Media response
list

media discussion

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

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

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

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

Survey (FileExporter)
PAGE ]]) 18:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 00:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support enabling as a beta feature; this extension would allow editors to bypass the community-maintained tools and allow file history to be attributed better. However, I think that this should not be enabled automatically for all users yet, since the extensions are still in beta. Jc86035 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as beta per Jc86035. Also, to avoid abuses, it might make sense to restrict use to extended confirmed, like with the translation tool. Regards SoWhy 12:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Also agree with Jc86035 and SoWhy on restricting the usage. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 13:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that from my understanding of this extension, it only adds a LINK. This link will take you to the FileImporter on Commons. Therefore all actions and all usage and abuses of the feature are controlled by the users permissions on Commons. Seems sort of useless therefore to limit to any usergroup. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Then the link probably should only be shown to users who can use the Importer on Commons. Can this be done? Regards SoWhy 20:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * is the required matching importer extension active on commons: ? — xaosflux  Talk 01:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like it. Example URL (with a dewiki file): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ImportFile?clientUrl=%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3ABSicon_uxgmKRZusw.svg&importSource=FileExporter. It looks like the extension is visible by default to all Commons users. Jc86035 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support sure why not, I'm not seeing any negative impact to enwiki - all the "writes" are on commons: — xaosflux  Talk 01:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support And should be available to all users since it appears there's no problem posed to enwiki in doing so. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support without restriction from enwiki -- This really isn't any different from CommonsHelper was when it was linked from Copy to Wikimedia Commons and it includes similar/the same protections as existing tools. If disruption occurs for some reason, we can deal with that in the future. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * not yet I might be missing something here but I see no protection or safe guards in place to ensure that once sent to commons images arent deleted there without the community here knowing about it. Gnangarra 10:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The tool doesn't actually move the image to commons, it just copies it from here to there while keeping the edit history intact. Action would still required on the enwiki end by an administrator to delete the local file (which any editor can currently request by using the Now Commons template). Adding a link to this tool doesn't create any risk above and beyond that created by the Move to commons template. --Ahecht([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * at which point it gets deleted here, the steps to move are in place but the steps to ensure discussion, and restoration here arent. Gnangarra 02:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And how is that different from any of the methods at Moving files to Commons, other than this tool would correctly import file history? --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK

PAGE ]]) 18:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per SoWhy - I don't see why we shouldn't have the tool available here however I agree in that there should restrictions as to who can use it. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, athough it should initially be limited to file movers until the tool is moved out of beta. Looks like this tool is available now for copying from enwiki to commons (I was just able to use it by manually entering the commons URL). All that's needed on this end is a tool to mark the files with Now Commons, which even an IP could do right now. Hiding the link is just security through obscurity, especially since adding the link to the sidebar and tagging the local file could be done by a userscript without any advanced permissions. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * FastilyBot automatically replaces with  when a file has been moved to Commons.  -  F ASTILY   21:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Not yet Generating description pages for files to transfer is *very* tricky to get right (speaking from personal experience - I created MTC!). At a minimum, I'd like to see the extension leave beta before being enabled for the masses. -  F ASTILY   21:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support \\\Septrillion:- &#8237;  10 Eleventeen 00:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The description doesn't make much sense. I think it's intended to say something like "FileExporter provides a link to import the file from Wikimedia Commons to the local wiki. FileImporter imports the file, including all data, to Wikimedia Commons from the local wiki."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not yet per concerns above. Let the kinks get ironed out.  After it's out of beta, I'd support, but with restrictions, as per some of the comments above.  Maybe make this a file-mover thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support without restrictions. If there are bugs, then fixing automatically generated but broken descriptions is still better than dealing with poor user-created descriptions and lost page histories. Daask (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Delete IABot talk page posts?
A previous RfC halted new talk page posts by InternetArchiveBot.

