Can the Indonesian semi-block be bypassed by people using VPN for the login session? (It needs to be disabled later for editing, of course, due to VPN blocks). If so, it's really is not a major problem (for dedicated users, at least - and frankly, it's good to educate folks about VPNs; just slap a -p please use VPN on id wiki login/new account creation page and move on. Down with censorship!: P). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:

1. Login page now goes to auth.wikimedia.org, so they can't see the login page at all.
2. From what I have read, encouraging Indonesians how to bypass the block may end up blocking further pages or projects as it is an offence in the country, and the country seems to employ deep packet inspection on the national level which can enable them to do so.
3. WP:BEANS. The Indonesian editors know what to do. :)

– robertsky (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Number #3, exactly. We're not really say out loud things here. We do have intermediaries in each local communities, and they should disseminate "the way" to their members. For general public, we have placed some information in id:WP:FAQ#VPN (or #DNS) and other places.

But to answer your original question, VPN is not widely used in Indonesia, because the internet is generally free. (With major exception of reddit). I don't see in the future we will have millions of casual Indonesian readers would be bothered to use VPN just to register to wiki, and then to login each time. Bennylin (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The Indonesian editors know what to do."

Use VPNs and bleep Jakarta Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Chinese Wikipedia editors from mainland China can teach them something Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly encourage the Wikipedias of every Indonesian language to, at a minimum, put a notice on the main page describing the government's actions against the project. I also support the WMF's efforts to negotiate with the government to find a way for access to return without compromising the safety of editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. We welcome international readers to sign the petition. But we are also realistic enough to know that the government won't budge. We don't have any leverage on them. Bennylin (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I am just happy to see that the WMF has treated the threat to user PIA with enough gravity to adopt a combative posture this time. The org's level of capitulation to state demands for similar information in markedly similar circumstances during the Indian/ANI crises over the last two years was, and remains, deeply concerning. I wonder if the difference in approach this time around is entirely driven by the substantially larger group of users who would immediately be caught up by the government's demands, or if there has also been an internal reconsideration in the foundation's operational and legal offices of the cost-benefit analysis of cooperation as opposed to a public showdown. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Snow Rise as per a recent update (after reading a Google translation of the article), it appears WMF is on the process of getting the entire platform "registered" as an Electronic System Provider. "We appreciate the communication that has been established by Wikimedia and its commitment to follow up the registration process as a Private Scope PSE, and normalization of access to affected services will be carried out after the registration process is verified." according to the Director General of Komdigi's Digital Space Supervision. Original Indonesian statement: "Kami mengapresiasi komunikasi yang telah dibangun oleh Wikimedia serta komitmennya untuk menindaklanjuti proses pendaftaran sebagai PSE Lingkup Privat, dan normalisasi akses layanan terdampak akan dilakukan setelah proses pendaftaran terverifikasi." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, my first impulse was to say "unbelievable", but after reflecting for more than just a few seconds, it's eminently believable that the current iteration of the WMF, which has shown no capacity for rising to the moment of a worldwide tide sweeping towards censorship, and no spine for standing up to government institutions once the threat of a national block is made, would unflinchingly (and without consult to the community despite the broad implications for both the safety and rights of individual editors and the viability of neutral an undiluted content on our projects) capitulate in this manner. I'd love to ping a member of WMF legal here to ask point blank if this means they will be complying with demands from the Komdigi for volunteer PII, but after the ANI affair, there is very little doubt what the result would be: hand-wavey downplaying of the immediate consequences of registering, vague, euphemistic pledges about their continuing commitment to the movement's traditional posture with regard to censorship and protecting contributors....and then as soon as those demands for office actions to control content and demands for user info start coming in, they will immediately collaborate, probably with little to no transparency to the community about the true scale of these activities, and outright gaslighting when some of the consequences begin to leak into the public view. These career nonprofit functionaries, somewhat well-intentioned but ultimately unable to see the forest for the trees or develop a cogent, competent strategy for drawing a line in the sand on these sorts of issues, are going to give away the foundations of this movement, one brick at a time. And sadly, all too few members of the community have yet to fully realize just how completely we've already sprawled across the tipping point. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that Zara Larsson publicly stated that she didn't like the photo of her as a young girl that was in the article about her and a Signpost author thought that it would be funny to include that photo in this issue of the Signpost as an "unrelated photo?" If so, that's incredibly petty and a bit disrespectful. It's also more than a little creepy to use a photo of a young person for this joke. ElKevbo (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I often encounter this. Athletes, actors and other people concerned about their image want the professionally-created publicity photo illustrating their page, not the crap one someone took with an iphone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"If that makes the human race sound like a bunch of red pen-wielding know-it-alls with far too much time on their hands, a more hopeful reading is that we have a stubborn inborn belief that truth exists, and together we can find it." -- SF Chronicle article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the dispute that occurred in the article. But I don't understand why someone thought it appropriate to use the same photo in this Signpost article. It's not funny and it's not clever - it's petty. And it's especially offensive that it's not labeled as "The photo to which Larsson objected" or something helpful and honest but as "unrelated." This certainly skirts the edge of WP:BLP as a general principle. ElKevbo (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The photo that Larsson objected to is not the childhood photo, but this one, while the one Larsson prefers has been appropriately donated/uploaded with a free licence. CMD (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! ElKevbo (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I liked that quote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: I captioned the photo in question; if you are interested in my lowkirkenuine opinion on the matter, you may wish to read my comment at the RfC where I describe the refusal to use her preferred image as a "bizarrely minor quibble" consisting of "eight million dust-mote-sized nitpicks" meant to "passive-aggressively antagonize the subjects of our articles" and that I am "embarrassed to be an administrator here if we are proud of doing this to somebody". jp×g🗯️ 08:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled upon Previous Signpost on Guy Standing (via Tor's Cabinet of Curiosities) and had a good laugh. Bennylin (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that the second-largest WP has now shown us how it's done wrt lowering the boom on AI slop. Here's hoping that we can follow suit. The arguments in that Meinungsbild are very familiar from ongoing discussions here, and I am optimistic that we can follow through with a similar response to the crisis before long. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'm glad that the Pitchfork article included useful information for artists wanting more flattering photos in their articles, I hate that they led the 2nd paragraph with the sentence Musicians have long suffered in silence at the capricious whims of Wikipedia editors. Artists – and the general public – need to understand that we are seriously limited in what photos we can post due to strict licensing requirements. As a former pro photographer, I recognize that most people do not understand licensing terms or copyright law, at least in the US. But I'm glad that Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons take these issues seriously. Funcrunch (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Capricious whims"? Yuck. Why not "caprice". See, they need copyeditors. - Bri.public (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, they need professional photogs and/or an agent or publicity person who can understand the copyright requirements we've set, and who can pay for a pro photog to take a good photo and upload it to Commons with proper permission. If they do this - which should be a minor expenditure of money and effort to most professional entertainers - their problem is solved. @Funcrunch: - how much would a good pro photog charge for the service? (make the attribution to the photog) If we could convince the WMF to do an information campaign to contact agents, send out a few press releases, our problem would be solved too. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what the going rate is for professional portraits; my specialty was event photography, and I failed to even come close to making a living at it, so I'm not the best person to ask :-) Though I have contributed a number of my photos to Commons and even got recognized for it, so there's that.

