Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Back in 2006, political userboxes were userfied per WP:Userbox migration as a result of the Great Userbox War. Since then, it appears that a lot of them have popped up again in the Template namespace. Also, the index page for WP:Userboxes/Politics by country, which had been userfied following MfD in 2009, was moved back to Projectspace in 2020 by a now-indeffed user, apparently without discussion. I was would revert the move, but then 16 years is a long time for consensus to possibly have changed, so I thought I'd ask here first:

1. Is current consensus in favour of allowing political userboxes in the Template namespace? Where is the line drawn for those that should only be in Userspace?
2. Is it acceptable that WP:Userboxes/Politics by country was moved back to Projectspace in contravention of the 2009 MfD?

I recently posted this at WT:Userboxes, though it that page doesn't appear to get a lot of traffic, so also asking here. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any content that's "inflammatory or substantially divisive" is not allowed in userboxes, per the guideline at WP:UBCR. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That describes userboxes that are not allowed, period. My question, however, is about userboxes that are only allowed in Userspace and not Templatespace. The relevant guideline is under WP:UBXNS, which is rather vague. The convention was developed way back in 2006 and doesn't appear to have been clearly documented. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to what is sufficiently divisive to be banned. This user has an “anti-UN” user box, in addition to multiple pro-2nd amendment userboxes. They popped up in the anti-AI discussion using a signature saying “Hail Me” and crosses that are similar to the Iron Cross. This was addressed on their talk page; where they disclaim any connection to Nazism, but refuse to remove the crosses. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to see why the ✠ have to be connected to Nazi Germany. I failed to see why multiple pro-2nd amendment and anti-UN statements are regarded as supportive to Nazism. I would again claim that I have no love for Hitler and Nazi Germany. I refuse to remove the ✠ from my signature as I didn't think that it is a symbol of Nazism. If you feel that the ✠ are sufficiently divisive to be banned you can go to WP:ANI for that. Have a good day. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 10:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I do not think the anti-UN and pro-2nd amendment userboxes are supportive of Nazism of themselves. But including them, along with several pro-Trump userboxes makes it clear you support fascist causes. Hope that helps clear things up! 173.177.179.61 (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this comment. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least the 3rd time I've seen someone bring up the iron crosses. At what point do we get to call a dogwhistle a dog whistle? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sock-the-guy and IP editor 173... this is the wrong venue for discussion of a specific editor, if you believe action should be taken then make your case, with evidence, at AN or ANI. If you don't believe action should be taken then stop talking about it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I’ll restate my original question then. Is a userbox for being “anti UN” sufficiently divisive to be removed?

For clarification, I have only been browsing these boards for a couple weeks. I saw that this user was asked to adjust their signature, but there was no comment about the userboxes, so I was unsure if they were allowed or not.

I don’t know how to file an ANI unfortunately. That said, I’m not really interested in helping out a community that is pro-Trump, so as a queer Canadian, I guess I’m outta here. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If User:SunDawn wants people to assume that they support fascist causes, then they are quite welcome to keep their signature, as long as they don't complain when people call them out on it. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The swastika predates the Nazis, but if you buy it in your signature you will end up having to explain why all the time. In the same way the iron cross predates WW2 but is now heavily associated with the Nazi's use of it, don't be surprised if people are offended by it's use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the other option for using the Iron Cross is generally to show allegiance to outlaw biker clubs. But this all seems something of a digression from the key question of the thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this isn’t allowed but I ended up commenting on this thread before & after I registered. So for complete clarity, the IP above (173.177.179.61) is me. ExtantRotations (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Userboxes should be moved out of template space. If you find one, move it.

The unresolved question is whether political Userboxes should be moved out of Wikipedia?

If Wikipedia:UBXNS is vague, fix it. Userboxes don’t belong in template space. Userboxes are Userpage content and are not real templates. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of any guidance to that effect. Presumably you don't mean to include Babel boxes? But what about user group userboxes? WikiProject membership userboxes? Legitimate areas of expertise and/or interest? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) All Userboxes should be moved out of template space. If you find one, move it. is this just your opinion? It's not something I've ever heard before and doesn't seem to match what is written at WP:UBXNS,

If Wikipedia:UBXNS is vague, fix it. this is what they are explicitly seeking to do. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userbox migration SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a historical page that proposes moving some userboxes to userspace and which explicitly eschews being a policy or guideline, it does not support your statement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It describes the rationale and the practice, and it still occurs, and is often an MfD result. In my opinion nothing needs fixing, if someone doesn’t like a template space userbox, Userfy it to User:UBX. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is this WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's same shit, really. They can be probably deployed as templates, they can be coded, they can be in Template: or User: namespace (not projectspace though, because that IMHO is supposed to be somehow related to Wikipedia's functioning). It's like arguing over whether we want to put our luggage in locker 26 or 38 when they are the same size. The only thing that really matters is the userbox's content.