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

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

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

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

Survey

 * Support as nominator. Prefer #1 but would be happy with #2 - Rod57 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, as the nominator has not explained what benefit (if any) there would be in doing this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the posts clutter talk pages and confuse editors. They won't be archived in most articles, most have no automatic archiving or enough traffic to warrant archiving. If you still oppose why not support choice #2? -- Green  C  18:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose making another million edits here. Looks like these mostly all use sourcecheck - just add some verbiage there. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Choice #2 says this. Are you then in support of #2? -- Green  C  18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty indifferent to option 2, just strongly opposed to option 1. If going for option 2, certainly need to check if there are other uses outside of this use case that could lead to unintended impacts. —  xaosflux  Talk 19:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2 per the sourcecheck argument. Just change the text. In most cases it'll get archived anyway. — AfroThundr (t•c) 17:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Choice #2 says this. Are you then in support of #2? -- Green  C  18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - See choice #2 :-) --  Green  C  18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose everything — literally not a single reason to make a million edits to remove once-useful things. Unless there's a good reason, we need not retroactively remove material.  I don't see a need to change the template to encourage folks to delete them, they're not hurting?  What's the need here? ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 19:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support deletion Option #1 or any deletion plan is fine. This text is spam and information pollution which wastes huge amounts of time by continually distracting users to read this text. It is of no use to anyone. This text never should have been posted and for as long as it persists it is actively spoiling the Wikimedia user experience. At least archive it all; preferably delete it outright.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose option #1 as something that could cause more harm than good, especially if a new bot has to be designed to handle this workload. I just don't think it's worth the time and effort just to create more page revisions that don't do anything constructively.  I would be okay with rewording, per option #2, but again, I don't see a need to do it retroactively to past posts.  Surely, if anyone cared, I'm sure after rewording the post others would interpret that as being safe to remove past posts if they wish, and no one would find a problem with that.   Red Phoenix  <sup style="color: #FFA500">talk  21:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The posts get archived on active talk pages and lend meatiness to article talk pages that otherwise have seen little activity. I've actually used IABot's messages to do some close checking and don't want to see my work deleted, if it still exists where it hasn't been archived. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose option 1, indifferent on 2 as long as the template isn't used elsewhere. That said, this seems to be a solution in search of a problem - has the fact that the messages exist been raised as a problem before now? ƒirefly  ( t · c · who? ) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, below in the discussion, I have raised the existence of the messages as a problem.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You say that the messages 'consume human time', but what evidence is there for this, or for this being a problem? Tone doesn't come across well in text, so please rest assured that I'm genuinely interested in this - do you have any data to back up that such messages eat up reader time (unnecessarily), or are they just scrolled past in a second or two. ƒirefly  ( t · c · who? ) 23:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is spam. Spam consumes small amounts of time and attention from large groups of people giving benefit to almost none. Which of these premises do you dispute? - there are millions of these messages, tens of thousands of people read them, they have a life of years, the talkpages show tens of millions of views, there is a body of research publication which describes how spam / advertising consumes time and spoils an environment, these messages ask for minutes of time from all readers, people prefer to moderate their environment's level of spam, this kind of messaging is unprecedented in Wikimedia projects. Most people scroll past in 2 seconds but even that is unacceptable multiplied times millions. Many people read the messages the first few times and some people actually respond.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose all Please do not edit one million pages (or even one hundred pages) without a clear benefit. The watchlist turmoil alone is not worth it. A worse problem is the wasted effort as puzzled editors check what happened on the talk pages they monitor. I would scratch my head if I saw a bot modify another bot's message. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 2 requires editing ONE page. Not a million. Can you re-evaluate Option 2? -- Green  C  18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please make a proposal with precise wording, preferably brief. However, you don't need an RfC to edit a single template. I don't see a need to add a "you have permission to delete this" message. If someone is too inexperienced to know they can delete a bot's message if it's a nuisance they should not be fiddling with talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that permission isn't actually needed on any given single article, but initially proposed something roughly reflecting your position on the template's talk page and ended up running this RfC at least in part because I asserted that mass removal of the messages, regardless of whether done by bot or by encouraging human editors to do so, is something that would require community approval (mea culpa). Even (especially?) experienced editors are indoctrinated to never ever mess with others' talk page comments, so I think adding such a message to the (already transcluded) template would have an effect beyond just "stating the obvious". I suspect the "precision" you find missing in the framing of this RfC is due to an attempt at brevity and neutrality from someone who has never constructed an RfC before. I hope that tradeoff won't make necessary restarting it entirely. --Xover (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * oppose; per above. This has the potential to waste users time by alerting them to the automated change. Also possible is wasted editing hours as people discuss the issue during the fallout. In any case, particularly with regard to the example given above, we would almost certainly appreciate a human user leaving such a TP summary after making a non-minor edit affecting sourcing, why should a bot's contribution be less valid/useful. Agree with discussion points below - that brevity should be considered and would support improved brief messages if they can be shortened. Edaham (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Solution 1 per cost benefit; would
 * Weak Support number 2 per User:GreenC . GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 11:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose making edits to every talk page with such a message, there's no point in flooding watchlists for that. Don't care if the solution is changing the wording of a transcluded template, as implied might be the case in option 2. Anomie⚔ 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Option 1, meh for Option 2. Don't see the point in removing the notices systematically, especially many of those were made at a time when IABot wasn't super reliable. I've removed IABot messages before myself, so if you want to add a message to a template IABot used to mentioned this is an option, sure. I don't think it's going to make much of a difference, but I'm not oppose to that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option #2 and Would not oppose Option #1. I manually remove these on "my" articles if they happen to annoy me (clutter), and see no reason why others should not feel free to do the same, with or without "permission" from the template message. Changing the message to explicitly allow this (subject to normal local consensus), provided it is backed by community consensus in this RfC, has effectively zero cost and mainly reaffirms the status quo. Mass removing them by bot seems excessive for the problem: they're just a bit of clutter, and we have a ton of that in various other forms. Better to avoid the watchlist noise and potential for wikidrama such mass edits can engender. I would not, however, be opposed if consensus was to bot-remove them: I just don't think it's a big enough deal either way to feel strongly about it. (PS. Kudos to for setting up this RfC. It's good to have a community consensus as guidance, either way.) --Xover (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support #2, neutral on #1 I hear the arguments against 1 on the basis of the many edits, although I'm not sure how much of a problem it would be. However, it would be sensible to allow users to remove notices in areas where they constitute clutter. Tamwin (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Option 1 and Support Option 2 which pretty much lets sleeping dogs lie. The posts are spam and were a nuisance when made, but make further nuisance only to those readers who read old posts. Waking this sleeping dog will make a new, similar nuisance to my fellow talk page stalkers. Yes, my opinion is based on a guess that the new nuisance will be bigger than the remaining nuisance value of the old spam posts. No use complaining when other guesses lead to other opinions. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 2: the messages are useless, but not worth the trouble of performing a million of edits. Option 2 seems like a good choice in addressing the perceived issue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose All - There is no benefit to editing over a million pages just to delete a bot message ..... They can and will be archived eventually, I and others archive talkpages and most talkpages have the archive bot .... if they're not archived then who cares ? ..... The proposal IMHO does not in any way, shape or form help with the goals of Wikipedia. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose option 1, indifferent to option 2 I'm just not seeing the problem with letting old Archivebot messages stick around: they aren't causing any harm and they'll eventually go away on their own through talk page archiving. I strongly oppose option 1 since it will require a ton of work for little benefit. Option 2 only requires a single edit, so I have no objection to it. I don't think it will accomplish much, but if the community wants it I won't oppose. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 2, to clarify that one doesn't really need to check the bot's edits nor to edit any talk page template. Those requests were just terrorism imposed by users who didn't believe in the success of the bot. Neutral on option 1: the whole message should have been a template, but the subst-worshippers would have opposed that; the real solution for the future is to avoid adding so much text in talk pages, changing Substitution if necessary, to make it clear that it's vastly better to insert boilerplate text via templates. --Nemo 07:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose option 1 - the benefit doesn't justify the volume of talk spam. No opinion on Option 2; I have WP:OneClickArchiver enabled which can remove them from the talk page already. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both options. This is unnecessary, will clutter watchlists and history, and remove slightly useful posts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will add that option 2 will be much worse than the original posting of messages on the talk page, since all the talk pages will be changed, and will waste so much time in people finding out what happened, for no benefit at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose both options, per Davey2010 and Johnuniq. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Option 1 because mass edits like that would be immensely unnecessary but support Option 2, so that the messages can be removed where they are actually an obstruction. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose option 1 and support option 2. If people need to be told that removing trivial and deprecated bot messages does not breach WP:TPO, then let's tell them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
The persistence of advertising and spam messages consume a huge amount of human time and attention and bring no benefit. The Wikipedia community currently does not anticipate or measure the costs of mass messaging millions of discussion posts to hundreds of thousands of readers. If a message has a life of years, then if great numbers readers spend their time considering great numbers of messages, then this wastes hundreds of hours of Wikimedia community time in an unsatisfying user experience. We have to keep Wikipedia clean of unproductive distractions! See my previous rants on this topic:
 * Proposal - non-requested automated messages on talk pages must be short, March 2017
 * InternetArchiveBot notices about nothing but archive-url additions, October 2017
 * Disable messages left by InternetArchiveBot, February 2018
 * Bots that consume user time, and request for comment, February 2018
 * Require bot operators to self-report expected bot cost in human time, March 2018

