Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2026

Please implement my changes in both template sandboxes.

Step 1: For {{uw-ublock}}, {{uw-ublock/procedure}} is brought out from the subpage to the main template with some wording changes since it is necessary to customize with additional parameters added named "usernamepolicyinfo" and "negreason" (which should be worded as the opposite of "reason". Additional customization with the addition of an "addendum" parameter was also added.

Step 2: For {{uw-softerblock}}, the template now uses {{uw-ublock}} with the customized parameters. Take caution when implementing from the sandbox to delete the "/sandbox" call as this template sandbox uses the first template sandbox. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 04:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Bump as it is still unanswered. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim I'm confused, why is this change necssary? Sohom (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Standardization, having two separate soft block templates with text hard coded rather than a template or similar makes maintainability a little harder because the templates then need to be kept in sync with one another. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This died pretty much right away, and in a way that makes it annoyingly hard to squeeze out an evaluation. There are three editors in favour of the move, one of which also supports alternatives, one explicitly against and one, while not explicitly opposing, I think it's fair to view as opposing a move taking place without sufficient discussion first. As only one further response even addressed that call for discussion, that clearly cannot be said to have happened, even after 3 relistings, and as a result I don't think I can say there is a consensus for this move. That said, this is to be regarded as being without prejudice to a new move discussion along these lines being started where the various options are actually discussed. In short: put some more effort into discussion with your fellow editors if you want a consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

---

• Template:Uw-tempabuse1 → Template:Uw-badwarn1
• Template:Uw-tempabuse2 → Template:Uw-badwarn2

– "Uw-tempabuse" sounds like a name that would make much more sense as the name of the template for TA sockpuppetry (uw-multipleTAs). (Note: I'm not RMing that template, since "Uw-multipleTAs" works better.) "Uw-badwarn" much more accurately reflects what these templates are used for. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 09:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 01:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 03:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a good idea. tempabuse is confusing and badwarn is clear & concise. tony 20:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: First off, shouldn't requests like this be preceded by a discussion, so consensus is formed prior to the request? Rather than what is happening here - the request itself kickstarting the discussion? Anyway, I realize "temp" stands for "template" which probably wasn't a great idea before but certainly isn't one now, when "temporary (accounts)" is or should be the overwhelmingly primary use. Not sure I like "warn" to mean "warning template" or "bad" for, presumably, "bad warning". Is "bad warning" a good summary of the intended use case? Based on the actual text displayed, I would urge y'all to at least discuss template names that mixes together "misuse", "warn" and "block". CapnZapp (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Support along with possible alternatives - I think this is a good start. Warning template names should be short and memorable for accessibility's sake. We may be able to find something better than "badwarn" as per above, but I do think that we should move the templates away from the current titles. ASUKITE 14:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose While I agree that "Tempabuse" sounds like a warning for TA socking, "Badwarn" is vague. It doesn't seem to me like it tells you what the warning is for, but rather tells you that it's a bad warning template that shouldn't be used. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding username to uw-unreliable

How do I replace the placeholder name field when using uw-unreliable? Noxajatsocad (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Noxajatsocad Am I to understand your question to ask about how the template starts "Hello, I'm Example"? If so, you don't need to do anything. The template will automatically replace the "Example" user name with whatever the name of the user posting it, at least when used correctly, meaning when the template is substituted: {{subst:Uw-unreliable}}. In other words, you can't have it say "Hello, I'm Example" even if you wanted... it'll always say the name of the account used to post it! You can try this out for yourself at your sandbox: User:Noxajatsocad/Sandbox (this link is red when I write this; you haven't experimented in your sandbox yet; information on your sandbox is here: Help:My sandbox). After posting {{subst:Uw-unreliable}} ~~~~ and viewing the resulting page you should see a template message starting "Hello, I'm Noxajatsocad. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed..." and so on, ending with your signature. Does this answer your question? Otherwise, please let us know. CapnZapp (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Uw-ai alternative for uw-ai-image

Hello, is there any interest in rephrasing uw-ai to also reference AI generated images? I would assume we want to have a quick way to tell users that AI generated images do not add value or may have an underlying copyright that makes them not reasonable on Wikipedia. Not sure all the policies yet on this beyond no LLM use in editing. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I use {{uw-image1}} and add a short note mentioning WP:AIGI or WP:AIUPSCALE as appropriate. A {{uw-aiimage}} template that already included that for me would certainly be useful. Belbury (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Engineerchange and Belbury: There are a couple different ways you could go with this. One is to have a whole, new template, or to modify either {{uw-ai}} to mention images, or {{uw-image1}} to mention AI. I've mocked up a quick sandbox version to give you an idea what it might look like:

Illustration of a modified version of {{uw-image1}}     (two examples)

These two examples are from the wording in sandbox rev 1359623276.

