View source for Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

<noinclude>{{Short description|Discussion page for matters concerning the Wikimedia Foundation}}{{village pump page header|WMF|The '''{{abbr|WMF|Wikimedia Foundation}}''' section of the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is a community-managed page. Editors or [[Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]] staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

* Discussions of proposals which do not require significant foundation attention or involvement belong at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)|Village pump (proposals)]]
* Discussions of bugs and routine technical issues belong at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)|Village pump (technical)]].
* Consider developing new ideas at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)|Village pump (idea lab)]].
* This page is ''not'' a place to appeal decisions about article content, which the WMF does not control (except in [[Wikipedia:Office actions|very rare cases]]); see [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|Dispute resolution]] for that.
* Issues that do not require project-wide attention should often be handled through [[Wikipedia:Contact us]] instead of here.
* This board is not the place to report emergencies; go to [[Wikipedia:Emergency]] for that.
Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.
<!-- Villagepumppages intro end -->|WP:VPW|WP:VPWMF}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}}
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=336
|minkeepthreads= 6
|maxarchsize= 300000
}}
{{centralized discussion}}
__TOC__
{{anchor|below_toc}}
[[Category:Wikipedia village pump]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]
</noinclude>

== What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach) ==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 04:38, 18 May 2031 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1936845482}}<!-- END PIN -->
{{Further|WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU}}
:''Summary of overall issues: [[User:Suffusion of Yellow/Mobile communication bugs]] [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 03:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)''

Over a year ago, I reported two problems to the WMF:

{{tracked|T240976}} (1) Logged-in mobile web editors are not given a very strong indication that they have new messages. There's just a little number in a red circle. It's similar to what many other sites use for "Exciting! New! Offers!" and other garbage. There's nothing to say "A human being wants to talk to you."

{{tracked|T240889}} (2) Mobile web IP editors are given '''no indication at all''' that they have new messages. Nothing. Every template warning, every carefully thought out personal message, and everything else just disappears into a black hole, unless the user stumbles across their talk page by accident, or switches to the desktop interface.

But I get it. Bugs happen. They can be fixed. Instead both problems were marked as a "low" priority.

This is baffling. Problem 1 is a serious issue. Problem 2 is ''utterly unacceptable''.

We are yelling at users (or even dragging them to [[WP:ANI]]) for "[[WP:IDHT|ignoring]]" our messages that they have no idea exist. We are expecting them learn ''without any communication'' all sorts of rules from [[WP:V]] to [[WP:3RR]] to [[WP:MOS]] that don't even apply to most other sites on the web.

Until they get blocked, of course. What a terrible experience. How are we supposed to gain new users when their ''very first interaction'' with a human is being told to f--- off, for "ignoring" a message they didn't even know about?

WMF, please explain to this community why this is a "low" priority. One year is long enough. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
:I'll just note that a majority of our users are accessing us on mobile so this isn't a niche problem either. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
:Wow. Neglected high-priority phabricator tickets are nothing new, but this is another level. {{u|Jimbo Wales}}, this deserves your attention. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::I would like to point out that the majority of messages left to IPs will never reach the user in question anyways, ESPECIALLY on mobile connections. Due to shared ips, the chance of someone else viewing the message before the person you are trying to reach is probably about 50/50. I realise that sometimes leaving a message is effective, but there are serious questions about all the cases where it is simply leaving a very confusing and often aggressively toned message to a completely different user just randomly reading an article at the busstop a month later. What we really need is a completely new way to leave messages to anonymous users. Possibly with some sort of very short lived session or something. But as ip users are more or less stateless (the software concept) right now, that is probably hard to implement. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 09:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{re|TheDJ}} I would have no objection to expiring the OBOD if the talk page isn't clicked in a few days. Many messages come only a few minutes after the user makes the edit; most mobile carriers aren't ''that'' dynamic. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 17:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
{{tracked|T263943}}
:Equally baffling is that '''mobile app users do not see any notifications''', including no talk page notifications, logged in or out. The link to talk is buried within the settings. Official mobile apps! They don't even see block messages! See {{phab|T263943}} and others. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive329#Block_review:_Wilkja19 This block review] and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_186#Notification_to_iOS_app_user this discussion] where an editor also tested block messages. The editor was blocked multiple times for something that was not their fault but that of a poorly thought out app. They are not alone. Quote from phab task: {{tq|Conclusion: Using the app is like being inside a bubble, without contacts with the exterior. It's no wonder there's so much people complaining here that using the app caused their Wikipedia account to be blocked, for reasons they don't understand.}} [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 09:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
{{tracked|T275117}} {{tracked|T275118}}
::I have filed {{phab|T275117}} and {{phab|T275118}}. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 10:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:I'm always surprised that anyone manages to edit with the mobile interface. As another example, if you're not logged in, there is no way to access the talk page of an article, or even any indication that it exists. If an unregistered user makes an edit and is reverted with a common summary like "see talk", I imagine many will have no idea what's going on. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 09:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{re|Joe Roe}} Sorry if this is not the right place, but I'm trying to find out why you can't access an article talk page if you're not logged in (on mobile). This was the only mention I could find. Do you know if this issue is being addressed anywhere? Cheers, [[User:Fredlesaltique|Fredlesaltique]] ([[User talk:Fredlesaltique|talk]]) 07:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Fredlesaltique|Fredlesaltique]]: AFAICT the talk page link is a feature of [[mw:Reading/Web/Advanced mobile contributions]] (see [[mw:Reading/Web/Advanced mobile contributions#January 14, 2019 - Getting started with Talk page links|§ January 14, 2019 - Getting started with Talk page links]]), which is currently only available to logged in editors (I don't know why, though). See also [[phab:T54165]], though that doesn't seem very active. –&nbsp;[[User talk:Rummskartoffel|<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#e40303,#ff8c00,#ffed00,#008026,#004dff,#750787);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text;">Rummskartoffel</span>]] 11:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
::The mobile web, and mobile apps, appear to be designed for readers and not writers. Having used mobile web occasionally, I think it's usable for logged in editing, but I do have to switch to desktop every now and then. I've used the iOS app only for a test - it is not usable for editing imo. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 09:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::The number of edits I have made with the mobile web or app interface is most likely less than 50 (out of 13,000). Even for reading, the mobile interface is borderline unusable. I do frequently edit from my 4-inch cell phone screen (in fact, I'm doing that right now)... but I use the desktop version. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 14:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::I agree with Joe and have always found {{u|Cullen328}} to be a bit of a superhero for being who he is on a mobile device. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the kind words, {{u|Barkeep49}}, but I simply use the fully functional desktop site on my Android smartphone. It's easy. If I was the king of the Wikimedia Foundation, I would shut down the mobile site and apps, because they are an ongoing impediment to serious editing. {{u|RoySmith}}, there is no need to invest more effort (money) on a good editing interface for mobile, because that interface already exists - the desktop site. Just change its name from desktop to universal or something, and the problem will be solved.[[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
* In some parts of the world, laptops and desktops are common, and people's phones are their second screen.  In an environment like that, yes, it makes sense for mobile devices to be thought of as a read-mostly interface.  On the other hand, in other parts of the world (particularly India in the context of English language users), mobile is how people access the internet.[https://www.nngroup.com/articles/mobile-behavior-india/]  There's no doubt that building a good editing interface for mobile is a hard thing, but we should be investing more effort there.  Poor mobile editing tools disenfranchises a large segment of the world's population.  -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 14:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