No bot should be allowed to consume hundreds of human hours about its automated activities! Remove these messages immediately and avoid ever allowing this again!  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No evidence any significant amount of time is spent on these. They were turned off precisely because everyone just ignores them.  On active talk pages they'll be archived quickly, on inactive pages they won't get seen. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 00:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in general agreement with Bluerasperry on the principle, but must note that I consider the concern somewhat overblown on this particular instance of the issue. In general we should strive to be mindful of editor attention, including both article and user talk page messages, and "noise" in people's watchlists; but not to the exclusion of useful functionality or information. There is certainly wasted attention caused by these messages, but they are not entirely devoid of compensating value (how much is a subjective call). And excessive effort expended on them, relative to all the other more pressing issues the project faces, is likewise not a good use of the same limited resource (editor attention). --Xover (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your acknowledgement that editor attention is a limited resource. I can understand and accept that different people will calculate cost/benefit in time in different ways, but I find it challenging to understand how anyone could say that the cost is zero or immeasurable. Thanks for the reply.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No one said the cost was zero, just that what the exact cost is is at best a guess that depends on a lot of assumptions, which ultimately yields little to no insight on anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per, I don't think anyone is asserting that the cost of editor attention is zero. But they may disagree that leaving the old messages in place affects (uses) editor attention to any degree worth mentioning, or they may care so much more about the editor attention wasted by noise in watchlists and possibly discussions and wikidrama arising from the removal as to consider the other to be insignificant. Or they just think other factors are more important. An RfC !vote is the distilled result of the conclusion drawn after considering the various factors and assigning them your particular relative merit: it is not an expression of ignorance of, or active dismissal of, other concerns. It's "Here's what I think is important", not "What you think isn't important", if you'll pardon the simplification. --Xover (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not criticize others. For myself, I fail to understand the other side, and for myself, I feel a lack of ability to express what I see in a way that makes me feel understood. Thanks for the encouragement.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll note that we have a reasonably accurate proxy of the attention gains by the bot's activity, namely clicks on its userpage. --Nemo 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Can they at least be put under 1 tag titled  and then each time the bot runs it just adds the date as an ?  Nixinova   T   C   04:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