1. This example was substed, but you can test it in sandboxes transcluded or substituted.

{{subst:Uw-image1/sandbox|ai=yes}} ⟶

Hello! Your image was inserted successfully but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy on AI-generated images, it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

---

2. substed example with param1 present:

{{subst:Uw-image1/sandbox|Underwater basket-weaving|ai=yes}} ⟶

Hello! Your image was inserted successfully on the page Underwater basket-weaving, but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy on AI-generated images, it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

More illustrations of {{uw-image1/sandbox}}     (three examples from sandbox rev. 1359878988)

New wording as suggested below @09:10, 17 June et seq.; from sandbox rev 1359878988.

1. Default wording (no params); note: the wording in sentence one is re-ordered from live: the action ('reverted or removed') now appears before the reason ('because it appeared to be...' )

{{subst:Uw-image1/sandbox}} ⟶

Hello! Your image was inserted successfully but it has been reverted or removed because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

---

2. With param 1 (article name) only (no ai param):

{{subst:Uw-image1/sandbox|Underwater basket-weaving}} ⟶

Hello! Your image was inserted successfully on the page Underwater basket-weaving, but it has been reverted or removed because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

---

3. With param 1 (article name) and param ai=yes:

{{subst:Uw-image1/sandbox|Underwater basket-weaving|ai=yes}} ⟶

Hello! Your image was inserted successfully on the page Underwater basket-weaving, but it has been reverted or removed because it appeared to violate the image use policy. Except in AI-related topics, articles should generally avoid AI-generated or substantially AI-altered images, especially of named individuals or scientific subjects. Where AI alteration has occurred, the original image is preferred. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

The language could easily be altered to whatever you want for the |ai=yes case, so feel free to make suggestions or just modify Template:Uw-image1/sandbox directly. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Your example with the |ai=yes param meets all of my needs. Thank you, --Engineerchange (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Engineerchange, I'm glad. But in theory at least, one shouldn't use the sandbox version yet at a User talk page, as it could change at a moment's notice, and also is not a live version with consensus. We should wait a bit to see if anyone else chimes in to offer alternate wording, or to object to the change. If there's nothing in say, a week, then we can move it to live. Would you mind tracking this and then pinging me in a week if it looks like we can release it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC) P.S. I added another example above showing use with param1=article name. Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Can do! Thanks, --Engineerchange (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Been a week. Can push for another week if you think there's still dialogue here. --Engineerchange (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Engineerchange, yes, let's. (Thanks for the reminder.) I did sandbox versions for them, but will need to redo two of them (4 and 4im) partly for technical reasons as they are structured differently internally. Also, I am creating test cases for all of them so you and others can view them side-by-side with the originals; it would be too much to do all that in this discussion. You can look at 2 and 3 now, at Template:Uw-image2/testcases and Template:Uw-image3/testcases (in particular, test 5a and 5b), but there's no explanation of the tests or any new template doc yet. Templates 4 and 4im need to be redone, with new test cases. The main thing to note is that param 2 overrides the new AI param, so if you have |2=, then |ai=yes is ignored (because if you are writing your own text, then you are writing your own text; can't have it both ways). Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Mathglot About another week, so sending a reminder. Happy to test when you find the time. I'm in no rush, just want to keep the thread alive. And what you say about the 2nd param not working makes sense to me? I feel like as long as it doesn't override param 1, it's not a concern in my view. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we can drop because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or if we know that the template is being added because of the AI issue. It may also save some time and questions if we gave the user a short summary of WP:AIGI in the text of the template, something like Unless the article is about an AI-related subject, Wikipedia articles should generally not use images generated or substantially altered by AI, especially when depicting named individuals or scientific subjects. Where an image has been altered by AI, the original version is preferred. Belbury (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That seems like a good goal. Can we tighten it up/shorten it a bit thus:

Except in AI-related topics, articles should generally avoid AI-generated or substantially AI-altered images, especially of named individuals or scientific subjects. Where AI alteration has occurred, the original image is preferred.