There is a userbox discussion going on (at MfD) and I see some support for blanket removal of all political userboxes, userspace, templatespace or elsewhere, essentially per WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTSOCIAL and as being generally not conducive to editing.

And I suggest that we consider that option as well.

Also, unwritten conventions like the one described just above me suck. If it is a convention that actually has much influence on outcomes, it ought to be a rule. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit… I’m going to be real for a second. I’ve been hanging around reading things for a bit still cause I was like “well okay… maybe I jumped off the handle… it’s not like anti-LGBT userboxes exist, right? I mean, that would be crazy offensive.”

OH! Oh wait they do and people have to argue politely and civilily as to why it might be considered upsetting to realize the person editing the same niche article as you disrespects you on a fundamental human level. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Userboxes don’t belong in ProjectSpace because that gets read as implying official Wikipedia status. They don’t belong in TemplateSpace because they don’t function as templates, and because template gnomes don’t like them there and are template-deletionists. They do belong in userspace because they are a form of user expression. If they are idiosyncratic, keep them in their creator’s userspace. If they are broadly used, put them under USER:UBX.

Let’s make this decades old practice “the rule”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a clearer definition is needed for "directly collaborative in nature," as currently stated. Logically, it should be fine for a userbox (even in Templatespace) to say "This user is interested in the history of Nazism," but not "This user identifies as a Nazi." The former identifies the user's area of interest in contributing to Wikipedia; the latter is just plain inflammatory (or a bad joke). Requiring such wording may be a way to draw the line. On the other hand, it might be opening a loophole for people to exploit. Anyone got better ideas? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would prefer, even if it is a small preference, for project supporting Userboxes to be organised in Projectspace, not Template space. I think many would belong in a WikiProject.

2. I suggest NOT seeking to define a good and proper userbox. This could be constraining on future good ideas. Instead, I suggest that if someone wants to challenge a userbox as not being for the benefit of the project, that they consider migrating it to userspace, to the authors userspace or to User:UBX. If definitions are wanted, define unacceptable Userboxes. This has already begun. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note the userbox in the MFD linked earlier is already in the author's userspace. But since it touches on an area where we have many people intent on promoting the victimhood of certain groups, it's getting a lot of delete votes based purely on that activism. Perhaps we really do want to ban userboxes that take positions on divisive social and political issues, but that environment (or any where discussion is going to be dominated by people throwing around WP:NONAZIS or its various clones) is not a good place to make a reasoned decision. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I’m having trouble understanding your argument. Is your claim that LGBT people are “promoting victimhood” by voting to delete a userbox that reads “This user does not support the LGBT ideology” and that the delete votes are therefore insincere? They seem to come from genuine users. I don’t think it makes a difference who is placing the votes so long as they arent breaking rules. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misinterpreting basically everything there. And this isn't the place for a political discussion. Anomie⚔ 17:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would you like to explain why you think only the Delete votes are due to activism? 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anomie⚔ 17:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGF be damned. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest. I deleted all the userboxes from my user page a while back. This was principally because of two reasons: one - they'd got rather multitudinous and some of them were a snapshot of who I was nearly two decades ago more than now and two - the political userboxes never brought me anything but grief. I'd be supportive of a blanket elimination of political userboxes from Wikipedia full-stop. Frankly it would probably improve general adherence to WP:AGF even if it meant that we would lose the opportunity to occasionally have a bigot out themselves before they disrupt the encyclopedia meaningfully. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the deletion of all such boxes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be neutral to deleting all such userboxes. They can be useful to get an idea of someone's interests or possible biases. But I'd oppose deleting only the ones for positions an angry mob opposes while keeping the ones for their side, since the angry mobs seem to have difficulty distinguishing between actually-bad and just-expresses-an-opposing-viewpoint. Anomie⚔ 16:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that "political" may be conflated to end up supporting the removal of anything queer-related. Could we have assurances in any official thing that that wouldn't happen? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a total ban on political infoboxes. Addressing your concern, it's one thing to say "This user is queer" in the infobox. I'd question their judgment of posting their sexual orientation on the Internets, but if they really insist, there isn't much we can do. Just like editing under real-name identities - questionable practice but allowed.

It's another to say "This user feels queers are being discriminated against" or even "This user supports LGBT rights". The first is an open invitation to a shitshow; the second is quite innocuous in most Western societies but this is a political statement nevertheless and has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia - and it may be very controversial in, let's say, Pakistan. Also, consider this for comparison: "This user supports LGB rights", which will inevitably start all sorts of drama over transgender editors. Yeah, just sit back and get some popcorn.

