Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Uw-login being for "controversial" edits

A belated response to @CapnZapp's thread back in January suggesting the following change to {{uw-login}}, which had no response at the time, and was applied as follows, with a usage note about the template being intended for "inappropriate" edits:

−

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing.

+

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits that could be considered controversial. I believe you have a registered account but made your edits while logged out from it.

It's good for being clearer about why the template's been given, but I think the original was useful for being applicable to both controversial and harmless edits. Under the previous wording, an editor trying to avoid scrutiny on controversial edits will understand that they've been caught out, and an editor who simply forgot to log in will disregard the "controversial edits" part as not applying to them.

I've used this template a lot in the past on IPs and TAs who appeared to be a logged out user, out of courtesy so that they didn't make further edits and/or talk page comments before realising. WP:TWINKLE also gives the reason for using the template as simply "Editing while logged out", although I'm not sure where that definition is coming from. Belbury (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I will assume readers have read the earlier linked talk section and also are aware that there is no policy against someone with a registered account editing the encyclopedia from a temporary account while logged out, per se (WP:EWLO). Maybe we should recognize that our template is overworked, trying to hold two different jobs for two clearly (but perhaps subtly) different use cases? That is, splitting the template into two:

1. a template for the use case where an editor believes another editor have simply forgotten to log in. They have no reason to believe the editor is intentionally making these logged-out edits, and the edits aren't particularly controversial either.
2. another template for the use case where an editor feels the need to more sternly notify/warn users to avoid making possibly-controversial edits while logged out (i.e. you still have reason to believe the TA user possesses a registered account, but now you also think the edits are possibly controversial. Furthermore, you think a warning might help them stay out of trouble, perhaps as simply by logging back in before making further such edits).

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, although I think even in a new second template for that first case, we'd still want to make the user aware that certain types of editing would be inappropriate while logged out.

If the main difference between the templates is that we'd want to say "don't perform edits in future that would be controversial" to one editor and "I see you've already made edits that may be controversial" to another (and give examples in both cases), I think a passive "logged-out editors should not perform controversial edits" could cover it. Belbury (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think a friendly template for "you seem to be lost, are you aware you happen to be logged out?" is fine, and we also need a template for "The edits you are performing are potentially controversial; I recommend making them after logging back in." I wouldn't say I want to tell people "don't perform edits in future that would be controversial," because, well, let's not template people about crimes they haven't committed yet. And, as stated before, the mere fact you have a registered account doesn't mean you must use it. So there should not be a template that encourages users to tell people off even when their logged out edits are perfectly innocuous, when that editor appears to know what they're doing. Which brings me back to the purpose of my January edit - lemme quote myself: This makes it clear that when you tag somebody with this template you are saying you think they are editing while logged out, and you are also saying you think these edits are controversial. If you don't have reason to suspect the user has a registered account, don't use this template. If the edits aren't controversial, don't use this template. What do y'all think? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

As for "Editing while logged out" as seen at the index of message templates and, apparently, at WP:TWINKLE too, my guess would be that phrasing was written back when this template was used for IP editors. But the sockpuppeteer policy has had to subtly change. If it once was suspect to edit while logged out it no longer is. Abusing multiple accounts remain a no-no, of course, but merely logging out before making an edit is not a cause for concern. At least that's my reading of it. Full disclosure: I partook in bringing the policy up to speed as regards temporary accounts, as you can easily see in page and talk history. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

NB. If you want to discuss the policy as it stands and how you (in my opinion) need to read it really carefully, I would welcome it, but would suggest you take such discussion to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry. CapnZapp (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page. I don't see the harm in a neutral mention of "crimes they haven't committed yet" to let the user know that if they want to swap between a named account and various TAs while editing or discussing articles, that this is allowed but they should be aware of WP:LOGOUT.