I don't think that loses anything essential in your version; what do you think? Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, good one. Belbury (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see "More illustrations..." above, in the dusky green collapse bar, with new wording per recent suggestions. There is also an additional mod to sentence 1 for more natural flow of action because reason, unrelated to the ai wording discussion. Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good.

Having just had a user question this sentence in uw-image, on their talk page, Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. actually doesn't seem relevant when talking about AI images, so maybe it's worth losing it here. Belbury (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You mean, drop it only in the ai=yes case, right, or in both versions? Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Listed at: Wikipedia talk:Artificial intelligence and Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Engineerchange, one other thing: if this does get approved, then it raises the question what, if anything, to do about {{Uw-image2}}, {{Uw-image3}}, {{Uw-image4}}, and {{Uw-image4im}}. I had a look at them, and assuming the users receives the level-1 warning first with |ai=yes, I'm not sure it needs to be repeated again for levels 2 and higher. Have a look, and see what you think. If you think we do need ai=yes versions for those as well, it's really n.b.d., but in that case, please suggest what the wording should be for each one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: My suggestions (all wikilinks remain the same as normal):

• {{Uw-image2}} Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. Please see the image use policy for appropriate use of AI-generated images in Wikipedia. Thank you.
• {{Uw-image3}} Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate images, you may be blocked from editing. Unencyclopedic images, including AI-generated images, may be added to the bad image list to prevent them from being displayed.
• {{Uw-image4}} You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add an inappropriate image. Unencyclopedic images, including AI-generated images, may be added to the bad image list to prevent their display if used persistently for vandalism.
• {{Uw-image4im}} This is your only warning; if you add an inappropriate image to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Unencyclopedic images, including AI-generated images, may be added to the bad image list to prevent their display if used persistently for vandalism.

Namely just adding a simple note that AI-generated images are what is unencyclopedic for 3, 4, and 4im. Also, added an additional clarifying policy point to 2. IP and new users need this type of repetition in these warning messages, in my experience. But very open to edits here. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Revised the above given the sandbox statement further above. --Engineerchange (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Engineerchange and Belbury:, sorry, I've been busy, but I think we may have it, now. The changes are too numerous to include tests here, so you can either test the sandbox pages at {{Uw-image2/sandbox}}, {{Uw-image3/sandbox}}, {{Uw-image4/sandbox}}, and {{Uw-image4im/sandbox}} in your sandbox or at Special:ExpandTemplates, or look at the test case pages for Uw-image2, Uw-image3, Uw-image4, and Uw-image4im. This wasn't conceptually difficult, there's just a lot of little details to keep track of all over, and it would be easy for me to have missed something somewhere. So please be an extra set of eyes, and make sure everything looks good, and if you spot anything fishy, please lmk. If it all looks good, then if we wait a few more days for any additional comment, we can release them. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oops, sorry; found a systematic problem to fix. Don't bother testing yet; I'll let you know. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the problems only concern 3, 4, and 4im which transclude {{Uw3}}, {{Uw4}}, and {{Uw4im}}, whereas 1 and 2 emit the messages directly, and they are both fine, afaict. If you don't see a downside to releasing the new AI messaging-capable versions in two batches (i.e., a: 1 and 2; and b: 3, 4, and 4im), then we can do 1 and 2 now, assuming you are good with the outputs. In that case, please see the test case pages for Uw-image1/testcases and Uw-image2/testcases, and do whatever additional checks you like, and if you are on board, I will release those two. (Tests #5a – 5d are the ones to watch; the sandbox versions produce the new messaging; the live versions produce the old messaging.) Those two templates constitute the overwhelming majority of all warnings from the series anyway: there are 213 placements of 1 and 2 so far in 2026, and only 63 so far for 3, 4, and 4im combined. Thoughts? Adding @Engineerchange and Belbury:. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Warning against using AI to appeal a block