If you are interested in queer topics on Wikipedia, "This user is part of WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies" is a great way to signal your editing preferences. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly my concern, thank you for the transparency Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal solution would be to remove connotation of politics from the rights of people, but that'd be difficult to implement because it isn't only on Wikipedia, this is across society. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the ban of political advocacy Userboxes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from this discussion that there may be some support for banning political infoboxes (or "political advocacy" infoboxes). Before we proceed to further discussion, if it is ever needed, please tell me, among these userboxes, which kinds of userboxes would you be in favour of disallowing, if any?

I tried to sort them by categories so that it's easier to analyse them.

• the A cluster is political. A is "this user supports country X", which would seem to endorse a certain position in the conflict, e.g. Israel-Palestine, Pakistan-India, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Ukraine-Russia etc. A1 just lists party membership, without any further indication of political beliefs. A2 endorses/opposes particular politicians or personalities reasonably connected to politics. A3 lists the user's ideology. A4 indicates user's attitude to a certain political phenomenon. A5 indicates a user's attitude to countries or supranational bodies.
• B cluster is social. B is about LBGT issues (note: only in cases like: X should (not) have rights, should (not) serve in the military; it's not about declaring your sexual orientation), B1 is about opinions on marriage, B2 is about abortion, B3 is about censorship
• C groups causes that may appear uncontroversial.

A. This user supports Palestine/This user supports Israel

A1. This user supports the American Solidarity Party/is a US Anti-Federalist, member of the Republican/Democratic/Labour/Liberal/Swiss People's Party...

A2. All userboxes in Category:Politician user templates or Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics by country (e.g. was against Assad/Ivan Duque/Juan Manuel Santos/Alvaro Uribe/Rodrigo Duterte/Stephen Harper/Justin Trudeau; Bernie Sanders for President Trump's the best; admires Amelia Andersdotter, Anna Politkovskaya, etc.

A3. This user is an anarchist, progressive, liberal, conservative, Communist, anti-Communist supports Hindutva/Pan-Slavism/MAGA (errm, I meant this), opposes monarchy, supports DEI, denies global warming...

A4. This user ardently opposes the alt-right/futarchy/believes that the alt-right is killing the US Republican Party/that white nationalism is Anti-American/demands that Azerbaijan release Armenian POWs

A5. This user supports a South-East Asian integrated community through ASEAN, against the EU/is Austro-European/supports the EU, Brexit templates, was against Euromaidan, against the UN... like 90% of the Category:Political user templates

B. Supports rights for queer people, gay people; does not support LGBT+ ideology due to legal, religious and moral reasons.

B1. Supports/opposes polyamorous marriage/supports cousin marriage/equal marriage for all/marriage only between one man and one woman/believes that marriage should be religious/is against extramarital sex/is generally against divorce

B2. Basically all templates in Category:Abortion user templates except User:UBX/Abortion, Template:User WikiProject Abortion and User:The Homosexualist/Irrelevabortion