LGBT rights summary tables as templates
Note: not completely sure if this is the right place for this proposal.

Articles about LGBT rights in countries have a summary table after more detailed descriptions of rights and laws (example 1, example 2). I propose we turn these summary tables into a template which would be easier to add to new and/or existing articles for both new and expert editors. An example of such template is available on hr:wiki (in Croatian). --<b style="display:inline; color:black;">Hmx</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">hmx</b> 18:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should create a draft version, so we can see how it would look like. Ruslik_ Zero 20:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a draft version avaliable at Draft:Template:LGBT rights summary. Feedback is welcome. :) --<b style="display:inline; color:black;">Hmx</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">hmx</b> 21:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can proceed cautiously because some people may object. Ruslik_ Zero 17:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will add it to a few articles and wait for any additional feedback. --<b style="display:inline; color:black;">Hmx</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">hmx</b> 19:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Research project: How much economic value does Wikipedia create for Wikipedians?
Wikipedia creates a lot of value for users and editors. However it is totally free for readers and editors voluntarily edit articles. Therefore its contribution to the economy is not captured in standard macroeconomic measures.

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

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

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

Proposal to allow all ExC users to move-delete in Userspace
I propose that we allow all extended-confirmed users to use the  flag for moves where both the page to be moved and it's destination is in userspace I know this is a half baked proposal and the details probably need a lot of working out. — FR&thinsp;+</b> 10:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't this what the extendedmover permission is for? I don't really see a reason to add this flag to the extendedconfirmed group. Even with 500 edits, there is still plenty of potential for misuse if we were all granted that right.
 * (Edit) I see the bit about userspace-only moves now. In that case, that would be a neat idea. Perhaps after ironing out the implementation details better, you could open a ticket for it. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 12:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't be an "easy" type change, as the software does not have current support for namespace aware usage of .  This means we can't just ask to have this turned on a mediawiki developer would need to write new code for it - I don't think it will get much traction. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:AfroThundr3007730. If an editor had to move a page without a redirect, they could just ask a page mover to do it or just request the page mover right if they needed to do it enough. SemiHypercube (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wanting to suppress redirects in user space isn’t typically a good reason to grant +extendedmover. That being said, tagging it as U1 or G6 if it really bothers you isn’t a big deal at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a perennial proposal? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Just so you know, I view the words ‘erection’, ‘erected’, ‘erect’ and ‘erecting’ as sexually pornographic terms; this means that the aforementioned words should be censored on articles in which these words are included, except for the articles Scunthorpe problem and erection. The reason why I see those words as sexual terms is because they have pornographic meanings, one of those words which means ‘an enlarged and rigid state of the penis, typically in sexual excitement.’. Anyway, bye! Peppa Pig the Second (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't censor words or terms that others may have problems with. If it bothers someone that much, then maybe the Internet isn't the place for them. Either that or avoid such articles. The latter three also aren't specifically in reference to the penis and are also used when talking about building something, for example. None of those, however, have pornographic meanings. They came before pornography. They happen in pornography, sure, but they aren't pornographic. A lot of meanings words have now we've attached to them. Garbage, for example, isn't gross. We've attached the word gross to garbage as a way to describe it. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't even believe this user is serious:  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I can say one thing... he better not keep those edits up, because that's going to get him in hot water if that continues... :-/  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, and for a very important reason - it wouldn't be a true encyclopedia that could offer a full extent of knowledge and information to the reader if this were any different. That's something that we'd never change, not even for a minute....  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * These are ambiguous terms, and whether or not they are sexually pornographic would, to a large extent, be in the eyes of the reader. Vorbee (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not ambiguous and it would not be in the eye of the reader. The words either have a sexual context or they don't. Even then, the terms themselves are never sexual in nature. That's beside the point of course, since Wikipedia is not censored anyway. The notion that we should censor the terms is ridiculous. I have perused the edit history of User:Peppa Pig the Second and I haven't decided yet whether they are completely incompetent or simply a troll. Either way, it doesn't look good.--Atlan (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Cambridge University Library was, at least apocryphally, described as a "magnificent erection". (When I was there, it was commonly held to have been Queen Mary who said it.) The words have more meanings than the OP supposes. Ridiculous proposal, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Option 1 - RHS in-line 'Wd: Q2144892' links as the first item:
 * Pros: it's short, so the chances of adding an extra vertical increment to the height of the Authority control template is also small. After scanning all ~690k transclusions, 59.5% of Authority control templates display 3 or fewer links from Wikidata, and 90% display 7 or fewer, so at least those 60% would very likely retain their current height. Also, parameter suppression of some kind will probably happen in the next 1-few months, making even more templates 1-liners.
 * Cons: it's lumped together with the other authorities so it (Wikidata) might run the risk of being misidentified as an authority (which it isn't), but I've only seen this concern raised once (part of the reason I'm here). This hasn't been a problem with a sister template, Taxonbar, which has about ~50% of the transclusions of Authority control.