* {{ping|Suffusion of Yellow}} Thank you for basically expressing exactly the same problem I wanted to. I have blocked a few editors who seem to be editing in good faith but just don't communicate, which eventually end up at ANI and after much agonising, get hit with as friendly a [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] block as we can muster. In the last instance, {{user|Mdd97}}, I specifically made a custom block template that said "CLICK HERE TO READ YOUR MESSAGES" in a way that they surely couldn't miss .... but again, following the block they've not edited again. We '''have''' to get to the bottom of this; if it's got to the stage where I've got to block people and the root cause is a software fault, it needs to be fixed. Surely the WMF can't be happy that I've needed to issue blocks on good-faith editors in this manner. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
*To address a reaction some might have, yes, the vast majority of users on mobile are readers, not editors, and no, I wouldn't want the community totally in charge of redesigning the mobile interface, since we'd end up with the phenomenon we have at desktop where e.g. the tools section of the sidebar is visible to every user on every page despite it being of zero use to 99.9% of them. But this request is not just editor-centrism; it applies to users who have already edited and who badly need a notification to help them not get lost. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
*:I agree 100 % with the your 99.9 % comment. ( :-)). The user interface is editor-centric, is an example of[[Conway's law]] to extremes and <nowiki>[[Design_by_committee]]</nowiki>. To add to the list, the bottom part of the <nowiki>[[Main_Page]]</nowiki> and worse of all all the uncollapsed header tags on Talk and Article such <nowiki>[[WP:NPOV]]</nowiki>, which emphasis Editing or reading. To continue the [[Cool Hand Luke]] topic name reference, we are making readers eat too many boiled eggs of information   [[User:Wakelamp|Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b]] ([[User talk:Wakelamp|talk]]) 00:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
* I think the [[mw:Talk pages project]], especially now that they are beginning to work on subscribing to [[mw:Talk pages project/Notifications|notifications for talk page sections]], could be interested in this discussion. Pinging [[User:PPelberg (WMF)]] and [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)]].  It also touches on [[m:Universal Code of Conduct|UCoC]] Enforcement, highlighting that there needs to be funding for software dev. in addition to other measures.  Pinging [[User:SPoore (WMF)]] and [[User:BChoo (WMF)]] for want of knowing who to contact regarding Phase 2. [[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] (&nbsp;[[User talk:Pelagic|messages]]&nbsp;) – (09:51 Sat 20, AEDT) 22:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC) ... Adding [[User:Xeno (WMF)]] after seeing section above. [[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] (&nbsp;[[User talk:Pelagic|messages]]&nbsp;) – (09:55 Sat 20, AEDT) 22:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Pelagic}}: Thank you for the ping and highlighting how this is a related need for my current project. I've been following this thread and will be including the comments (and phabricator links - thank you for those!) in my work categorized under ''important requests for additional human or technical resources to assist with on-wiki workflows''. [[User:Xeno (WMF)|Xeno (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Xeno (WMF)|talk]]) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
'''Question''' - Is this something that could be cured by bringing back the "Orange Bar of Death"? [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 16:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Mjroots}} the orange bar of death never went away. Last I check, it's still there for non mobile IP editors. That's why they get an indication of new messages. AFAIK, it was never there for the mobile web editor, that's probably part of the problem. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
::What no one has ever told me is ''why'' it was left out in the first place. Was it a simple oversight? Did someone have such a little understanding of how the sites work that they thought communication was unnecessary? Some other reason, that I'm not thinking of? This is the most confusing part. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 17:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC) 
:::I wish it could be brought back for all editors. Looks like bringing it in for IPs on mobiles could be the cure here. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 18:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
:This is alarming but not surprising. Since I do a lot of question answering at the Teahouse, I'll point out a random [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Help with page changes to Johnson & Johnson article|IP's post from yesterday]], in the same vein as some of the sentiments noted above: {{xt|"Also, why don’t they get rid of the mobile view? So terrible!"}}.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 00:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
* Does anyone with a (WMF) account plan on commenting in this thread? [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 17:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
*: Don't hold your breath. For most WMF employees, commenting on Wikipedia using a WMF account is a quick way to get yourself fired. You might, if you make enough noise, get a department head to respond by saying that mobile users are very important to us and we will do everything we can to address this, up to but not including doing anything differently that we are doing them now. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
*:: {{re|Guy Macon}} When they did the same thing with desktop IPs, [[Help talk:Notifications/Archive 1#IP notifications|it was fixed within ''hours'' of being pointed out]]. Serious, not rhetorical question: what's changed about WMF culture since 2013? [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 17:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{Clear}}
<br />
{{Graph:Chart
 | width=256
 | height=300
 | xAxisTitle=Year
 | yAxisTitle=$
 |xAxisAngle = -40
 | legend=
 | type=rect
 | x=2003–2004,2004–2005,2005–2006,2006–2007,2007–2008,2008–2009,2009–2010,2010–2011,2011–2012,2012–2013,2013–2014,2014–2015,2015–2016,2016–2017,2017–2018,2018–2019
 | y1=80129,379088,1508039,2734909,5032981,8658006,17979312,24785092,38479665,48635408,52465287,75797223,81862724,91242418,104505783,120067266
 | y2=23463,177670,791907,2077843,3540724,5617236,10266793,17889794,29260652,35704796,45900745,52596782,65947465,69136758,81442265,91414010
 | y3=56666,268084,1004216,1658282,5178168,8231767,14542731,24192144,34929058,45189124,53475021,77820298,91782795,113330197,134949570,165641425
 | y1Title=Support and revenue
 | y2Title=Expenses
 | y3Title=Net assets at year end
 |colors=#008181,#810081,#818100
}}{{Clear}}
<br />
When you spend three times as much money without the actual job you were hired to do changing, you start to focus more on spending all of that money instead of on doing your job. When you hire a boatload of new employees when the current bunch are more that enough to do the job, those new employees find ''something'' to do, whether that something needs doing or not. I'm just saying. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 18:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::[[User:Suffusion of Yellow]] broadly you have two factors. Firstly there is little incentive for WMF people engage people here were they will get a bunch of people shouting that them (which is not fun). Secondly there has been a longstanding unwritten understanding that mobile is the WMF's turf while the community has more ownership of the desktop.[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 11:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
*::::Well, imagine this. Someone is standing on your foot. You politely ask them to move off of it. They don't. You repeat your request more loudly. They continue to ignore you. It still hurts. At some point, does shouting and shoving come into play?{{pb}}If WMF doesn't like being shouted at, well&mdash;certainly, no one does. But people do not like being ignored either, and doing so is an excellent way to get them started shouting just to be heard at all. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
* Action from the WMF! [[phab:T276142|One]] [[phab:T276147|two]] [[phab:T276149|three]] ''new'' mobile bugs I discovered while investigating this have been triaged as "low" priority, and [[phab:T276139|a fourth]] was lowered to "medium", after a volunteer developer had raised it to "high". All without a word of explanation. The first (unparsed spam blacklist messages) isn't a huge deal I'll agree. But why is ''not telling users why they're blocked'' or ''falsely telling registered users that they're blocked personally'' not a major concern? That's how we lose people. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 22:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
**Can we locally block these apps from editing English Wikipedia? That would force the WMF to fix them. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 00:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
**:{{re|Fences and windows}} Yes, this can be done with the edit filter. It could even be limited to users with no confirmed email address. But there's a catch. The apps don't properly display custom edit filter warnings, either! The iOS app just displays the ''title'' of the page where the message is stored. And the Android app doesn't display custom messages at all. The mobile web editor ''does'' display messages properly, however. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 00:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
**:If this were a lower-priority issue, I would say we should come back in a month and see if the WMF fixed it. But this is such a glaring oversight that I feel this may be the only option if we want to fix this. Question: would this apply to just the app, or to the mobile site as well? —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
**::It's app only (the <code>user_app</code> variable in the edit filter). [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 15:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*::::Thanks, [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]]. If we prepare an RfC, where would it be held? It would need advertising on cent. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 23:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::::{{re|Fences and windows}} Any RFC will need some ''very careful'' drafting first. If it fails (for any reason) the WMF could interpret the failure as "see the community doesn't really care about this issue". [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 23:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*::::::We might want to move this thread to [[WP:VPT]]; this noticeboard is [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF) not widely watched]. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 23:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::::::I ''really'' don't want to rush into an RFC, though. There are many questions. Should we also disallow mobile IP web editors? Should we disallow edits from users with a confirmed email address? Which bugs, exactly, do we want fixed? How long do we give the WMF to fix them? This is a nuclear option. It should not be taken lightly. {{pb}} But please don't move the ''whole thread'' to VPT. It's here so it doesn't get buried in the archives. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 00:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
*::::::{{ec}} Two-question RfC maybe? Initial brainstorm - Question 1: consensus 'letter' to WMF requesting resources be allocated to promptly fix the issues. Question 2: if not done within 90 days, mobile apps blocked from editing enwiki by edit filter. Best to move this particular matter to VPI. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 00:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::::::It has to be noted though that disallowing edits, if it comes to it, is really not great and rather bitey, as the editors will hardly have any clue what's going on due to EF messages being iffy. Maybe bugging Jimbo and/or {{u|Doc James}} to contact someone in engineering is a viable option? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 00:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
*::::::::As I said. Nuclear. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 01:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::::::Yes, IDEALAB is the best place (for a new thread). That will discourage any '''supporting''' and '''opposing''' until we figure just what we're asking for. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 01:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
*::::::::This needs caution—an overly enthusiastic RfC or proposal at [[WP:VPI]] is bound to be voted down and that would cause a lot of people to automatically vote down any future proposals of a similar nature. I'm thinking of masked IPs—any proposal to impede or block such users could easily fail if it appeared to be similar to an earlier idea to block "good faith" users who were unaware that communication was even possible, let alone required. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
* I wish I could say I was surprised by any of this but I've long assumed that something like this was the cause of numerous editors I've come across who display quite clearly that they have never seen their IP/user talk page, and simply have no idea why their edits "aren't going through" (because a human editor keeps undoing them). A thorough waste of thousands of hours of volunteer time, ''on both ends''. There are some countries or regions in which accessing the internet is only financially possible for the everyday person via a mobile phone, so the WMF's inaction here is another built-in systemic bias which prevents some cultures from effectively contributing their knowledge and skills to Wikipedia. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 06:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*{{tracked|T278838}}<br>[[User:Suffusion of Yellow/Mobile communication bugs]] seems to be an excellent overview but it would get more attention if it were on phab. I have tried to roughly copy it to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T278838 which can probably be used as a parent task for all these issues. – [[User:SD0001|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: green">SD0001</span>]] ([[User talk:SD0001|talk]]) 15:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for raising these issues, and documenting the problems so thoroughly. We're going to get a group of people from the Product department together next week to talk about these problems, and see what we can do about it. I'll let you know what we figure out. I appreciate you all bringing it up. —&nbsp;[[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 22:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
: Thank you, Danny! I look forward to seeing what you come up with. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 19:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
===26 April update===
Hi everyone, we talked in the Product department about the issues that are being raised in this conversation. 