B3. against most/no/all forms of censorship

C. Against dictators/terrorism/racism/oligarchy/slavery

C1. This user supports animal rights, Indigenous rights

Note that any infobox of the style "This user is part of WikiProject" or "This user is interested in" or "This user is gay" is not in the scope as it either directly refers to Wikipedia activity or else is not a political statement. Also note that it is for now more of a brainstorm to see which formulation of the userbox guideline will be potentially in play. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you ask me, I believe every single one of these is inappropriate. We don't get to endorse, or not endorse, people's political views or social views with political relevance. This is not our goal. Therefore, we either need to allow them all or ban them all. I totally understand the people's outrage when a guy posts a "this person is a proud Nazi" or "this person believes we have to straighten up the gays" on their userpage based on the notion that "this is clearly disruptive" but the thing is, it is only disruptive if people notice it, and the current guidance simply says "wait and see until a bunch of editors drag you to MfD" instead of just "don't do it". People who post such things are either trolls - a not-so-easy block for less obvious cases - or genuinely believe this and will go like "Wikipedia is biased and libtards rule there". To the fullest extent possible, Wikipedia should be apolitical and this is a way to do it. The benefit to keep these userboxes is minimal; the potential harm and waste of time - pretty big. Imagine a ARBPIA RfC where an editor looks up a userpage and see something like "This person supports Israel". Do you think the pro-Palestinian editor will never think along the lines of "he should not be editing here because he just said he's biased?" Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conflation of support for human rights with discrimination in this makes it impossible to support. Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to announce support for human rights, you have plenty of options. Twitter, Bluesky, Blogspot, Wordpress, your local city hall, etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was not meant to be "support all or nothing". You are free to propose which infoboxes are appropriate or inappropriate within a category. In fact, that was the whole point - I need feedback. If we are speaking of B, which I think was one of your key points you mentioned to me, AFAIK LGBT rights is a political issue in quite a large part of the world (the T part is in particular is in the vogue in the Western world, there's even an ArbCom case request about it). My position is clear on this, and because this is a controversial issue (it shouldn't be, but it is), I could not put it into the C cluster. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I'm concerned, every single one of the listed examples violates WP:SOAPBOX and is a misuse of Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• If political userboxes such as the ones listed above were banned, what's stopping editors from writing political statements on their userpages instead e.g. "This user supports/opposes _____."? Is there really a difference, for example, between having a userbox that says "This user supports Palestine" vs having an image of the Palestinian flag on their userpage with a message saying "I support Palestine"? Some1 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that if we decide that userboxes like these are inappropriate, it would be automatically inappropriate to write their content in plaintext. Arguing that it wouldn't be inappropriate would be wikilawyering. Also see WP:UP#GOALS ("Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.") and WP:POLEMIC. That said, you make a good point. Updating WP:UP is probably a good idea. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say allow them all. This isn't (exactly) about free speech; it's legitimate to say "you can say what you want just not here". That said, it's sometimes useful to know where people are coming from. As long as it's a simple statement of position (even a radically unpopular position) and doesn't devolve into disruptive argumentation, I think it should be allowed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• All of these are appropriate if they are written in a straightforward way that is not an attack. They are useful to indicate the bias or worldview of the editor. Perhaps there could be a way to classify the political biases of editors by how they edit. But far more difficult for the casual observer to determine in general. For it to be soapbox material it should be very prominent and the main feature of the user page. Claims of discrimination and violation of human rights by the existence or use of a userbox are unfounded, as boxes do not take away any rights or do anything that discriminates. It is also more useful to have userboxes rather than use of plain text as that would ensure that text used meets our standards for decency, and also make it easy to find who uses that box. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, the existence of pro-discrimination infoboxes does make it clear to the individuals who are being addressed that they are not wanted here. Putting the burden on the targeted individuals to enforce rules will lead to a reduced number of them that stick around. ExtantRotations (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At most, it suggests that there are some people who don't want them here. Which is always going to be true. There will always be some people who don't want you here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I decided almost 20 years ago to remove the closest things I had to political user boxes from my userpage [1], so, yeah, I don't think such things should be on a user page, but I am hesitant to make that a hard rule for others. - Donald Albury 00:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• While I don't use such userboxes, it's certainly far too broad a brush to do anything about these as a broad category. "political userboxes" is essentially and "political opinion" (in a box), and a "political opinion" is just an "opinion" because everything is political. We can't really have a "C groups causes that may appear uncontroversial", as that it an inherent contradiction. If something was uncontroversial, it would not be a "cause". If it's a cluster by cluster whack, there should be care to nix all opinions, even those widely agreed on by the community. CMD (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems to be escalating way beyond what I expected when originally asking. But what exactly do we mean by banning userboxes anyway? Like Some1 mentioned, it shouldn't stop people from writing the same statements directly on their user page. What about manually formatting them in boxes, without making them into transcludable templates/subpages? If that's allowed, then nothing should be stopping people from copying manually formatted boxes from other people's talk pages either. Deleting the index pages might add an inconvenience and discourage people from using them, but I don't think there's a realistic way to stop people from seeking them out. Maybe that's why the original solution from 2006 was just to userfy them. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One issue with the userfication solution is that it largely amounted to much ado about nothing, as the userboxes hosted under User:UBX/Userboxes or anyone's user subpage are still performing the same function. Maybe they (and others that we think should be removed form Templatespace) should all be subst'ed. This would allow more diversity in users' self-expression and hold them directly accountable for the content they have on their userpage. I don't know if this will cause a significant increase in storage requirements; would appreciate if someone could do the numbers. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Userspace pages don’t speak for Wikipedia. This is a big thing for controversial Userboxes. Userfying diminishes the pecived problem. Subst’ing would work similarly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, “banning userboxes” would mean taking things in line with the username policy, whereby certain items would be eligible for immediate deletion or ban rather than allowing them to hang around until someone challenged them.

  For clarity’s sake, I am also the IP further up this debate that asked about specific userboxes. In my opinion, I think “political userboxes” is a bit of an incorrect target. I do not have a problem with “political support” userboxes such as “this user supports Trump”. As much as I disagree with that statement politically, I don’t think it is designed to be inflammatory. But if the point of Wikipedia is to improve collaborative work, then it is counterproductive to allow userboxes that champion arguments Wikipedia itself deems as biased or false. ExtantRotations (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment most of this discussion, I don't want to touch with a ten foot pole. However in opposition to the maximalist view here, I do think some ideological userboxes are helpful as an easy way for editors to disclose possible sources of bias, which is part of WP:DGF. -- LWG ^talk 16:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with LWG.