Option 2 - LHS 'Q2144892' link on a separate line:
 * Pros: less chance of being misidentified as an authority, and more obvious linkage to the corresponding Wikidata item than Option 1.
 * Cons: will force all Authority control templates that are 1 line tall (~50%) to be 2 lines tall.

Option 2Wd - LHS 'Wd: Q2144892' links on a separate line:
 * Pros: lowest chance of being misidentified as an authority, and more obvious linkage to the corresponding Wikidata item than Option 1 and Option 2.
 * Cons: same as Option 2, and slightly wider.

Option 2Q - LHS 'Q2144892' links on a separate line (stylistic variant of Option 2Wd; Q and 2144892 link to different pages):
 * Pros: same as Option 2, plus the additional link describing what Wikidata is, and is "cleaner looking" than Option 2Wd.
 * Cons: same as Option 2.

Option 2Wikidata - LHS 'Wikidata' link & RHS links display ID names instead of numbers:
 * Pros: same as Option 2, but much more reader friendly, and LHS is constant width regardless of Q# size, and the RHS (with this example) is slightly shorter than any Option 2.
 * Cons: same as Option 2.

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

Option 2edit - LHS ' &#91;edit on Wikidata] ' link:
 * Pros: same as Option 2 and Option 2Wikidata, and widespread use elsewhere, and maximally intuitive.
 * Cons: possibly too enticing?

Option 3 - any of the above.
 * Pros: various.
 * Cons: various.

Option 4 - no change.
 * Pros: status quo.
 * Cons: less mobility to Wikidata, and thus less potential for editors to add/remove/correct information.