We're currently showing notifications to logged-in editors on mobile web, which appear as a number in a red circle at the top of the page. It's the standard design on mobile that indicates that there are messages for you. 

We've been reluctant to do that for IP editors on mobile web, because mobile IPs shift around so much. Desktop IPs can change as well, so there's some risk of not reaching the right person on desktop, but the risk is a lot greater for mobile. People walk around with their phones and move from one wifi or cell tower to another. We haven't wanted to show a message bar to a mobile reader who happens to be picking up the same cell tower or wifi access point as someone who made an edit a year ago. 

On the apps, the Android team has released improvements to the talk page experience in February and March. Echo notifications currently exist in the Android app, and user talk pages are also discoverable through the watchlist. Users can access article talk using a dropdown menu at the top right; you can see how this works in [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/Android/Communication#/media/File:Android_article_talk_page_walkthrough.gif this walkthrough gif]. There are some further improvements planned, including enabling in-line replies, and building onboarding features to help people discover both the watchlist and talk pages. You can learn more, and ask the team questions, on their [[:mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/Android/Communication|Android communication project page]].

The iOS team is also looking at improving the talk experience on their app. They're currently in the initial design and technical planning phase for [[:mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/iOS/Notifications|enabling Echo notifications on iOS]]. Later this year, they're planning to fill in some of the missing collaboration features on the app, including making editing tools and talk pages more prominent.

There are some different things to discuss here, and I'd like to know what you think. —&nbsp;[[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 18:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

:What are we doing about the block notification messages and the other edit screen notices??  —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|DannyH (WMF)}}
:*''About IP users'': As myself and others have suggested, there's a solution to the "random unrelated reader" problem: Don't show the alert if the new message is over X days old. Or (if the privacy policy permits) set a cookie anytime they click "publish", and only show ''any'' new message alert to people who have edited in the past X days. Or even both. I think most people already understand that messages sent to IP users are not ''guaranteed'' to reach the user. But we ''do'' expect that when 1.2.3.4 edits [[Foo]], we leave them a message, and then an hour later 1.2.3.4 edits [[Foo]] ''again'', that they've seen our message. That's the disconnect between expectations and reality that's been bothering us. You're also making the assumption that users on ''mobile devices'' are also on ''mobile connections''. What about the phone user on their home WiFi? That could be stable for months.
:*''About logged in users'': No, the red circle is not (only) the standard "you have new messages" alert. It's also the standard "we have some spammy garbage we'd like to sell you" alert. Of course experienced users know Wikipedia doesn't do that, but inexperienced ones are the people we're trying to reach. As matter of habit, ''I'' ignore similar-looking notices on unfamiliar websites.
:*''About the Android app'': Again, what about spam-weary users who have ''turned off push notifications''. With no in-app alert, how are they supposed to know that there is an urgent message on their talk page?
:*''About the iOS app'': If users are currently in a total bubble, why enable editing at all? Why not wait until basic communication features are implemented, and keep the app read-only in the meantime?
:I'm really getting the impression that the WMF thinks that user communication is an afterthought. Y'all didn't just forget ''one'' communication-related feature, you forgot [[WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU|most communication-related features]]. How did this happen in the first place? [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 20:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|DannyH (WMF)}} Thank you for your time working on and responding to this. I recognize the difficulties in developing a good software product for the diverse projects that rely on MediaWiki software. However, I am deeply frustrated that this has been allowed to occur. Ensuring that existing community mechanisms for ''communicating'' with other editors, especially new editors, continue to function is a bare-bones requirement for any Wikimedia ''minimum viable product''. To paraphrase [[User:Risker/Risker's checklist for content-creation extensions|Risker's related thoughts on Wikimedia software development in a different area]]: the intention behind a lot of this has been good, but sometimes I think engineers have no idea how our projects actually function and how significant some of these problems are. Frankly, if logged-out mobile editors don't have an interface to see messages, then the logged-out mobile interface should not contain editing functionality. Otherwise, this software is wasting many many hours a day of volunteer time tracking down and reverting and ''warning'' (not that they'll see the warnings) and blocking ''good faith'' IP users who are oblivious to community norms and this software is wasting just as much time spent by new editors trying to help out but unable to access any feedback about their editing. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 10:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
::Let me make more explicit a position that I suspect a broad swath of the English Wikipedia community may support: If the Foundation feels that it is impractical to build a communication system to communicate with logged-out mobile editors, then logged-out mobile users should be required to log in to edit. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; we simply cannot allow users to edit without being able to communicate with them effectively. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 10:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
:::Absolutely, thank you for the clear description of the situation. I was thinking of going rogue and just blocking any uncommunicative user/IP after a single warning. That would avoid mega-frustration and wasted time and would focus minds on fixing the problem rather than ticking boxes for the number of new edits from new users. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|DannyH (WMF)}} If fixing all the issues is going to take some time, and you don't want to disable editing entirely, can you break the Android app a bit more? See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Suffusion_of_Yellow#Idea this]. Using that hack a message can be conveyed to iOS users but the same can't be done for Android. It shouldn't take long to make the tweak, which would at least allow a custom mechanism to communicate a message to Android editors. Perhaps directing them to login via their browser app, for example. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 03:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for posting more thoughts. As usual, there's lots to respond to here.