  My current rule of thumb is that if a rule would require changes to User:Orangemike, then I don't want that rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• allow them all - although I hadn't expected to be cited as an example, I agree with LWG and WhatamIdoing that they serve as a method of full disclosure. I thus acknowledge my belief systems and my preferences, and fully expect people to take them into account when giving my edits the scrutiny we all deserve. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have established Wikipedia:No Nazis as a deletion reason for Userboxes, Userboxes that you won’t find any more. Do you mean “go no further”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not going to frame it as a !vote (yet), or for any option, but I'm somewhat supportive. It fuels disruption that could've otherwise been prevented, and for little gain. The benefit of disclosure does not seem to me like it outweighs the other costs. Furthermore, if it's so valuable, is a possible conclusion that we must all disclose our political positions on user pages? Surely not. Therefore, this argument doesn't move me very much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like this type of disclosure only becomes relevant when a problem (such as POV pushing) arises. However, if the problem has been identified, it is superfluous- barring exceptional cases. Dege31 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• At one point I put a bunch of political userboxes on my page, then I later removed them, and I think they should be deleted and removed because they are kind of a trap. Andre🚐 00:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a mail of a user whom I know for many years (not personally though) and who is mainly active on other Wikimnedia projects. Without giving too much detail, their account got caught by an IP block (only on the English Wikipedia, other projects are fine). The administrator who imposed the block is barely active or inactive. What would be the best course of action to proceed? I am willing to help them but I am obviously not a CU and I am not sure how appropriate for me would be to give them an exemption? If not, what it the best place for them to request the exemption? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Appealing a block says: The preferred way to appeal a block is to place {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your talk page ... — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but this is not an account block, this is just a technical issue. The account is in good standing. And I am not sure they want to associate it with the IP in public. Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry. Comes of drive-by checking of my watchlist while making a coffee. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is a CU block, it should be fine to grant IPBE, because the blocking admin could not have possibly matched a registered account with the background IP without CU rights. Some accounts may get caught mistakenly. (Non-administrator comment) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If only every user experiencing an IP block was collateral. Technically and in policy, admins retain the ability the grant IPBE, and in some cases that's entirely appropriate. It is advisable to consult a checkuser, and that's strongly recommended by policy, because checkusers have a unique perspective on the risks associated with any address or user (they are also well placed to 'fix' any blocks). Admins however often have good judgment about their fellow users. I see two ways forward (ignoring the OTRS and UTRS routes by the user themselves): either do it yourself and mention it to a checkuser, or ask a checkuser to look first and do the granting. You might also decide it's not worth doing either. The main question you need to ask is what is the probability that the IP block is aimed at an account operated by that user. Knowing there are often delays with the other routes, I'll offer up the option to email me. If you do decide to grant IPBE, please grant it for no longer than necessary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, WP:SPI#Quick_CheckUser_requests is a designated venue for such requests, mainly for admins. Options for the user are listed at WP:IPBE. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot everyone, it is a clear way forward. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. As a CU who does a lot of IPBE grants, I'd say to admins that they should give only limited-period grants: no more than 6 months, and preferably only 3 months. Please, please admins, do not give indefinite IPBE; if you think a user should have IPBE for longer than 6 months, refer them to a checkuser. And now having said that, I should go and work on the backlog. Risker (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say basically the same thing, and also that just about any checkuser ought to be willing to handle this sort of request privately by email for users who don't want to plaster their IP all over an unblock request. I certainly am, and frequently do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's supposed to happen at the end of the short-term IPBE? Ask again (and again and again)? I've heard that editors using Apple's Private Relay frequently need IPBE, and that Google Chrome was planning a similar IP-anonymization think. That could be a lot of editors making a lot of requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE grants be can applied incrementally, just as blocks can be incremented. I've been through phases of extending up to 3 years. Most IPBE situations really are short term though, and not, for example, infinite. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google dropped their IP-anonymization plan in mid-2024 for Chrome, but "VPN by Google" is still in place for Pixel phones since the Pixel 7. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orphan includes a link to an external tool (edwardbetts.com/find_link). Is this within policy? It seems a little dodgy to have links to external sites embedded in places where people won't be expecting to be taken off-site. For reasons I don't understand, this link doesn't render with the normal northeast arrow icon which indicates an external link. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The plainlinks seem to be coming from way upstream in the box wrappers at Module:Message box. This EL has been in that template since 2017. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I turned back on the link for when this is called in general, see User:Xaosflux/sandbox152 for output, but there are layers and layers of other box wrappers that may be suppressing this, such as Template:issues. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question, seems like there are two questions here @RoySmith:?

• Should article message boxes suppress external link indicators (to actual external links)?
• Should article message boxes use external links at all?

For the former, I don't think we should suppress indicators. Not sure on the later. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, we shouldn't hide the external link indicator. I can't see any plausible reason why doing so is a good idea. I won't pretend to fully understand how plainlinks works, but this seems like a fix which should be done at some higher level so it applies to all external links in boxes.