My use of this template as a courtesy would have started in the IP era, for editors who may not have realised what they were revealing by doing so. We've removed the warning that editing from an IP may allow others to determine your location and identity: is it significant that editing from a TA does still make it somewhat easier for others to determine that information? WP:LOGOUT does still say that a user might want to avoid drawing a connection between their username and their TA in order to "protect their privacy", although this may be an unexamined holdover from the IP days. Belbury (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like us to be on the same page too. Not 1000% sure we're having the exact same discussion, though. My changes were borne out of sentences such as If you have concerns that a temporary account is being inappropriately used by someone with a registered account, you can give the temporary account notice of this policy ({{subst:uw-login}} is available for this purpose) (also from WP:LOGOUT) which I wholeheartedly agree with. Especially how it tells me to hold off using this template until some level of "inappropriateness" has been reached. If you want a template that is a neutral user notice I feel this isn't it - it's too "user warney" for my taste to be used neutrally (with no cause). Thanks for that link to an old version btw - it's one more job the template no longer has, helping to understand how the use for this template has changed now in the TA era. CapnZapp (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

In the IP era the WP:LOGOUT sentence read To protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki, so I don't think it's a "holdover" - I genuinely think it is good policy to make clear a temporary user should never feel compelled to reveal their registered account (usual caveats apply, of course). CapnZapp (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:LOGOUT had the same If you have concerns wording in the IP days. The phrasing is ambiguous: I'd personally interpret the "purpose" it mentions to be giving notice in general, rather than giving notice to inappropriate users.

What would a {{uw-agf-login}} template actually say, were we to make one? Just something like Hello, I believe you have a registered account but made your edits while logged out from it. This is fine, but you may want to log in to your account to keep your edits tracked in one place. To protect your privacy you are not required to connect this TA to your account. Happy editing.? Belbury (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

As I see it, WP:LOGOUT has never encouraged tagging completely innocuous logged-out editing. It has stated There is no policy against someone with an account editing the encyclopedia while logged out, per se for a long time. Now I realize past versions of the uw-login template did do that, or at least could easily be read to do that. It stated Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing back in 2022. Here "in the same setting" carries a heavy load and could easily be skipped over, especially since, as previously discussed, the Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity caution was sufficient justification to tag "everyone" all by itself.

Now, there exists legitimate reasons to have alternative accounts without disclosing them, and there is no requirement (that I know of) for alternative accounts to be registered. Thus I conclude we should not do these logged-out users the disservice of drawing attention to the (possible) fact they might have a registered account without good cause. One such cause is handled by this template, and my edits were intended to clarify that you should not use the template without it. Another reasonable cause is the user is new and/or you have reason to think the editor isn't aware they were accidentally logged out, and a third cause was (but no longer is) to inform them about the IP exposure. CapnZapp (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

centralized discussions

Hey guys, and especially User:Andrybak and User:Paine Ellsworth, let's finally agree on one approach to avoid fragmented discussions:

1) Placing a template at the top of each affected talk page. Here are two solutions that I have seen live:

1a) using a generic {{info}} template

1b) using the {{central}} template in its "opposite" function

2) Replacing each affected talk page with a redirect here.

Just to pick an example at random: Template talk:Uw-3block&redirect=no

Isn't it inelegant to have solutions 1 on some pages and solution 2 on others...? CapnZapp (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The template at the top of this talk page: {{Centralized talk page|text=all [[Special:PrefixIndex/Template:uw-|uw-* template]] talk pages and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings|WikiProject User warnings]] project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.}} seems pretty clear to me – all talk pages should be redirects, additional banners under redirects are fine (including procedural banners like {{old xfd multi}}). —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with editor Andrybak, with the exception of banners on redirects, which will be seen by virtually nobody. I'll add that these particular talk page redirects should be tagged with {{R from remote talk page}} and in some cases with {{R from move}}, {{R from subpage}} and {{R to subpage}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding uw-login

I have moved {{subst:uw-login}} from the Warnings table to the notices (or "Advisories") table, and updated the description:

Editing while logged out

Tooltip: Please log in when editing.

→

Making potentially controversial edits while logged out

Tooltip: Please consider logging in before editing further.

See § Uw-login being for "controversial" edits and the earlier Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Archive_22#Uw-login. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)