It's true that the apps are late to including talk page features. That's partly because we didn't have a clear strategy for how we could improve talk pages sitewide — we knew that we wanted to improve the usability of talk pages, but the Flow project was not successful, and we knew that we needed to find a new direction. We determined that new direction with the Talk Pages Consultation in mid-2019, and then the Editing team started their [[:mw:Talk pages project/Talk pages project|Talk pages project]] to build tools for [[:mw:Talk pages project/Reply|replying]], [[:mw:Talk pages project/New_discussion|starting new discussions]] and [[:mw:Talk pages project/Notifications|being notified]] when people comment in specific talk page sections. (If you haven't yet, you can turn on the  new tools for replying and starting new discussions in the [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures|Beta preferences tab]].) 

As part of that project, the Editing team has developed the ability to break down wikitext conversations into individual comments, and all of that work is now informing the work that both the Android and iOS teams are doing to improve the talk page experience on the apps as well. 

Now, one of the things that we do when a product team is working on a feature is to look at both the usage numbers and the revert rate for edits that are made using the feature. If the revert rate is higher than average, then clearly there's a problem with the feature that we need to fix. 

Comparing the revert rates across desktop, mobile and apps, we see a similar pattern with both logged-in and logged-out editors. Looking at the last 30 days on English Wikipedia, mobile web edits have a higher revert rate compared to desktop edits. That's true for both logged-in users (10.2% revert on mobile web to 3.7% revert on desktop) and IP editors (35% revert on mobile web to 22% revert on desktop). Edits made through the apps are closer to the desktop revert rate. For logged-in app users, about 6.5% of app edits are reverted, compared to 3.7% on desktop. For IP app users, it's around 24% app edits reverted vs 22% IP edits on desktop. So while every single revert is a waste of time for somebody, we don't see app editing causing significantly more problems than desktop editing, especially compared to mobile web. 

As I said earlier, the Android team has [[:mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/Android/Communication|recently released improvements for talk pages]] just last month, and has plans to continue work on it, and iOS will be working on [[:mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/iOS/Notifications|communication features]] later this year. So while those teams had a late start on these features, they are currently getting attention. 

Some more specific points: Suffusion of Yellow, your suggestion about offering a time-limited message is interesting, and started a conversation in a couple of teams, so thanks for bringing that up. For your question about the assumption that mobile devices are used on the go: yes, there are definitely people who use mobile devices on stable IPs. However, it's a lot more likely that any given mobile device will be on an inconsistent IP than a desktop device.

Regarding people who ignore red circles and turn off push notifications, it's true that [[banner blindness]] is very strong, and that's a problem for web designers in general. However, we've found that when someone takes a specific step like turning off push notifications, responding with larger and more insistent notifications is not likely to help. 

I'm happy to keep talking, if folks have more questions or suggestions. [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 18:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

:Danny, I'm intrigued and puzzled by your statement here. You have people here (and in many previous conversations) expressing frustrations at an inability to communicate with users. Some prior discussions have been about specific editors who have a mixture of constructive and troubling edits which are the kind of editors who can frequently be helped to stop the troubling edits. Your response, if I'm understanding it correctly, is that because there is no difference in revert rates for these editors compared to those on other platforms that the lack of communication doesn't matter. This might be true but would be a radical shift in culture in terms of how we handle disruptive editing and would be at odds with other foundation sponsored initiatives, including obligations to help new users in the UCoC. Can you help me either understand where I am failing to get what you're saying or if I do understand what you're saying how we, as an enwiki community, can square this circle. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

::Hi [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]]: What I shared about the revert rate was in response to a couple of things. First, [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] commented on the fact that I'd only talked about edits from app users, and didn't acknowledge the impact on the editor community who have to clean up a mess. (The part about "ticking boxes for the number of new edits from new users.") It was also a response to the suggestion made in a few places that the apps shouldn't allow editing if the communication features aren't up to desktop standard. My point is that we do try to take the impact on the community into account, by making sure that features that we build don't result in a mess that's noticeably bigger than the mess that already exists. 

::But yes, this conversation is mostly about reaching specific editors who might be helped to stop making troubling edits. I agree that the communication features are important, and both apps teams have been and will continue to work on communication features. Some of the problems that we're talking about have already been addressed on Android; I think that in the case mentioned in the thread on Jimbo's talk page, they would have received talk page notifications as of March 30th — but that was sadly too late to reach that user. These conversations have inspired us to talk more about the communication features as a product team, and I appreciate the folks who have brought it up here. — [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 20:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|DannyH (WMF)}}, the desktop site is fully functional on modern mobile devices. The solution to this problem to shut down all apps and sites that are not fully functional, and redirect all users to the desktop site, which should be renamed the "fully functional site". That would save enormous amounts of money and draw a gigantic worldwide pool of new editors into the WMF free knowledge websites. Right now, we are erecting barriers to collaboration with people editing with mobile devices,  and that is terribly sad. I speak as an editor who has been editing and more recently administrating with Android smartphones for ten years. 99+% of my edits are on smartphones. The WMF is spending buckets of money on a problem that does not exist, and making matters worse in the process. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]]
::::While this may have been a hypothetical, I would personally oppose such a proposal, solely because while the desktop site is functional on mobile, the text is still really small. The probably-crazy solution that immediately comes to mind is to switch the site skin to the new Responsive MonoBook, because that would display the content at a reasonable size on mobile while presumably allowing IPs to see the Orange Bar of Doom. (I haven't tested this, but I assume it works because unlike Minerva, MonoBook is maintained by the editing community.) Also, there are some plans to make Vector responsive too, but I don't know anything about that. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
::::At least a couple of us have disagreed with your view a few times, Cullen. The desktop site is not at all well optimised, and the apps are better for reading already. The solution is not to delete everything, rather than fix the issues. It's such an overly simplistic view anyway; compare [https://tools.pingdom.com/#5e4fd4fe50800000 this] to [https://tools.pingdom.com/#5e4fd50f43c00000 this] in terms of page size. I mean, the suggestion just isn't considerate of all the language projects and global users, and is just so unlikely to happen that it distracts from real solutions, which really is to disable editing in the interim / provide a roadmap, or at least allow the community to do that if it wishes to by consensus. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 01:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::hear hear. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 08:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