As long as it's clear that it's an external link, I think I'm OK with external links in message boxes. RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• External links should be visible (both normally and in this specific case), so people can decide whether they want to switch to a different website/different privacy policies.
• I'd slightly prefer not using an external/non-WMF website in this (general) circumstance.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using "plainlinks" turns off the EL indicator, in my edit to that template I changed the higher level call to not suppress the indicators, then turned it back on for that internal link that for technical reasons has to be formatted as an external link. From a technical perspective, this may be needed else where when there are boxes that are wrapping boxes and the parent link turns off all indicators. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

External links should definitely be visible, possibly excluding interwiki ones. I don't think it is appropriate in most cases to have non-interwiki external links in message boxes (or, more generally, outside of tables, infoboxes and "external links" sections where they are clearly expected), and any tool linked there should be WMF-maintained or community-maintained at the very least. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago I came across a development over at the list of common misconceptions, one of our most famous articles: it is now displayed to readers without references. There was consensus some time ago to split the large list into three pages. In the course of those discussions, an idea emerged that the three could be transcluded to reconstruct a slimmer version of the original (some of the support was indeed predicated on such a plan), leading us to the current version without references.

The citations still exist, but in order to see them you have to find the link to the subject-specific page and click it. According to pageviews for the last 30 days, the main article received 141,198 pageviews. The other three combine for 3,917. In other words, almost nobody clicks through to where the citations are. While it's true that citations take up a lot of space, they're also quite important where big claims are made (like X is a common misconception, Y is how it really is).

I thought about opening an RfC on the article talk page, but -- with apologies to the regular contributors there -- it seems like the underlying concept is something that could really use more centralized discussion: is using selective transclusion to remove citations ever an acceptable way to reduce page size? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussions don't override community expectations on referencing for articles. I've tagged the page as unreferenced.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided so far on the issue at question, but your edit seems pointy to me. I'd recommend you self-revert, allowing this discussion to reach a conclusion and that conclusion to be implemented. Anomie⚔ 16:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edit has been reverted, so that point is now moot. I couldn't find any discussion where consensus was obtained for removing all references from the page (there was a discussion on splitting it, but that isn't the same thing at all.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be using transclusions for content at all - this is effectively presenting the casual user with an unreferenced article where they cannot edit the contents and someone has to watchlist all of the subpages to check for vandalism. This is a bad idea.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, transclusions do carry standard inline references over, but the split was done as to wrap the refs in a manner that they were excluded from the transclusion. Masem (t) 18:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct myself, the references were already wrapped in the #invoke magic word which prevents reference expansion from triggering the "too many templates" limit on pages, which made sense given how many items and references were used. But when the split happened, the #invokes were kept, so the references do not get transcluded.

Obviously, it would be a problem if the transcluded split pages replaced the #invoke with normal ref calling (the full list would still be a problem).

We're still left with a page that appears to have no references. What should have happened is gradual splitting of the larger sections of the pages, leaving only main/seealso calls to those lists and not transclusions, as to still direct readers to those lists with references still all in place in the main and sublists. Masem (t) 19:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The #invoke hack does not "prevent" reference expansion from triggering the "too many templates" limit on pages. It merely makes it possible to cram a few more things in there before the WP:PEIS limit is hit. Think of it as a compression system for a big suitcase: it lets you put some more clothes in, but it doesn't let you put an infinite number of clothes in the suitcase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the refs are just not there on the big page due to the template limit still being hit when all the transclusions, invoke or not, are included. That would make sense. Masem (t) 23:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now posted a reference to this discussion on the article's talk page, since that was apparently overlooked only mentioned deep in an earlier discussion on the page. Anomie⚔ 16:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its never acceptable. Pages have to be comprehensive as standalone articles so pushing the citations elsewhere is not acceptable. Masem (t) 17:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured out what happened in that in this diff, the list was replaced with several transclusions to the subpages. The subpages have the references but were implemented in a way so that they do not get transcluded into the full list. This just doesn't work again that every page should be standalone and references must be there on that page. The split should have literally just split off major sections to subpages without worrying about transclusions, so that the sourcing remains in place as normal for all articles. Masem (t) 17:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, and a local consensus can't override policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect anything on a page about common misconception would be "likely to be challenged". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop! You're not being given a complete set of reasons why we set up the page like that.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No. I don't care why the current setup exists, all that matters is that article content should always be supported by references to reliable sources and the references should always be on the same page as the content they support. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On a technical level, there is a hard cap about the number of templates that can display on one page. And I expect you're thinking, "What?" I know I did when I first came across this.

  Why is there a hard cap on the number of templates that will display? Well, it's necessary to protect the servers from certain kinds of sophisticated vandalism that amount to attacks. A clever vandal could set up templates that called each other recursively, so you end up with very large numbers of templates proliferating and absorbing our resources. There are good security reasons why we wouldn't want to change the cap. And the cap is set at such a high level that it almost never comes up (which is why it's confusing).

