User talk:ComplexRational

This is ComplexRational's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: 30 days

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

heads-up on that one g5 you just did

...there was an rfd just over it, with the exact same situation lmao. if a theoretical g5's been denied there... oh well consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I missed that – they're gone now. Thanks for bunching them together. ^Complex/_Rational 00:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

massxfd my beloved...

thanks for getting it done with consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 00:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Shatz

Hi, you deleted the article on Omer Shatz after discussion. Unfortunately I was not on-line for quite a while and discovered this only after the fact. I would like to find out what mistakes I made and if there is a chance to restore the article after adding additional sources. I promise I will not abuse the system and ask you in advance if the improved version has a chance to be accepted by the community. Can you please restore the text on a page like "User:Alexandre Bechstein/Draft OS". Thanks.--Alexandre Bechstein (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandre Bechstein: Thanks for your message. The consensus for deletion was borne from concerns about inadequate sourcing for an article about a living person and the fact that the available sources did not demonstrate the subject is notable. Notability depends on how much others have written about someone or something; sources such as LinkedIn are self-published and cannot be used to determine notability, and rarely does notability change in a very short timespan. On these grounds, I advise you that a new draft article is unlikely to be approved via the articles for creation process, and there is no version to restore that is fully compliant with our biographies of living people policy - which sets a higher bar for sourcing and accuracy than most other articles. ^Complex/_Rational 20:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am flabbergasted, now another user wrote Omer Shatz, so my work is for the fish ... Can you please restore my version in User:Alexandre Bechstein/Draft OS. I would like to see the difference.--Alexandre Bechstein (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the old revisions; they can be found in the page history of the newly-created article. ^Complex/_Rational 15:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Metallurgist should be excluded from the project. Few hours after the nomination he deleted two thirds of the article and nearly all sources. He did similar manipulations in Odeh Bisharat. I don't know what else he does. I do not have the time to follow his misdeeds. Alexandre Bechstein (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My version had eight sources. I'm really upset about this guy and his destructive work. Alexandre Bechstein (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you try discussing the matter with Metallurgist rather than make such accusations here. It is quite common for editors to remove content that does not adhere to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, particularly when the subject is a living person. Please stay focused on the content issues at hand; calling another's work "destructive" will not help your cause and may even backfire with you being blocked, as such an approach is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.

Moreover, the number of sources is meaningless. The important part is that they be independent (i.e., not published by the subject or an institution with which they are affiliated) and reliable (i.e., the publisher has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy); personal blogs, LinkedIn, and opinion pieces do not check these boxes. Three high-quality sources can demonstrate notability and support a decent-quality article; no number of low-quality sources will, and articles that do not meet these standards are routinely merged, redirected, or deleted. ^Complex/_Rational 16:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion of Draft: Paul David Adkin

Good morning Complex Rational, I’m the original author of the draft Draft:Paul David Adkin, which was deleted under G15 (Unreviewed LLM-generated content).

This draft was written collaboratively with AI assistance but under my close human supervision and extensive manual editing, with verifiable sources and original references. I would like to request undeletion so that I can continue improving it in compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. The draft took me weeks to compile and I doubt that I could ever have managed it without the assistance of AI which I used to guide me through the technical problems involved with creating a Wikipedia article.

Could you please consider restoring it to my userspace (for example at User:PaulAdkin/Draft) so that I can continue editing it?

Thank you very much for your time and understanding. Martina Fernanda (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martina Fernanda: Thanks for your message. The main issue with your draft that led to its deletion was the inclusion of references with broken links (404s) and invalid ISBNs. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, which requires that article content be supported by reliable sources – while it is not necessary for all sources to be readily available online, it is necessary to demonstrate that sources actually exist. While AI can be a great tool to begin research or outline an article, it is not uncommon for AI to hallucinate information and sources. The fact that your draft had multiple hallucinated sources means that I cannot be confident that it was thoroughly reviewed or of its factual integrity (i.e., that the other sources back up the statements in your draft). Although I do not believe your intention was to mislead, an article consisting of unreviewed AI output carries this very real risk, so it is better to have no article on a topic than a potentially inaccurate or misleading one – especially since you are writing about a living person (where getting things wrong could have legal implications).

As such, I will not restore the deleted draft. Additionally, I did a quick search myself for sources, and I haven't found much that suggests Paul Adkin meets Wikipedia's notability threshold for authors or general notability guideline. However, if you can find multiple independent (i.e., unaffiliated with the subject), reliable sources that provide detailed coverage – that is, more than a passing mention – you are encouraged to start a fresh draft. Regarding the technical aspects of creating a new article, you may find this page helpful, and I'd be happy to answer any follow-up questions you might have. ^Complex/_Rational 16:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion of Draft: Issac: The first camera phone system

Hi, it appears you deleted this draft on 23 October 2025, presumably because NeoGaze wrote that it appears to be a direct copy from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/isaac-1st-camera-phone-turns-30-ken-parulski-s5d5c".