:::::I agree that just nuking mobile and forcing everyone to use desktop is the wrong solution. What many people don't quite grasp is that not everyone is like them. They assume that because they have a large screen smartphone and a fast connection, then of course everyone does, and if a desktop website works for them then of course it works fine for for everyone else.
:::::In the real world some people access Wikipedia on old flip phones, satellite phones with huge packet delays, rugged industrial phones with tiny screens, and ancient computers using modems.
:::::I recently finished a preliminary design for a major toy manufacturer that includes a very low performance web browser with a really cheap display. That one got cancelled (90% of toys that make it to prototype do) but sooner or later you are going to see something similar in the toy aisle at Wal-mart for $29.95 USD. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 11:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
:{{Ping|DannyH (WMF)}} is this a joke or am I misunderstanding? You're saying that it's a deliberate design choice that mobile app editors are not seeing the messages being left for them? How do you suggest that we contact [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_245#The_tragic_case_of_User%3ACejeroC|CejeroC]], or does it not matter that thousands of volunteers' time (both newbie and experienced) are being wasted? — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 23:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

::Hi {{Ping|Bilorv}} I think that you're misunderstanding slightly. It's a deliberate design choice not to show notifications ''for IP editors on mobile web'', because there's a higher chance that we'll show the notification to the wrong person. It's more likely that a mobile web edit was made by someone who's moving around, so the notification would appear for a random reader who happens to be picking up the same cell tower or wifi access. We are showing notifications for logged-in editors on mobile web, and both logged-in and logged-out editors on the Android and iOS apps. 
::CejeroC was an editor on the Android app, which added talk page notifications in some changes made in February-March 2021. This was too late for the people trying to contact CejeroC, unfortunately, but it should be easier to contact Android app editors from now on. — [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 18:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the reply, {{U|DannyH (WMF)}}. I'm glad that I was misunderstanding, as the other option was deeply undesirable. My new questions are as follows: you're saying that it's a deliberate design choice that ''unregistered'' mobile ''web'' editors are not seeing the messages being left for them? Where can I see the WMF's data on the percentage of IP talk page messages that would have been seen by someone who was not the intended target, versus the percentage that would have been seen by the intended target? And how should a volunteer attempt to get in contact with an IP editor tagged as making mobile web edits, particularly when the IP has clearly been static for a non-trivial amount of time (based on the length of the editor's contributions)? — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 18:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Bilorv}} I wish we could get data on who sees which notifications; it would make life easier. Unfortunately, we don't know. (There are a lot of stats that are typically collected by other big websites that we don't collect out of respect for users' privacy.) The judgment call that we're making right now is based on our understanding that a large number of IPs move around and are unreachable even on desktop, and that problem is obviously magnified for mobile IPs. For the question of how a volunteer could get in contact with a stable mobile IP editor, one potential workaround would be to leave them a message on the IP's talk page, and then when you revert one of their edits, you put a link to their talk page in the edit summary. That's obviously a hack, but IP editors having a talk page at all is kind of a hack. — [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 20:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
:::::I don't believe that the users I'm thinking of are aware that there's a page history—in fact, I often see behaviour that makes me think they are going "my edit didn't go through, why is it not there when I look again a few hours later?" after a revert (and I don't think the layout makes the page history obvious). I need to send a big fuck-off banner saying "SOMEONE IS TRYING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE EDIT YOU DID" in order to engage attention. Unfortunately, no such functionality exists. I do appreciate the privacy afforded to readers and editors, but you're making a judgement call based on not very much—certainly not what the community wants—and using a 2001 IP-based system is not the solid foundation for communication that I need. (I understand the WMF is planning to ''anonymise'' IPs but not change them as the method of tracking unregistered contributors.) I don't necessarily want us to start tracking people with cookies, so I know every solution comes with a disadvantage, but this situation is honestly ridiculous. So much of my time is wasted with sending out messages to people who will never see it, and the alternative is just undoing what they did without explanation (what message is that to send to a newcomer? How can we get new editors involved by doing that?). — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 21:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Bilorv}} As you say, the 2001 IP-based communication system is very flawed. The big f'off banner doesn't even work for desktop IP editors all too often, because IPs shift around, or just because the person who's making the edits doesn't understand or doesn't respond to talk page messages. For mobile IP editors, you're even less likely to make a connection. I think that if the folks who created MediaWiki twenty years ago were creating it today, they probably wouldn't use IP addresses as the foundation for communication, but this is the legacy system that we have. 
::::::I do think that the work that the Anti-Harassment Tools team is doing on "IP masking" will help with this, especially if we use cookies on mobile devices to associate the device with an auto-generated user name. There's a lot of planning and discussion left to do on the IP masking project, and figuring out how to communicate with "masked" IP editors will be one of many things to figure out. — [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 22:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
::{{re|DannyH (WMF)}} {{tq|We are showing notifications for ... both logged-in and logged-out editors on the Android and iOS apps.}} Can you link me to the phab task where the the lack of iOS notifications was fixed? I don't have an iOS device handy and [[phab:T274404]] and its subtasks suggest work is just getting started. Also, the Android app still isn't showing me any alerts for logged-out talk page messages. And least no one has responded to my simple question at [[:phab:T95396]]. So what have I missed? [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 19:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Suffusion of Yellow}} Sorry, you're correct about iOS. I just checked my own post at the top of the section and realized that I made a mistake when I replied to Bilorv. Android has already made the changes; iOS is getting started on that work. I looked at your question on that ticket, which I think was not the correct ticket for that bug report — it looks like that ticket was closed in May 2020, and may not have been the right ticket anyway. I just asked the PM to take a look at it, and tell me where that report should go; I'll let you know when I get an answer. — [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 21:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
::::Ah, I see that you've already made that connection on [[:phab:T276147]]. At least, I think so. Let me know if I'm not correct. — [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 21:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|DannyH (WMF)}} So I understand there is still a subset of logged-out mobile editors not getting talk page notifications, yet they are still editing? This is unacceptable.
::As has been stated above, if an interface does not have basic communication capabilities, then the interface should not have editing capabilities. --[[User:DB1729|DB1729]] ([[User talk:DB1729|talk]]) 02:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|DB1729}} I understand your dismay; I agree that communication is essential for productive wiki collaboration. I think that at the root, this is actually a flaw in the concept of allowing people to edit without an account on Wikipedia. Twenty years ago, it may have been roughly accurate to assume that IP addresses were mostly stable, because everybody had a desktop and mostly a dial-up connection, so if you posted a message for a particular IP address then you were likely to reach the same person. Today, the use of laptops at wifi hotspots and phones and tablets using cell service has basically broken that model. A few years ago, we reached the point when mobile pageviews hit 50% of our traffic, and by now the majority of Wikipedia readers are accessing our site with a mobile device. 
:::I think that your suggestion of restricting IP editing on mobile is an interesting one, and it's possible to argue that that should apply to desktop as well as mobile. But that's a much bigger conversation, and I don't think we'd be able to settle it here. — [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|talk]]) 21:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
::::I don't have the data, but edits I make using my phone usually come from the same IP (my home or work wifi) that my desktop edits come from. (I use responsive monobook, so my phone edits count as "desktop"). What's inhibiting communication with some mobile editors is not that their IP changes, it is that the software they use is not fit for purpose. Do you know any of the people who can fix the software? —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 08:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|DannyH (WMF)}}  Speaking of notifications Danny, for some reason I never got that ping from your last reply.<small>(ironic)</small> Did you get a confirmation it was sent? Thank you for the reply and for sharing your thoughts. In the meantime, yes I understand the dynamic IP problem, but these users are notified (I hope) when their IP addresses are blocked, are they not? Presumably when they open an edit window? Similarly, a talk page notification could be displayed only when there is an attempt to edit. It could then time-out or become invisible after a set duration, much like I assume a block notice will disappear once the block expires. [[User:DB1729|DB1729]] ([[User talk:DB1729|talk]]) 15:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