  In any case, I believe the WikiPortraits initiative is doing some good work in creating freely-licensed, high-quality photos of subjects. Funcrunch (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a professional photographer on here/commons who uploads photographs of celebrities on requests of editors. I cant remember his name, but he uploaded couple of photos of pornstars on my request. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a joke going on internet since a very long time: "Wikipedia editors use most unappealing photo of living person, and update it to a good one as soon as the person dies." I believe we should make this joke true/a fact. Especially for the articles with paid editing, or who "call their fans for help" or try to meddle with article in any manner. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think if your reaction to this is "We have the power to punish these people using their articles, why aren't we using it?" you should be TBANed from BLP, frankly. Fundamental lack of respect for the responsibility editors have for their subjects. Parabolist (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was being hyperbolic Parabolist, dont take it much seriously, and being aggressive over the text on something which wasnt directed at you, isnt healthy in general. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  He's kind of right, though. Is that really all we can aspire to? Making up a gigantic intricate system of rules, insisting they apply not only here but to every website on the Internet, and then sadistically punishing people for breaking them? Like, what's the thesis supposed to be? BLPs aren't allowed to say anything negative about the way we cover them, or we'll just trash them? The hyperbolic version is wildly unethical, but so is the normal version. Why even joke about it? In what universe is that not just, like, obviously bullying? jp×g🗯️ 21:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing in WP:BLP that says that editors have a responsibility for their subjects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If I was being pedantic, I'd said that the phrase "BLPs should be written responsibly" is literally in the text, but my actual point is that most of BLP is about our responsibility to the subjects of our articles. It's not a responsibility to be their advocate, defender, or stan, but to be honest and dignified and to respect the (minor but significant) power a writer can have over someone's life and image. It's why the policy is so critical. Parabolist (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we have two choices. We can either aspire to be the greatest and most comprehensive reference work in the history of humanity, a magnificent monument to knowledge and understanding, reliable, trustworthy and impartial, or we can be a gossip tabloid that gets into beef with TikTokers and writes hitpieces about them to win Internet arguments. Impossible to tell which is a better use of time. jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]