I am the author of the article cited by NeoGaze. My Wikipedia draft was not a direct copy but used much of the material in my LinkedIn article. Within hours of receiving the notice that this draft may be "speedily deleted", I submitted a request that this deletion be reconsidered because I am the author of the cited article, and updated my LinkedIn article to include the following statement at the bottom:

The text of this web page is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0

I believe that my LinkedIn article has now been explicitly and verifiably released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain. I therefore request that my draft of Issac: The first camera phone system be undeleted.

@KAPcooney KAPcooney (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed and undeleted at the original title. While you are technically in the clear now for copyvio, since CC-0 does not require attribution (and I did not find infringement of any other copyrighted source), keep in mind that what you write elsewhere does not automatically have a license compatible with Wikipedia. ^Complex/_Rational 21:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superheavies

Is it just me or has there been quite a lot of radio silence lately from the labs about progress towards 119 and 120? Unbinilium says (as of 2023 and 2024 respectively) that the JINR and LBNL were planning to start in 2025. Meanwhile, last I heard about ununennium, RIKEN was still chugging away at ²⁴⁸Cm+⁵¹V in 2024. Meanwhile, 2025 is speeding to its close...

(I'm starting to wonder if the real cross-sections are so bad that advances since 2010 have simply turned them from "LOL it ain't gonna happen" to "sure, if you spend seven years waiting without results like RIKEN waited for the third ²⁷⁸Nh atom".) Double sharp (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, we seemed to have been missing some non-superheavies at {{Table of nuclides}}. I've updated the 2024 and 2025 discoveries given at the Discovery of Nuclides Project's website.) Double sharp (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not just you – with superheavies being one of my first interest areas on WP (coincidentally, almost seven years ago to the day now!), I've started to hear the silence in terms of experimental results. I reckon it's a combination of low cross-sections (for Cm + V) and the geopolitical force majeure that has stifled collaboration between American and Russian research groups (in this case, Bk + Ti isn't happening if ORNL isn't providing the target material to JINR, and I remember reading that this reaction had a higher predicted cross-section than Cm + V).

Yet there has also been a dearth of discoveries for hitherto unknown intermediate isotopes – although the recent discoveries of isotopes in the ²⁸⁸Lv decay chain have filled some gaps.

Thanks also for making those updates. I sometimes lose track of all the pages (particularly the ones outside article space) that need to be updated with every new isotope discovery. ^Complex/_Rational 21:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are great points. And honestly, even for 120 it's probably not going to be very good. Noting that swapping from Pu + Ca to Pu + Ti seems to slash the cross-section by an order of magnitude, presumably the same should hold roughly speaking going from Cf + Ca to Cf + Ti, and that would put things in about the range of...the infamous Bi + Zn experiment RIKEN used for Nh. Ah, that explains a lot, unfortunately. Probably Cm + Cr would slash things by yet another order of magnitude.

I suspect that might be why people have been ignoring the odd-Z cases. ²³⁷Np+⁴⁸Ca and ²³¹Pa+⁴⁸Ca would make sense to run if you were trying to go for cross-bombardments for the daughters of 119, but that's going to be harder than 120, which is already too hard. T_T

Also, there might be a secondary problem for Bk + Ti: with a cross-section that bad, even if ORNL were providing the Bk target material to JINR (which it isn't), isn't a lot of your Bk going to have decayed by the time you can reasonably expect to have seen your first atom of 119?

(I'm still hopeful that we have a new element before this decade is out. And in case you're going to remember this and laugh at me in good fun if it doesn't happen, I shall specify: if the decay chain is seen in 2029, but only published in 2030, then it counts as this decade in my book. Something like what happened for Ts, where the first atom was seen in 2009 but published in 2010. Also, this is not an entirely serious parenthesis. XD) Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, just realised Livermorium and Isotopes of livermorium hadn't been updated with the July 2025 paper, so I fixed that. :D) Double sharp (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe there is a little bit: as of May 2025, upgrades at LBNL were underway to get the Cf + Ti campaign going. Double sharp (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some Googling skills got me to this tantalising statement (last slide): Synthesis of element 120 at LBNL is likely to commence in fall 2025, using ²⁴⁹Cf target and ⁵⁰Ti beam. Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And an LBNL presentation from 25 June 2025. :) Double sharp (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used these to update unbinilium a little bit. A small harvest of information, but better than nothing, and it's reassuring at least that things are happening as of June. :) Double sharp (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job finding those presentations. That's some good news at least...