===#suggestededit-add 1.0===
{{tracked|T227623}}
I think it would be a good idea to also bring up what I think is the related issue of the #suggestededit-add 1.0 process, as this seems to a mobile idea. See for example {{User|Jomart Allaguliyev}}, a new mobile user who has made over 1000 edits exclusively through this process. Most are fine, but some are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ASEAN&diff=1018624365&oldid=1018099127 wrong], and some are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flags_of_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=1019158902 almost nonsensical]. Sometimes they re-do and worsen their own better work! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armorial_of_the_United_States&diff=1014314267&oldid=1011966721] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armorial_of_the_United_States&diff=1019198248&oldid=1018845744]. They've also a few times made the same edit twice after being reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_Russia&diff=1013943011&oldid=1004458693][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_Russia&diff=1014084820&oldid=1013986028], which feels like something popped up and they simply repeated the action? The only documentation seems to be on [[:Wikidata:Wikidata:Suggestededit-add 1.0|Wikidata]], so it is unclear how exactly these are happening or where they're happening from. There is an old Phab task (T227623) closed suggesting the process is working as intended. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
:I'm confused about how this is a suggestedit issue. That editor was given exactly one warning, as far as I can tell. If an editor is editing disruptively, the first step is to notify them on their talk page, isn't it? (Also, I have fixed your broken link above.) – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks for the fix. The user is not editing disruptively, on the whole. The point is, this user's edits are being solely guided by some program out there providing editing suggestions to new users, provided by WMF, of which there seems to be little documentation. How is it not a suggested edit issue, when any potential disruptiveness would presumably be due to this feature? It would be nice to have documentation. If the edit summaries are automatically generated, why don't they include a wikilink to such documentation? The [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Android_FAQ#Suggested_edits Mediawiki FAQ] states only that it is to "Add short descriptions to articles that are missing descriptions", which is clearly not the case given these are edits to existing short descriptions. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 09:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As an update here, the page [[Wikipedia:Suggestededit-add 1.0]] has been created by [[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]], but I'm still seeing edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wildlife_of_Malaysia&diff=prev&oldid=1043945040 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty_in_Azerbaijan&diff=prev&oldid=1043942987 ones] which add the short description "Overview of the topic", and am no less enlightened as to whether these somewhat meaningless descriptions are being suggested by Wikimedia software. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 05:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

=== Another block. Any progress? ===
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Subtle_vandalism/OR_by_Legaiaflame] Didn't seem like there was any other option. Any progress on resolving these issues? As I requested somewhere, any chance we can break the Android app some more so we can use a hack like {{EF|1139}} (for iOS) for Android users as well? That hack works due to the fact that iOS edit filter disallows do not parse the page but just display the page title instead. Android unfortunately uses a hardcoded vandalism warning, so this does not work there. It should be trivial for WMF engineers to make Android behave the same as iOS while they do proper fixes. {{ping|DannyH (WMF)|p=}}? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 14:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|ProcrastinatingReader}} It looks like the fix for edit filter messages on Android has made it to the official (app store) release. So it should be possible to "communicate" with Android users through the filter now. However, links in the edit filter message will open in the browser. And if they're viewing a wiki that isn't their default language, the links will go the wrong language wiki. e.g., if we (on enwiki) send them to [[Special:MyTalk]] or [[WP:EF/FP/R]], they might end up at [[:fr:Special:MyTalk]] or [[:de:WP:EF/FP/R]]. I don't know if ''that'' bug is being actively worked on, but we're getting somewhere. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 23:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
::[[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] I don't know a lot about edit filter, but I (maybe) have an idea for a work around. Can we redefine all edit filter links as fully defined [external links] and explicitly point them to <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/_whatever_</nowiki> ? [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 12:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{re|Alsee}} Tested [[:testwiki:MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-190|here]]. That seems to work. The first link ([[Foo]]) opens at frwiki (because that's the first language in my settings), but both [[:testwiki:Foo]] and https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo open at testwiki. That should work for a filter like {{efl|1139}} but I don't think we should "fix" the dozens of other messages to work around this bug. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 20:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Some progress - see the latest update at [[mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/Android/Communication]]. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 21:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

== WMF donation ads ==

I remember reading recently that the WMF is about to add temporary advertisements to Wikipedia pages, soliciting donations to the WMF, but I can't find the announcement anywhere.  Please does anyone have a link?  Thanks, [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 12:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
:@[[User:Certes|Certes]]: Is {{§l|Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 68#English fundraising banners to start at the end of November}} what you are looking for? [[User talk:Rummskartoffel|<span style="font-weight:normal;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#e40303,#ff8c00,#ffed00,#008026,#004dff,#750787);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text;">Rummskartoffel</span>]] 18:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
::Yes, that's exactly it.  Thanks! [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
:::I think that there are people at the WMF who may get a bit touchy about the word "advertisements", although it seems accurate to me. Don't expect any response to that here any time soon, because everyone there seems reluctant to say anything unless it has gone through all the relevant subcommittees and been signed in triplicate - any commercial organisation working at the WMF's pace would go bust before anyone could say anything. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
::::I don't intend to reply here or at [[WP:VPM]], but I've followed the useful link in that announcement to [[m:Talk:Fundraising]] and had my say there.  As you say, we're not listened to, but I'm not going to let that keep me quiet! [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 19:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

== New IP Masking implementation updates available  ==
{{moved from|WP:VPP}}
Hello friends!

'''We have new information on IP Masking for you.''' Thank you for being patient as the project unfolds.

IP masking hides the IP addresses of unregistered editors on Wikimedia projects, fully or partially, from everyone except those who need access to fight spam, vandalism, harassment and disinformation. 

So far, we have had conversations on why we are masking IPs and the tools you will need to continue fighting abuse. What is up next is, we want to share with you details about the implementation itself.

This update answers some likely questions you may have about who gets to view IP addresses and the various IP Masking implementation approaches and how each of them will impact the communities.

Please [[metawiki:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#IP_Masking_Implementation_Approaches_(FAQ)|see this section]] for the latest information.

If you need a background on IP Masking, there’s a summary [[metawiki:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation/Summary|here]] for you.