Probably half the unblock requests I review have been obviously generated with AI/LLM. Although it doesn't take long to decline such a request with the canned message available, and in that sense this is perhaps 'no biggie', it just seems so utterly pointless and a complete waste of the user's and the admin's time. I don't know if the users – esp. those likely to resort to AI – actually even read the block notice, but assuming they do, could we add to the template a warning against using AI? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As with other prohibitions of this type on Wikipedia, I wonder if it is really against using AI, or it is against using obvious and low quality AI. We could perhaps say "Low effort, vague, or incomprehensible unblock requests, including those generated by a 'chat bot' or LLM, may be summarily declined, or be considered to aggravate the reasons for a block." —DIYeditor (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I for one (and YMMV, of course) am categorically against using AI at all in this context. When the user copypastes from a chatbot something like "I fully understand X, agree to do Y, and promise not to do Z", there is no way of knowing whether they even read what they pasted into the appeal template, let alone actually understood it. And given that the point of the appeal process is to gauge whether it is safe to unblock the user with the expectation that they will not carry on the behaviour which led to the block, this seems to me to defeat the whole purpose of the exercise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There's always an implicit "if we can tell" in these prohibitions. If the AI is good enough, you are actually free to use it, because nobody could tell the difference. So the real problem is low effort or nonsense material. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A key feature of an appeal is understanding why you were blocked. Using AI to formulate an appeal either transfers this understanding to the bot (if you believe that bots can 'understand' something) or implies that nobody understood anything. Either way, this renders the appeal null and void, and it should be rejected immediately without consideration.

A secondary question might be posed:

I am an ESL speaker, and I wrote the appeal myself in my sketchy English, and I only used AI to fix up the grammar, spelling, and style.

My response here would be:

Non-native English speakers are welcome here. You are welcome to use your own, imperfect English in a block appeal; please do not use AI to fix the grammar or style. Either your English is comprehensible, in which case there will be no prejudice to your appeal, or else it is at a level where a reasonable person just can't be sure they understand what you mean. In the latter case, you should not be editing here at en-wiki; but did you know that there are Wikipedias in 300 languages? You are welcome to edit there.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have zero objections, but I feel a need to remind everybody we live in a world where it is absolutely not obvious to people why we are so dead set against AI. By which I mean we should not take it for granted people understand please do not use AI to fix the grammar or style, I could certainly see someone using AI out of good faith and not maliciously; maybe even better than "please do not use AI to fix the grammar or style" would be "please do not use AI to fix the grammar or style (if you wonder why we ask you to not use AI: LINK HERE)" CapnZapp (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

uw-sigapp

This currently reads as

Hello, I'm CapnZapp. I wanted to let you know that your signature does not meet the requirements for signature appearances. Your signature may have too little contrast. You can use a tool to check the contrast to determine if your signature meets the minimum contrast ratio of 4.5. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

However, there are five bullet points over at WP:SIGAPP only one of which voices concern over contrast.

1. Avoid markup such as <big>...
2. Do not add deliberate line breaks
3. Be sparing with subscript and superscript
4. Do not make your signature so small that it is difficult to read.
5. As some users have vision problems, be conscious of color and contrast issues

Could we get a customizable {{Uw-sigapp}} that doesn't discuss vision and contrast for cases where vision and contrast isn't an issue?

Ideally the current version of the template would be something like {{subst:Uw-sigapp|issue=5}} where "5" refers to the fifth bullet point of WP:SIGAPP. {{subst:Uw-sigapp|issue=contrast}} would of course do too if you think tying yourself to the current organization of WP:SIGAPP is a bad idea. Thoughts? CapnZapp (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

uw-sigapp (2)

The template {{Uw-sigapp}} claims WP:SIGAPP requires a minimum contrast ratio of 4.5:1 and then links to a WebAIM tool.

I see several potential shortcomings or issues, probably caused by several years of iterative good-faith editing:

1. The linked policy at WP:SIGAPP only states As some users have vision problems, be conscious of color and contrast issues. "Be conscious of" doesn't really require you to actually do something. "As some users have vision problems, signatures are required to have a contrast of at least 1:4,5" would imho be much more direct and clear.
2. Wikipedia:Colour contrast does not appear to be a binding rule such as policy or a guideline. Why does it say "you should ensure that text meets the guidelines set out in WP:COLOUR" when it means "you must ensure..."?
3. The note refers to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines which appear to be unrelated to Wikipedia. It is far from obvious that Wikipedia editors must follow guidelines issued by random organizations. And why is a binding rule given by a note instead of right in the running text?
4. And why, if Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color prescribes a contrast ration of 7:1 does the template allow 4.5:1?
5. The link to the tool is given with zero usage guidance. The linked page presents three different ratios. Why not specify which one(s) need to comply with the 4.5:1 minimum? At least have SIGAPP say "As some users have vision problems, signatures are required to have a Body Text to Background contrast of at least 1:4,5" (this example assumes the contrast of the link color to the foreground and background colors is of lesser concern)