AC Wikidata item link survey

 * Option 2edit, 2Wikidata, 2pencil, 2Wd/2Q, 2, 1, in that order, as nom.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 2Wikidata, if not, 2Wd, failing that, 2. I feel 2Wd is the best here, or failing that option 2. 2Q is bad and confusing. Option 1 is baaaaad. Personally, I'd just add the full Wikidata:Q2144892. The objectings (below) to this are silly, since it makes editing what is presented harder if there are errors, and presents Wikidata as authoritative. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Options 2edit/2pencil, 2Wikidata, 2Wd, and 2, in order. We shouldn't add it to the authority field, so option 1 is a no-go, and 2Q is confusing for the user. Option 2Wd gives the best indication of what the Q link is for, although just calling it "wikidata" would suffice. Option 2edit is probably the most clear, but the pencil reduces the template back to one line, which is nice. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 00:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Options 2 or 2Wd in that order. Oppose 1 as very bad. Oppose 2Q as too difficult for mobile users to navigate. I also oppose 2pencil and 2edit. IMO we should not be including calls to action such as "edit this" or "edit that" since it seems to encourage the least competent drive-by readers to start editing things and, while WMF projects do not demand much in the way of competence, Wikidata is not a good jumping off point. Chetsford (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, the "V · T · E" in every navbox template should also be removed. There haven't been significant issues of navboxes getting messed up because of the edit links being displayed. We need to give readers some indicator of where the data is drawn from and how to make corrections or additions. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "V · T · E" isn't an overt call to action since none of those abbreviations will necessarily be obvious to the drive-by reader. "Edit" or "Edit here" or "Edit this" are all calls to action; it's an announcement to the reader that we want them to edit it. I don't really want every rando reader to start editing a Wikidata entry. "This Can Be Edited" would be a descriptive indicator that was not a call to action but space considerations would obviously preclude that. Chetsford (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 15:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 4. There is no need for a WikiData link, especially since we now transclude most from WD (at least up to 22 per subject are transcluded, up to 43 possible).  WD is NOT an authority, and anyway it is already linked from the toolbox.  There is no ‘one size fits all’, on many articles, both the in-AC link ánd the link in the toolbox will be visible at the same time on one physical computer landscape oriented screen.  No objection agains a ‘sisterlink’ like template at long articles (but no standard inclusions there either, it does need merit).  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As it is relevant here, today I did this. The link to Commons is in the toolbox, anddisplaying it so prominently in this case suggests that there is more to get on Commons.  However, commons in this case has just three other cropped immages of the same as in the article - nothing to ADD.  For much of WD (we are set to transclude 43, we sometimes display up to 22), the WD link has NOTHING TO ADDin terms of authority control (and there are enough requests to have more parameters to be added ...).  The inclusion at the bottom should be a choice, not a standard for the 10s of thousands of articles that have an AC.  If WD really has more to offer, include a sister link.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 00:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On a short page like David H. Sanford the link in the lefthand box ánd on the AC would be almost next to each other, hence there is no easier access. —Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Beetstra, can you explain how Wikidata is not an authority? Are you referring to the possibility that there might be more than one authorized heading for the same topic?  By that token, we ought to remove WorldCat, because it's quite common to have multiple OCLC numbers for the same book because a cataloguer wasn't paying attention.  Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WikiData is not a reliable source, and therefore it is not an authority on any subject. Subjects get, within its capabilities, assigned a unique number, but anyone can create a subject, anyone can put whatever they want in it.  By that datamodel, without proper authorized peer review, it is not an authority.  That is fully in line with discussions going on elsewhere.  Note: if we call WikiData ID as an authorative number, then The PageID of every page here on en.wikipedia is, by that same reason, an authorative ID.  In short, not everything that assigns an ID is an authority.  And that we need to link the WikiData ID because we use its data is, to me, a rather circular reasoning.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Beetstra, do you even know what an authority file is? If so, why are you contradicting yourself by describing an authority file and promptly telling me that WikiData isn't one?  Hint: reliability is completely unrelated to whether it's an authority.  Please tell me, in depth, what an authority file is and why your definition is superior to the definion that we professional librarians use, to which your description of WikiData is quite close.  Then, get it published in JASIST or a similar journal.  Until you can prove that people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about representation and organization are wrong, don't waste everyone's time with a fringe definition of "authority file".  Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So, go include all PageIDs for all other Wikipedia pages, it must be useful as they are full of info. —Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But simply, we do not need to include any possible identifier that is publicly available, especially not ones to open wikis and any other unreliable source and randomly assigned list. option 4.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * After reading a bit more, I stand with my initial comment. WikiData is an open wiki, it does not have the necessary control measures.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 4. The reason given as a "con" is actually a "pro". We don't have the WD link in other templates that are filled way too often from Wikidata (official website, commons cat, ...). AC is already a poorly designed reader-unfriendly template, and efforts are under way to drastically change it. Adding yet another link and another undecipherable code after a meaningless abbreviation is not the way to go. If not option 4, then whatever, but definitely not option 1. We shouldn't put IDs from unreliable wikis into our "authority control" templates (not just Wikidata, but also musicbrainz and so on). If any option 2 is chosen, then don't add the Q-number, just add "Wikidata", so readers have a better chance of knowing what the link means (something that should be done for all the others as well, give the short "name" of the site instead of the meaningless ID, so people know that they are looking at a link to a Czechian, Swedish, US, ... repository). Fram (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the 2 - names to give an idea of what I mean. Fram (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've renamed Option 2Names to Option 2Wikidata following convention & updated subsequent references to it.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 4 per Beetstra and Fram. To be honest, I'd be quite happy if Wikidata folded but since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, the less connection there is, the better. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize that with Option 4, the data would still be pulled from Wikidata, right? All Option 4 does is make it less obvious how to correct errors, it doesn't make Wikidata go away. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Option 3 Adding the Wikidata link/ID is useful. Option 1 has the benefit of (almost) matching what is used in this template on other wikis (e.g., commons). I quite like the last Option 2Wikidata with the full display of the names rather than the acronyms and numbers. But any of the options would work aside from option 4. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I like the look of the full names too, but I realized now that they lack a link to the WP page describing the authority. The alternatives I see revolve around something like "VIAF: ID", or "Virtual International Authority File: ID", or "VIAF: Data", etc.; anything along those lines, as long as both links are preserved. Since some IDs can get very lengthy, having standard-length link text seems like a good idea. For simplicity, though, this would be best done as a separate proposal (which I won't have time to do until at least August, winkwink nudgenudge).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "No link to Wikidata" is painful. I think we've generally established that a template pulling from Wikidata should provide in the context of the template a way to edit the content at Wikidata (this is how Module:Wikidata functions broadly). OTOH, I don't think any of the options above provides the call to action in the way that Module:Wikidata does presently (the little pencil icon). I would prefer to see that here rather than the Wikidata ID or even the nomenclature for Wikidata. Regarding the specific proposals: Some Pencil Icon Version > 2Wikidata > 2. I'm partial to 2Wikidata for a non-Wikidata-specific related improvement. That said, I believe the intent is for the template to provide the links internally so that people who are curious about any particular identifier can understand (with some level of encyclopedicity) what it is they would end up looking at without taking up oodles of space with the template where it is provided (by use of the abbreviations). I'm not sure if those links are so valuable in fact or not, and I might suggest the general link to authority control/help:authority control suffices for "hey, what is this template doing? what are these links here for?" rather than specific links to each of the authority controls. That leaves me somewhere in the realm of option 2 as a last resort. Flat rejects: 2Wd for previous comments, 2Q per sea of blue rationale, 4 per first paragraph, 1 per con listed, and 3 because I have a specific preference. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 2pencil (per ) or Option 2edit . This has become the standard way of indicating "edit this on Wikidata". All of the presented options betray into thinking that Wikidata is one of the authority control files. It's not (is it?). The problem this proposal wants to fix is not that readers want to use Wikidata as an authority control; it's that editors can't find how to edit the actual authority files stored on Wikidata. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some examples of this standard? Also, is your second choice then Option 4 - no change?  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of (though not all of them). For representative examples see Twitter (live example: Cristiano Ronaldo) and Infobox astronomical event (live GRB 970228). Yes, my second choice is Option 4. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Created Option 2pencil.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . As for its con, it's something we should definitely check against MOS:CONTRAST, but I don't think we're married to this particular blue pencil. Your Option 2Wikidata is close to what the rest of the WD templates do (see e.g. Infobox anatomy): &#91;edit on Wikidata] in brackets. That would be the clear, and standard, way to phrase what this option is trying to do. I don't mean to be critical, but there would have been no need to reinvent the wheel here when standard options already exist. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the color used doesn't appear to match those at the top of phabricator ticket M82 (the pencil is ~2 years old and needs updating).
 * I think you're the first person to enter this conversation that was aware (or at least vocal) about such standards!
 * I guess Option 2edit needs to be made for " &#91;edit on Wikidata] "?  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Created Option 2edit.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 16:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything but 2Q Option 2pencil I disagree with the arguments for Option 4 that another wikidata link would be redundant, as it's not obivious in any way that the wikidata link in the sidebar had any connection to the data presented in the authority control template. The only option I am really opposed to us 2Q. It seems like an WP:EASTEREGG, is likely to be confusing when editors don't realize why they're not always being sent to the page they expected, and the single-character "Q" link is a small target to hit. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Option 4 Per Sitush. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - we already have a wikidata link in the toolbox. I agree with Sitush here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we should eliminate commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. too.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The links to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies etc are NOT STANDARD in the toolbox, as opposed to WikiData. As I said above, I did this.  That template did, on that page, not ADD anything (not even in the toolbox).  On most pages where AC is transcluded it does not necessarily add anything (especially since we have up to 22 identifiers transcluded, what is it supposed to do, even more identifiers to be found?).  And I would not necessarily oppose careful use of a sister link to WD where it adds something.  A blanket transclusion with AC is distinctly different from having a chosen sisterlink.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the only concern against adding a WD link to AC is the presence of the same link elsewhere on the page, then it's an irrelevant concern due to the ubiquitous existence of the above templates, as described in the opening paragraphs of this proposal. Please read them.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also argue that "I don't like Wikidata, and/or I want it to go away, and/or I don't want to do anything to improve it nor Wikipedia" is antithetical to all involved Wikis, and also not a valid point, unless there are plans to dismantle the project.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. —Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 4: per Beetstra and Fram; but Sitush raises the best argument. I've never seen the use of Wikidata, to be frank. But that's a conversation for elsewhere. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 15:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the use of Wikidata, to be frank. This is precisely what this proposal seeks to improve.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you meant figuratively seen, which I now suspect was the case, then yes, a conversation for elsewhere.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did and do mean "figuratively". Sorry if my statement was unclear. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 13:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 2 (indifferent among them)—Editable and on the left-hand side of Authority Control to differentiate it. People should know where this information comes from and have a way to edit it.--Carwil (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 2edit, then 4If people know Wikidata abbreviations, they likely already know that the Wikidata item can be accessed on the sidebar. ^Daylen (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 2Wd, Option 2, Option2Wikidata in that order. It's a good idea to include it, I don't like the pencil or "edit on" options, and 2Q seems too subtle to be useful. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 02:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Options 1, 2Wd, 2Q, 2, 2Wikidata, 2pencil in that order, Strongly oppose 4 and 2edit. I know Wikipedians are worried about vandalism on Wikidata, but it is often the most useful of any of these because it connects to all of the others and has a user-friendly API. It's essential to link to it, and this is a better spot for it than the left toolbox. Agree that the call to action in 2edit is a bit much. Daask (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