–––

Best regards,

Sandister, on behalf of the [[mw:Anti-Harassment_Tools|Anti-Harassment Tools team]]. [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


*Thanks, seems like we will need to create a group for this permission, or add this permission to something we already have.  Before we can design this, need to verify the requirements from upstream.  See [[meta:Talk:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#Use_case_for_unmasking_IPs]]. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

::Hello @[[User:Xaosflux|Xaosflux]], please see [[metawiki:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#Proposal_for_sharing_IP_addresses_with_those_who_need_access|the proposal]] for sharing IP addresses with those who need access and also see [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#Q:_Following_implementation_of_IP_Masking,_who_will_be_able_to_see_IP_addresses? the section] on who will be able to see IP addresses. Hopefully that should give you details. Let me know if you need anything else. [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 13:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


*:Alternatively, we could save ourselves the trouble and just ban IP editing. Or do nothing until a few other wikis have tested this. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
*:Quote from the linked page {{tpq|All users with accounts over a certain age and with a minimum number of edits (to be determined) will be able to access partially unmasked IPs without permission. This means an IP address will appear with its tail octet(s) – the last parts – hidden. This will be accessible via a preference where they agree not to share it with others who don't have access to this information.}}  How is the last bit to be governed?  Locally or by T&S.  And what are the sanctions for disclosing an IP address to another? Blocking, removal of the right?  Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare whichever way. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 16:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
*:: I guess removal of the right. I can imagine an office ban if the individual was disclosing a lot of personal information before getting caught, but this is not our business.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 22:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


* This is a very strange criteria. Surely most editors at some point "fight spam, vandalism, harassment and disinformation"? These are quite basic editing tasks. If IP masking is going to make this basic stuff more difficult, the user right should require a very low bar. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
*:Autoconfirmed? (A significantly higher bar than the one we currently have, and I still don't know what problem we're trying to solve, so I will assume that raising the bar to that level will be enough). —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
*:We should think twice before placing the bar for removing vandalism higher than that for adding it. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 16:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] @[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] @[[User:Certes|Certes]] please see [[metawiki:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#Proposal_for_sharing_IP_addresses_with_those_who_need_access|the proposal]] for sharing IP addresses with those who need access and also see [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#Q:_Following_implementation_of_IP_Masking,_who_will_be_able_to_see_IP_addresses? the section] on who will be able to see IP addresses. [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
::::It says "Editors who partake in anti-vandalism activities, as vetted by the community, can be granted a right to see IP addresses to continue their work. This could be handled in a similar manner as adminship on our projects. The community approval is important to ensure that only editors who truly need this access can get it. The editors will need to have an account that is at least a year old and have at least 500 edits." @[[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]], I don't know if you are aware, but "in a similar manner to adminship" on this wiki means "editors will have to submit to a deeply unpleasant process in order to be allowed to volunteer for more work". It sounds like it might be hard to recruit people for this, and it is also amazingly complicated, all for a total of zero known advantages for us over the current situation. Currently I'm not interested in helping with this. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
:::::You are right @[[User:Kusma|Kusma]], it's an added step for the already hardworking volunteers. But we are on this course due to [[metawiki:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#Statement_from_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department|current internet privacy regulations]] and for now, one has to opt-in to access any information deemed as private by these regulations. [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 14:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


*So if this gets implemented, it will be punishable to ask for a rangeblock of a named range anywhere on Wikipedia? [[WP:AIV]] will be halved? [[WP:SPI]] will need to go behind a  curtain? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
**{{ping|STei (WMF)}}, as a note, you really shouldn't say clearly incorrect statements like {{xt|So far, we have had conversations on why we are masking IPs}}. That suggests both clarity and a two-way process. The WMF had a conversation, then ignored it, and now is in a willfully vague position on its reasoning. Now that poor behaviour has been apologised for by {{ping|Johan (WMF)}}, but not by anyone from Legal who were the actually responsible group for all those issues. It may even be necessary, but definitely don't state that it is something positive (a conversation) that it clearly was not. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 15:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
**:Indeed. I have no idea why IPs should be masked (all I know is that if there is a legal requirement to do so, we won't be told what it is), so I don't know how well they need to be masked, and so it is pointless to talk to me about the processes involved in the masking and unmasking. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 17:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
*:I can imagine a <code><nowiki>{{#IP:Anon1234}}</nowiki></code> magic word that wraps a specific user's IP in whatever magic the WMF is going to use to make our other IPs (un)hideable such that we can talk about it directly. {{u|STei (WMF)}} might be wise to look at that in continuing discussions. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
*::Forgive me, I don't understand your suggestion. When you say "our other IPs" do you mean if the editor returns to edit with a new IP? [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 13:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
*:::{{Ping|STei (WMF)}} Much of what has been discussed has probably been discussing history pages and similar, which is what "our other IPs" refers to. However, we will likely need a way to talk directly about specific IPs in wikitext, and the only way to do that without stating the IP directly is some kind of magic word to wrap the unregistered's public display name, which the parser subsequently outputs with the same supporting machinery as in those other lists like the history page. [[User:Izno|Izno]][[User:IznoPublic|Public]] ([[User talk:Izno#top|talk]]) 15:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

=== Maintaining recognizability of IP ranges ===

{{re|STei (WMF)}}, thank you for this update. I looked at [[m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation#Q: What are the potential technical implementation options?|implementation options]] concerning the hash implementation, and I have the following question: how will I be able to continue to recognize edits coming from a range of IPs that may represent the same user?

One of the basic features of a hash algorithm, is that it turns adjacent plaintext values into completely different (non-adjacent) hashed values. At first blush, this would seem to destroy my ability to recognize an editor who is popping up in a defined range of IP addresses.  To give you something concrete to look at, please see the information about a block-evading sock and IP user at [[User talk:EzequielBelaus#Likely additionals|this UTP section]]. Going forward, how will I be able to recognize edits from all these IP users if they are hashed? Perhaps "181.26.8.76" might get hashed to "User:ca1f46" (stealing your example), but "181.26.9.225" might get hashed to "User:xuw99". This may hurt my ability to recognize  block-evading indeffed IP user, and leave those articles more apt to be vandalized. 

What assurance can you offer that there will be tools available to be able to continue as before?  I should note that my vandalism-fighting activity is probably less than 10% of my activity. Should I just give it up, and concentrate on my other activities? Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 08:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

:On the matter of tools, how do you feel about about the [[metawiki:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation/IP_Info_feature|IP Info Feature]]? Does it look like something that'll help your work? It's one of the tools Product would want to support the communities with. [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 14:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

:I continue to bang on about solutions such as [[Crypto-PAn]] but no one responds.  If the WMF deploy this, we'll be able to continue fighting vandalism.  If not, they'll have to spend some of their huge surplus on paying someone to do the job instead.  Their choice. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 12:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
::"they'll have to spend some of their huge surplus on paying someone to do the job instead." They won't. That leaves us with the only option of banning IP editing outright. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 16:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
:::A few libel cases, which would have been avoided under the current system, might focus some minds on vandal prevention being a wise investment. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 19:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
::On the issue of adopting [[Crypto-PAn]], my colleague @[[User:NKohli (WMF)|NKohli (WMF)]] can help with that. [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 14:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|STei (WMF)}}, it's either happening or it isn't. If it's planned to be introduced at some point ''after'' the implementation of IP masking, it's safest to consider it as "not happening" as developers tend to follow [[Valve Time]]. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 14:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Mathglot}}, {{u|STei (WMF)}}, if edits from similar ranges can't be identified as such without special permissions I'm inclined to prefer banning IP-editing outright. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 17:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there an outline of how a user with suitable rights would see an IP? If I see dubious edits from User:ca1f46 and also from  User:dbe591, would I have to think that the edits looked similar and would need to click an extra button on ca1f46 to see the IP ''and'' a similar button on dbe591? Would I be able to copy the IPs from the same window (''one'' copy of the two IPs for a range-checking tool)? Anything complicated is going to end up with anon users being blocked for a month or more for trivial problems because mucking around for trolls leads to burn out—a small amount of effort from a bored kid would require ten times the effort from an admin to handle in a provably "correct" way. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 00:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