And as a follow-up to my other comment, I still am wondering why there's seemingly no interest in any investigations of the chemical properties of Mt, Ds, and Rg. ^Complex/_Rational 19:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you've seen it, but here's a 2024 paper covering Rh and Ir with an eye to what techniques might work to study Mt. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fast electrochemical methods may open the door to Mt, Ds, and Rg. Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for 3 + 3 (math)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 3 + 3 (math). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 19:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged; answered there. ^Complex/_Rational 21:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletion of Draft:Human-AI symbiosis

Hello ComplexRational,

I noticed that Draft:Human-AI symbiosis was deleted under G15 (unreviewed LLM-generated content – nonexistent DOIs). I would appreciate it if you Could clarify which citations were considered nonexistent or problematic?

All of the cited works do exist in the scholarly literature, though some reference details (such as DOIs or publication metadata) may have been incomplete or missing elements at the time of my edits.

I know this topic well but am less familiar with Wikipedia’s formatting and sourcing conventions, so I would appreciate understanding what specifically prompted the deletion to ensure that any future revisions meet the proper standards.

Thank you for your time and clarification. Mhjarahi (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhjarahi: Thanks for your message. To name a few: doi:10.1093/jcde/qwaa017 is an article about preparedness for extreme weather, [1] is an article about agriculture, and doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-3085-6 does not exist at all, and there are several others like these. The fact that this many citations are dead on arrival or point to completely unrelated content call into question the accuracy of the entire article: verifiability is one of the core content policies on Wikipedia and text "cited" to nonexistent sources carries a very significant risk of misinforming readers. It is much easier to copyedit text and bring it into compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style than to have to review every line of LLM output for text–source integrity. Although I doubt your intention was to provide misleading information about the subject, I (or whoever is reviewing your draft) cannot be confident that the text is verifiable or factual when the references do not work or do not exist.

If you are very familiar with the topic, I encourage you publish a new draft, written entirely in your own words. I would happy to answer any follow-up questions you have pertaining to copyediting or formatting, as would folks at the Teahouse (for general questions for inexperienced editors) and Help Desk (for technical questions). ^Complex/_Rational 03:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful response. I noticed that a few references included incorrect DOIs, but the sources themselves are real and accurately reflect the ideas discussed, as I am well acquainted with this literature. I now understand the issue and will revise the draft to ensure it is error-free, with all reference details verified and the text fully accurate and precise; satisfying your points.

I appreciate your assistance once again. Mhjarahi (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you! ^Complex/_Rational 15:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Thank you! ^Complex/_Rational 15:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see two people have wished you already, but I'll chime in too: happy First Edit Day! :D Double sharp (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thanks! ^Complex/_Rational 19:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wiki Anniversary 🎉

Dear ComplexRational,

Wishing you a very happy wiki anniversary today, celebrating 7 years (as per SUL) of invaluable contributions! Your dedication and hard work, reflected in over 33,931 edits, are a testament to your commitment to the community. Thank you for all you do!

Use this Tool to send wiki anniversary wishes to other amazing Wikimedians.

-- : Suyash Dwivedi (💬) 17:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Suyash.dwivedi: Thanks, looking forward to many more! ^Complex/_Rational 19:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion of Heron's method

Dear ComplexRational,

It appears that my newly created page Heron's method was deleted. I would like to request that the page be restored.

Context:

The article Square root algorithms has multiple issues since 2012 — for example, it has been considered too technical for most readers to understand. Over the past few days, I have worked on its section Square_root_algorithms#Heron's_method, expanding and improving it. It seemed to me that this section has grown sufficiently to justify becoming a separate, standalone article — just like Newton's method and Halley's method. So I created an article Heron's method.

I took into account the criticism that the original article was “too technical for most readers to understand”. Therefore, I have introduced Heron's method from a historical perspective. Below the History section I have included the mathematical details, consisting in a proof of correctness. The proof is concise (not "too technical for most readers to understand") but still complete, as the correctness of Heron's method is implied by the correctness of Newton's method (of which it is a special case, see that article for details). But in addition, I pointed out that Heron’s method converges for all positive initial guesses, unlike Newton’s method, which may fail to converge if the initial guess is too far from ${\sqrt {S}}$ . This is a detail I have not found discussed on Wikipedia yet.

Below the theoretical discussion, I added the Python implementation — with a comparison to Halley's method — as it currently appears in the Square root algorithms article. My plan was to reduce that section in Square_root_algorithms#Heron's_method and point to Heron's method for additional information.