  How does the hard cap affect this article? Well, all our references are in templates (and they rightly should be). So, around November 2024, we'd made this article unexpandable: we could not add further references. For a while now, editors had been using a workaround by adding special code into the references, but that too was on the point of failure.

  That is a policy disaster. From a WP:V perspective, we could not possibly allow an article to exist that we couldn't add further citations to.

  WhatamIdoing arranged an RFC. She advocated splitting the article into subarticles, but editors insisted on having a version of the article that displayed on one page. So after a truly enormous amount of discussion, we implemented a split into List of common misconceptions about arts and culture, List of common misconceptions about history, and List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics. Each of those articles can be expanded, can have citations added to it, and is not the policy disaster we were previously faced with.

  Then, in obedience to a talk page consensus, we created a version that transcluded the split articles. But the version that displays on one page is not the article. It's a single page that transcludes the three articles without the citations; but with a link to the subarticle with citations very prominently displayed.

  You can of course reach consensus to change this at this discussion, but I do think it's important that you fully understand what you're doing before you !vote.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for this explanation, S Marshall. The template limit is interesting indeed. But I think the crux is but editors insisted on having a version of the article that displayed on one page - "Split the page but treat the split pages as templates to transclude without references where the list once was" is simply not a valid option for a split proposal, so IMO should've just been disregarded upon closure. At the end of the day, we cannot have an article (and whichever page the reader is on when they're reading the text is the article) without references. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd have written "but some editors insisted..."; otherwise, I think S Marshall's description is fair.

    The split-or-not discussion was Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 33#Split proposal (15 editors, 70 comments; includes first description of ref-hiding system).

    A further discussion about how to split was at Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 34#How to split.

    The how-many-sublists RFC was Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 34#RFC on number of pages to split to (17 editors, 49 comments). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and WAID was thorough. The split proposal RfC was advertised and crosslinked on this page (Village pump policy), on Village pump technical, on FTN, and on WikiProject Lists. This wasn't some halfassed local consensus.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of the reasons to maintain one single list (even with the transclusions) are very weak ("its a popular article"), in comparative weight to the core need to have comprehensive pages with everything appropriate sourced, even with the use of summary style splits. It would be far better to just have a notice box on the article page to explain that the topic is too large for a single page and thus split for readability and usability. Masem (t) 22:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Equally, a decision that involved multiple sitewide RfCs doesn't get overturned on the basis of one discussion on VPP.—S Marshall T/C 22:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • The split proposal was advertised and crosslinked. The "how many to split into" discussion was likewise advertised. But neither of those produced a consensus to create a transclusion zombie article. In fact, the first says explicitly There is not, however, a consensus whether to split the article in 2, split it into 3, or to do some wizardry using templates and transclusion to somehow be even more creative. The "How to split" discussion linked above was not advertised, and involves only five people. Nobody is suggesting to overturn either of the RfCs. What I am suggesting is that the basis for the subsequent decision of creating a high-teaffic unreferenced article is concerning, and that, in general, we should not remove references from the actual user-read versions of articles to save space. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, the decision to split, and how to split, seems both well advertised, decided fairly by an RFC. Its this last minute of "but lets keep one big article using transclusions" that doesn't have that support, and that's what is breaking policy requirements. Masem (t) 23:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I invite you to re-read the RfCs, paying careful attention to the sequence in which these ideas were introduced to the community. It is profoundly unfair to call that proposal "last minute". In fact, the idea was discussed and agonized over for weeks. The community didn't love it. But it thought the alternatives were worse.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Amusingly, I see that when we discussed the idea at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 82#Source display, ActivelyDisinterested who was so opposed to this just now, seemed quite supportive!—S Marshall T/C 23:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rhododendrites, I'm not sure from your comments whether you're more interested in a Wikipedia:Close challenge or finding out whether there is currently a consensus for this arrangement. If the latter, then it doesn't really matter what the previous discussions did/didn't say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My question is still the one in the heading. I was responding there to S Marshall arguing that a discussion here would not take precedence over well attended discussions at the article. My point is, there was no strong consensus for creating an unreferenced list -- only to split, and then to split in 3. So, on one hand, there's no closure to challenge. On the other, I'm looking to gauge opinions on the general concept. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At this rate we'll need a list of common misconceptions about the list of common misconceptions.