== User confused by sandbox ==

In [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JoshMorrales/sandbox]] it became apparent that {{u|JoshMorrales}} thought he was editing a private sandbox. I've seen it before with a user saying "[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#Possible student meatpuppets putting hoaxes on Wikipedia|it never dawned on me that sandboxes, private pages, could be seen by others]]". This is anecdotal evidence but I suspect these aren't isolated incidents. Communication problem? — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 03:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:What else could we do? In order to put those changes in, this editor would have had to press a button marked "Publish changes". I don't think we could be more clear than the word "Publish" that when you do that, you are making something available to public view. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Seraphimblade}}, maybe we can something with an edit notice? — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
:::This problem, insofar as it exists, isn't specific to sandboxes.  It says above the Publish button that {{tq|By publishing changes... you irrevocably agree to release your contribution...}}  Could that be clearer?  (Not a rhetorical question.) [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 22:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Certes}}, apparently, yes. Some people seem to have the impression that the sandbox is a special page. It is linked in the menu after all, like other special pages like your user and user talk page, watchlist and contributions. And the watchlist is private, so why wouldn't the sandbox be? (I'm not saying it should be, but I could follow the logic and an edit notice seems like a reasonable option) — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 22:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

== Everipedia violates Wikipedia's free license ==

[[File:Everipedia.png|thumb|upright|Everipedia's attribution of Wikipedia in 2017 (missing required license info)]]
[[File:Everipedia attribution July 2018.png|thumb|upright|Attribution in 2018 (seems acceptable)]]
[[File:Where's Waldo? Costume.jpg|thumb|upright=0.5|Attribution in 2021]]
Ah shit, here we go again. [[Everipedia]]. They've been slapped on the wrist about poor attribution in the past. In 2017 [[c:User:Alexis Jazz/Everipedia#Attribution|their attribution]] was just "The original version of this page is from Wikipedia, you can edit the page right here on Everipedia". After a slap on the wrist they added "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license"

Compare https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Clarabelle_Cow * and [[Clarabelle Cow]]. It's a copy, we already knew that, but now it seems entirely unattributed. And this goes for all of Everipedia. Please sue them into bankruptcy as {{u|Jeff G.}} had [https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Everipedia requested]. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 12:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

:It seems they've moved the attribution to a reference – number 41 on their version of Clarabelle Cow. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Joe Roe}}, um, oh, but that doesn't even show unless you press "Show all citations" to uncollapse the list. (so I missed it) And it's hidden in a long list of ''references'', the place you copied the article from would not commonly be called a "reference". This attribution isn't even remotely [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode "reasonable to the medium"]. And 4.a ("You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform.") isn't met at all. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Well, yes, IANAL but some of my articles are there too, and I don't feel particularly "reasonably attributed". Maybe something to take up with [[:meta:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department]]? &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 14:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Joe Roe}}, who [[wikt:GMTA|I already had]] mailed a link to this thread. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 14:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Alexis Jazz}} I stand by [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=prev&oldid=287595733 that request]. Looking at their article on Clarabelle, where are references 34-40? What links to reference 41? &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background-color:lightyellow">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|G. ツ]]</span> 13:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
*Because we own our added content - not the WMF (a rare case for websites, but in almost all cases a good thing!), I suspect their response will be something like "sorry, we know this is annoying, we can't take any action, we suggest you reach out to them etc etc etc". Do Everipedia have a legal contact address? [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 14:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
*:Their [https://everipedia.org/faq/terms-of-service Terms of Service] provide their designated copyright agent but also make clear that they're operating under a [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ CC4] license which (IANAL) seems like would be sufficient to meet their obligations even if they don't broadcast it as far and wide as we do. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
*::I distinctly remember that there were certain incompatibilities between CC-BY-SA 4.0 and our licence, but I wouldn't know if that means that they cannot copy out content. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
*:::CC-BY-SA 3.0 derivative works [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses can be licensed with later versions of the license], but the reverse is not true. (In general that would be expected, since updated versions are released to address shortcomings of earlier versions.) [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
*::{{u|Barkeep49}}, it's worse than I thought! So they '''changed''' the license. CC BY-SA (our license) requires derivative works to be licensed under the same or a compatible license. CC BY is simply not possible. (also, while IANAL, me and Legal tend to agree a lot and I don't believe a footnote in the ToS would ever constitute [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode "any reasonable manner based on the medium"]) Also, when a user registers on Everipedia and edits an article they are not informed in any sufficiently clear way that their contribution will be published with either CC BY or BY-SA. Something hidden in the ToS is ''not'' sufficient, as a matter of fact, I don't recall agreeing to their ToS either when I created a test account. As users aren't informed, there '''is no license''' for original contributions from Everipedia. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 09:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
*::AAAAAAAARGH! I made the '''huge''' mistake of actually reading [https://everipedia.org/faq/terms-of-service their ToS]. I really shouldn't be surprised, but it's written by a complete moron who couldn't possibly have a legal background. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 10:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

== Regarding the fundraising banners ==

Why are fundraising queries ending up at [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|the Teahouse]] and [[Wikipedia:Help desk|the Help Desk]]? The volunteers there don't run the fundraiser, the Wikimedia Foundation does. Shouldn't the foundation be answering these questions? Shouldn't there be some contact information included in the banner messages? <br>
Many such comments are from people who think they can influence the content of the encyclopedia by donating or withholding donations. Of course they can't, but there's nothing in the fundraising banners (that I've seen) that would tell them that. But there is a lot confusing and inaccurate stuff like "this is the 6th time we've interrupted your reading", which might be correct for everyone using this IP put together, but not for me, the person reading the message. A lot of comments also point that out. I understand it's a technical limitation - but since there isn't actually any need to include something like that in these messages, the solution is obvious. <br>
It turns out there are a few informational links included in the banner, but they're hidden until you click a button to donate. It's clear from the queries at the Teahouse and Help Desk that a lot of readers don't make it that far. The only contact information given for the Wikimedia Foundation is an email address at the very end of the FAQ. <br>
This information should be included in the banner message, where people will actually see it, not buried in the fine print. <br>
[[Special:Contributions/2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B|2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B]] ([[User talk:2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B|talk]]) 23:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
:Tell the WMF, they don't listen to us. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 23:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
::Well the first part of my comment here is about how difficult it is to find the right contact information for the WMF, but I did find a link to [[m:Talk:Fundraising]] a few sections up and have cross-posted this there. [[Special:Contributions/2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B|2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B]] ([[User talk:2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B|talk]]) 23:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
::I made a [[Talk:Main_Page#Fundraiser_banner|post at the Main talk page]] today and was redirected here. I was about to paste the same post here, but I saw this conversation, and decided not to. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span> [[User talk:Jay|(''talk'')]] 15:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
:We should probably have a standard response clarifying that the Wikipedia community neither solicits nor receives donations, and stating how to contact the WMF with any queries or feedback about their banners. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 01:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
::There is the {{t|HD}} family of templates, where a message to that effect could be added. I don't know of any equivalent for the Teahouse. [[User talk:Rummskartoffel|<span style="font-weight:normal;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#e40303,#ff8c00,#ffed00,#008026,#004dff,#750787);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text;">Rummskartoffel</span>]] 15:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Dear all,
:::Just to let you know, we replied on the [[metawiki:Talk:Fundraising#Regarding_the_fundraising_banners|talk:fundraising page]].  [[User:JBrungs (WMF)|JBrungs (WMF)]] ([[User talk:JBrungs (WMF)|talk]]) 08:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)