When I created the Heron's method page, I was ready to begin cleaning up Square root algorithms by removing content that had been transferred to the new article. Obviously there is overlap between the two pages, but that is only temporary. I plan to resolve this within the next few days — provided that Heron's method will be restored.

My goal is to create a more consistent Wikipedia structure, with Newton's method, Halley's method, and Heron's method each having their own dedicated pages, while Square root algorithms provides an overview of all the major related algorithms. This approach addresses the multiple issues that have existed in Square root algorithms since 2012, which no one has addressed until now.

If Heron's method will be restored, I will align the two articles within a few days. Both pages will at all times remain in a publishable state. However, it is not possible to remove content from Square root algorithms without preserving it in Heron's method, as that would result in information temporarily being lost — which I would qualify as vandalism.

Thank you for your consideration. Marc Schroeder (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Schroeder: Thanks for reaching out. I deleted the article because it showed some signs of LLM writing, namely that some citations had egregiously incorrect details (e.g., ISBN 9781493937806 is in English, not French), and I also spot-checked several others and found completely unrelated information (e.g., Heath, 1921, pp. 267–270 is available on Internet Archive and describes some concepts in trignometry – not at all related to Heron's meathod). For this reason, it would be necessary to check the entire article for source–text integrity (as verifiability is one of our most important content policies) and ensure there is no hallucinated information. These concerns were also raised by David Eppstein, who originally flagged the page for deletion.

Although I'm entirely supportive of creating a standalone article in less technical terms, it's better to have no article than one with potentially misleading statements. I have no prejudice against you creating a new article, provided that it is written by you (not AI-generated) and that anyone reviewing the page can readily verify its content.

And as an aside, feel free to create a new draft in your userspace (e.g., User:Marc Schroeder/Heron's method) while working on transferring or merging content. This will ensure that no information gets lost from the original articles while you are in the process of reworking the structure. ^Complex/_Rational 02:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to create the page User:Marc Schroeder/Heron's method, and that's the draft?

I can do that and then submit the page to you for review.

I am still wondering how I can transfer content from the published article Square root algorithms to an unpublished article User:Marc Schroeder/Heron's method. That would be information loss.

The only way out is that you allow me to duplicate content until Heron's method is released.

PS: The citation you mentioned was correct (it was the author-link that pointed to a French page, not the ISBN 9781493937806). I had carefully sorted that out: \{\{cite book | last=Berggren | first=J. L. | author-link=:fr:John Lennart Berggren | title=Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam | publisher=Springer | edition=2 | date=2017-01-18 | orig-year=1986 | isbn=9781493937806 }}

Marc Schroeder (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring content from one Wikipedia page to another is (almost) as simple as copy-pasting. However, you must provide attribution; you can note in your edit summary that content was copied from Square root algorithms, for instance.

More importantly, though, everything new that you write must be your own work. Copy-pasting from copyrighted sources is prohibited (tantamount to plagiarism), and unreviewed AI-generated content (which was the reason I deleted your previous draft) brings about a serious risk of misrepresenting facts. I should also clarify that information is not "lost" unless all the pages in question are deleted – content that you remove from one article can always be restored from the page history. ^Complex/_Rational 03:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case there was enough wrong that I think the "serious risk of misrepresenting facts" is an understatement. It did in fact misrepresent facts, starting with the first one I checked claiming that YBC 7289 describes a method for computing square roots. It does not. It states the approximate value of a specific square root. Someone must have calculated it at some point prior to that, but the sources you (that is, Mark Schroeder, not Complex/Rational) cited say that the scribe who wrote YBC 7289 probably copied the value from a table rather than calculating it. So that entire history section was false.

But the part that made me think this was AI-written was all of the serious errors in the references. One of the two YBC 7289 references was valid but had a completely incorrect doi. The other one listed a range of pages of which only one page within the range was valid. An encyclopedia article by Sesiano was given a made-up subtitle that does not occur in the actual reference. A book reference (by the way without specific pages that would make it verifiable) was stated to be in French when actually the book is in English. These kinds of errors are very characteristic of AI generation and are unlikely to be made by people. And the continued existence of these errors make it seem likely to me that the content was copied from an AI without actually checking that what the AI had written was accurate.

Problems at that level are beyond the point of getting something up and then adjusting it later. They need to be kept out of Wikipedia from the start, before they poison our understanding even more. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I agree that the deletion was appropriate, and I apologize for the premature publication. I will submit a carefully checked draft within the next couple of days for your reconsideration. I greatly appreciate your quick and attentive response, Mr. Eppstein. Marc Schroeder (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, ComplexRational. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
- There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
- There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
- This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

How to use Special:IPContributions
How automatic IP reveal works
How to use IP Info
How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]