AC Wikidata item link discussion

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

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

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

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


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

Pinging &, just to inform you that Option 2pencil and/or Option 2edit were created after your vote (and since you didn't vote Option 3 nor Option 4), in case you wish to amend. The available options appear stable now... ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been a month since this was posted. Do you think maybe it's time we hunt down an admin to do a formal closure? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , perhaps, if you think it's necessary. Despite my vote, I think Option 2pencil is the most sensible choice as that is the de facto default when it comes to infoboxes, so using it in Authority control is the natural conclusion. Any other option would be a forking of WP-to-WD navigational display.
 * I have limited time in the near future, so feel free to hail an admin if you so choose.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

There s NO STANDARD LINK to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. There IS a standard link to WikiData on all pages with an associated WikiData item. But as a list of non-exhaustive examples: All have A WIKIDATA LINK in the toolbox, and NO LINK to commons, wikispecies, wiktionary, wikitravel etc. At the time of my removal here, the article Giovanna Fletcher had a commons link at the bottom (IMHO useless as it did not provide significant material), and NO link to commons in the toolbox at the left. Adding this link leads, by definition, to duplication, as opposed to other ‘sisterlinks’. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Vladimir Sobolev (diplomat)
 * Tolombeh-ye Ashayiri Deh Gowd
 * Francis Albert Eley Crew
 * Elsie, Kentucky
 * Dehliq

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

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


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

Proposal to increase trigger of Special:AbuseFilter/68
This filter is set to a very low threshold. The other day, an account suddenly started making random page moves at the rate of about 2 pages a minute (see Special:Contributions/Whiteleaf30). It was very fortunate that the abnormal behaviour was spotted early by This, that and the other as the person was making random new pages (obviously with a view to getting past Special:AbuseFilter/68's low setting), and I just happened to look at at WP:AIV at that time. By the time I saw what was going on and blocked the user, they have moved 10 pages to random destinations. A higher setting for this filter would help prevent a reoccurrence - they have tried once, probably best to assume they might well try again. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 18:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Boy, that was an old account, one edit since 2007, then this? Wonder if it was breached. Anyway, the filter is hidden from public view; what is the current setting? Home Lander (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * try now. — xaosflux  Talk 22:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, yes I could definitely support a higher threshold than the current setting. This issue is bordering on WP:BEANS; I'm surprised it's not worse already. Home Lander (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This actually prevents more page moves than I'd have thought, especially considering you have to be autoconfirmed to move pages at all. My current thinking is we should leave it as-is, and make a second, parallel filter with higher thresholds each for requirements, number of pages moved, and timeout - something on the order of less than a hundred edits can't make more than five page moves per hour. —Cryptic 14:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, it would certainly stop some automated random moving like I experienced. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 14:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What is this xRumer the edit summaries mentioned? Doesn't seem real given the edit summaries weren't consistent, but I'm still curious. Anyone ever seen any mention of this before? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 05:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See xRumer. I don't recall seeing it before, either. Home Lander (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt that xrumer bots would get to the point of moving pages. They would first have to register an account, then get autoconfirmed without being detected. In the past I blocked many of these based on edit filter detecting spam and nonsense. However if it did get to run on an auto confirmed account, random things could happen as it clicked links and filled fields mindlessly. An edit filter for move rate warning, that allowed manual override may stop many bots. I would recommend a lower limit too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

IP Lead ban
I propose banning IP's from editing the lead section of articles. The reason for this is that in articles putting something in the lead section can put extra emphasis on it. A lot of times an IP can overreact if for example someone misbehaves a little during a major televised event and insert their own personal opinion in the lead of the article of that person. (Mobile mundo (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Not only might an IP be able to contribute constructively to the lead section, I don't think the MediaWiki software could protect a section of an article, unless the lead was a subpage. SemiHypercube (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * From the software point of view a page edit is an edit, the "sections" are not considered. We may theoretically be able to do something with the abuse filter, but it would be computationally expensive, and along the lines SemiHypercube mentioned above, we should normally assume good faith of our editors. — xaosflux  Talk 00:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if vandalism on a page was common enough, why not make a request to WP:RFPP? SemiHypercube (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not technically viable and even if it were it's unjustifiable. The situation provided by Mobile mundo is at best a hypothetical and at worst anti-IP hysterical reactionism. —<i style="color: #228B22;">Jeremy</i> v^_^v  Bori! 02:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The same issue may come about with registered users. It needs wise eyes to detect foolish changes, rather then obstacles to ips. IP s also contribute usefully to leads and unsectioned stubs. So do not stop them this way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from the technical problems, it would be confusing, disruptive, and unwarranted to try to single out the lead. Either we let IPs edit articles, or we don't. Five unanimous opposition, I think this idea is effectively WP:SNOWed. Alsee (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Make it six. The contributions from IPs are far too valuable for us to restrict them editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)