  If there hadn't been a one-page version option, then the split proposal failed and we're back to one merged list.—S Marshall T/C 00:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that's true, but I think the more important question is "What do we want today?", not "Exactly how would you interpret comments made last year?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this is a terrible idea. And now the current version just had a permanent template at the top? It looks awful. Just make gosh darn separate sub pages, like we do with so many other primary high level topics. Transclusion in this manner is a non-starter. Silverseren^C 23:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was approaching 600kb, so something had to be done. I do not agree with this particular solution, but once page sizes get that large slowdowns occur, especially on weaker systems and when opening source editor. A potential solution could be turning it into a pseudo-disambiguation page pointing to the other subpages as we do at List of Nazis. But I tend to agree that presenting without citations should be avoided. Curbon7 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say what I said on the talk page in question: For a list that is meant to combat misinformation, it would really help to be able to see the citations whenever necessary; just looking at the page gives the sense that things are made up, and then I have to click on another page just to see where the information came from. Given that a fair few of these are related to actual political controversies (such as the vaccines and autism one, or the tariffs one that was recently added), I think that saying "these are false" would fall within the "likely to be challenged" part of WP:V and thus need citation here. Compare Lists of unusual deaths, which was also recently split into a list of lists. Also note that tags like {{Better source needed}} and {{Citation needed}} are not excluded from the combined list. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccines and autism isn't politics. It's woo, plain and simple.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given what's happening in the US right, vaccines and autism are 100% in the political arena right now Masem (t) 00:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of... It's woo. Fully disproven and discredited.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, woo, but an example of how the politicization of science is now in a world where both the left and right wings are departing from the consensus reality-based community into the world of alternative facts. Wikipedia should not do that, though, Wikipedia should firmly treat this as a question of science, not politics. Andre🚐 00:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I fully believe the science here, but in terms of the doubt being thrown around by ppl in high government positions, we as a neutral work should absolutely still be sourcing (using the good medical sources that disprove there is any connection, of course, in addition to those that identify that there's a misconception). These need to be with the text, not shuffled away in in a sub-list article, which, given we're always going to be limited by template inclusion limits, means that the main transclusion list is broken in light of WP:V and other core content policies. Masem (t) 01:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I closed the first discussion with there being a consensus to split; as Rhododendrites notes, I didn't see a consensus of how to split. I do have some slight reservations about hiding references but as WAID has noted, most people do not check them anyway, and as S Marshall notes the split compromise allows the existence of 3 full split articles and a merged form for convenience. I see this as a valid use of templates and a valid, well-advertised, local consensus. Andre🚐 00:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get an answer to this question at Village pump miscellaneous, and the Teahouse advised me to come here. I don't mean to be a nuisance, and I don't think that asking for advice at multiple forums after getting no answer is forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:TEA

I would like a neutral experienced editor to look at a case at DRN and comment on whether they agree with my handling, and whether they have any advice either for me or for the filing editor. The dispute is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_Lab_Leak_Theory. I see two-and-one-half questions, one substantive question and two related procedural questions. The substantive question is whether the article's presentation of the lab leak theory is neutrally written to reflect what reliable sources have written. (I am not asking for answers to the substantive question, which is contentious, only how to help an editor who wants an answer to the substantive question.) The procedural questions are how Just-a-can-of-beans should try to discuss their concern that they want changes made to the article, and what advice a neutral mediator should give to Just-a-can-of-beans. (I am assuming that putting a {{NPOV}} tag at the top of page is not the right answer.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that when it was filed. My thoughts (free advice, guaranteed to be worth what you paid for it!) were:

• One of the disputants declined to participate, and therefore the DRN request should get closed as {{DR case status|reject}} per long-standing, ordinary practice.
• DRN exists to solve content disputes. It does not exist to negotiate a settlement in which Template:POV does/doesn't get placed at the top of the article. That is, a reasonable DRN request might sound something like "IMO the article does not adequately reflect Trump's views of COVID's origins, and the other editors will not let me fix that", but a reasonable DRN request does not sound like "The other editors will not let me add a maintenance template to WP:Warn the reader that this article does not adequately reflect Trump's views".
• If the lead disputant wishes to make progress, then the two behaviors most likely to lead to success are:
  1. Finding sources that meet the other editors' standards (e.g., a peer-reviewed review article published in a decent scientific journal).
  2. Moving very slowly. Making only one (1) small (tiny!) change to the body (not the lead!) of the article. For example: Just add one great source that supports some bit of existing content. And then stop and wait a week. If nobody complains, then next week, you can change a couple of unimportant words at the end of the article, or re-use the citation elsewhere. If someone does complain, then you ask that one (1) editor what concerns them and seek a compromise that they will accept. And so forth.

That last item is original WP:BRD, not Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. You have to treat editing in difficult situations less like you're stomping around your home and more like you are sneaking up on an injured wild animal. Do things that help them, including deliberately Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. Once you have gained their trust (which will take multiple weeks to months, or even a year), then you can try something a little more "risky", like gently touching the sore spot. The goal for each individual edit must always be "What will they realistically accept?" and never "How fast can I get the right POV into this article, and especially the lead?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]