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines which appear to be unrelated to Wikipedia Wrong. WCAG applies to everything in the internet, Wikipedia included. It is not a random organization. If in doubt, ask at either Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, User:Redrose64 - I'm not trying to weasel my way out of web standards. While I wasn't specifically aware, I am not surprised Wikipedia editors should follow WCAG, and I don't question it. What this is about is something else: let's not assume the average editor knows these things. Let us not assume everybody reading this is internet-savvy. Let us spell things out even if experts think they are painfully obvious. I'm not asking for my own sake - I am discussing on this talk page for the express purpose of improving our documentation. It would in my opinion be much more direct and clear (a straight up improvement) to skip vague directions like "be conscious of color and contrast issues" and instead state "Wikipedia policy mandates editors must follow WCAG. signatures are required to have a Body Text to Background contrast of at least 1:4,5, which you can check using this tool here." (this just an example) CapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

WCAG covers many things. There are three levels of compliance, which correspond to the keywords in rfc:2119 as follows:

• Level A: we MUST achieve this. Example: Use of Color.
• Level AA: we SHOULD achieve this. Example: Contrast (Minimum).
• Level AAA: we MAY achieve this. Example: Contrast (Enhanced).

For text colour contrast, achieving Level AA compliance requires a contrast of at least 4.5:1; achieving Level AAA compliance requires a contrast ratio at least of 7:1. I believe that Level A compliance is at least 3:1 (this text has a contrast ratio of 3:1) but it's not mentioned these days.

WCAG 2.2 was adopted as an international standard (ISO/IEC 40500:2025) last year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Legal action block template

I guess I just noticed that the wording had been changed recently, removing "or the legal action is unresolved.". I understand that a legal action between two editors would not prevent them from editing as long as no threat was made on Wikipedia(even though any lawyer would tell their clients not to engage with the person they are undertaking a legal action against, but yeah, that's not our concern). I have two questions:

1. If the legal action is against Wikipedia or the WMF itself, shouldn't the person remain blocked until the action is concluded?
2. If someone makes a legal threat, and is blocked, does them carrying out their threat mean they can be unblocked? (it's no longer a threat if they carry it out) That seems like a perverse way to encourage legal action.

331dot (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Oshwah as the editor who made the change. I think both wordings can be interpreted to say that a legal threat is a legal threat even while there's subsequent legal action, until that action is resolved or the threat is revoked. The old version could be read to mean you were blocked only for taking legal action against another user, even if you hadn't made any on-wiki legal threat. The spirit of the rule is that the "I'm gonna sue you" card is so disruptively uncivil as to warrant a block. The disruption is what's being blocked, and the disruption continues while they are following through on the threat. I don't see any reason for threat-turned-actions against Wikipedia or WMF to be treated differently.

As for whether someone should be blocked for taking legal action against WMF without making an on-wiki threat to do so, if the Office wants to block someone they're being sued by they will take that action themselves. tony 17:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

331dot, TonySt - TonySt said it correctly. I was under the belief that legal threats were not permitted on Wikipedia. As NLT states: "The existence of a legal dispute between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block, as long as no legal threats are made on Wikipedia." (Emphasis mine) This is why I changed the wording, as unresolved legal action without a threat being made on Wikipedia is not a valid reason to block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. :) 331dot (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

331dot - You bet! It's good to talk to you again; I hope all is going well with you. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 July 2026

This change would make the bold talk page text in the template a wikilink to the talk page of the article passed as a parameter. If the article parameter is unfilled, it keeps the current functionality. Currently, the text links to talk page etiquette guidelines, but the next sentence still does that too. My changes can be found here: Template:Uw-3rr/sandbox.

−

Instead, use the '''[[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]]''' to discuss how the page can represent [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among the editors involved.

+

Instead, use the '''{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|[[{{TALKPAGENAME:{{{1}}}}}|talk page]]|[[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]]}}''' to discuss how the page can represent [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among the editors involved.

FlammablePizza (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 2026-07-24

The extraneous space between "any contributions made while evading blocks or bans" and "may be reverted or deleted" should be removed. Ascchrvalstr (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done in Special:Diff/1366135317. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)