Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings

message: I don't think so, although I might be willing to agree to block warnings being different from non-block warnings.  JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find enforcing display of the vandalism warnings slightly less problematic than the others because in cases of true vandalism I can't see the vandal being offended... and wouldn't care nearly as much if they were. However, since people constantly mislabel nearly anything they don't like as 'vandalism' this would still be frequently used to harass valuable contributors (as it has been to date) and I'm not in favor. So... I hate the idea of enforcing display of vandalism 'scarlet letters', but I hate it less than doing so for all warnings. --CBD 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a difference between [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] warnings and other warnings?  Why?

message: *Fairly important. If an editor is simply experimenting or just goofing around, a quick warning may stop them before they have irritated too many other users. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe its not the best way (I have had run-ins with quick on the draw vandal fighters) but many of the folks on vandal watch are running pretty hard and fast.  They do not want to take the time to go through the history.  But...Later, other users with more care or time might find those reversals and do the reporting necessary.  That would tend to happen with those folks who are more egregious problems.  But because this is possible, it should not be the preferred path.  The preferred path is that the vandal fighter immediately sees the prior warning(s) and pegs it up a notch. --Blue Tie 21:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How important is it to warn vandals as quickly as possible?

message: I suspect that most non-logged-in users do not look at the talk page for their IP address (for example, if the next time they log in their IP address has changed, they'll probably never see any messages on the first IP address's talk page). On the other hand, that means that they will probably never remove any warnings left on the original talk page either. Therefore, any policy concerned with users removing warnings from their talk page should focus on logged-in users, since they are the ones who are likely to receive the warnings and likely to want to delete them. --Metropolitan90 04:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would tend to think that they should be treated the same.  Would we all agree that anonymous users should not be treated any harsher than logged-in users with respect to warning removal?  JYolkowski // talk 17:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that.  Also no more leniently either.  We do not know if they are new or experienced users.  They should be encouraged to log on, but that does not have to be a condition of anything. --Blue Tie 17:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is not that anons should be treated differently from other users, but that most anons are not going to remove the warnings they get because they don't even look at the warnings they get. However, if anyone has evidence that anons often do read their warnings and/or remove them, then we can proceed on that basis. --Metropolitan90 00:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that anons aren't going to check their talk pages for old messages, but if they're visiting/editing Wikipedia and they get a bright orange box, I would assume that they'd check their messages at that point.  JYolkowski // talk 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really, since individuals of either group could be acting in good faith or bad faith. However, percentage wise a user who has a history of thousands of positive contributions is less likely to have deliberately engaged in negative behaviour, or to repeat such, than a new user or IP address whose only edits to date have been of that sort. Established users also logically have more concern about their 'reputation' than new accounts or IPs and thus would be more likely to find such warnings offensive and want to remove them for that reason rather than in an attempt to 'continue getting away with whatever'. Thus, while I don't think that treatment should be different, I do think that equal application of this 'enforced warning display' concept would dis-proportionately impact (and alienate) valued contributors. IPs vandalize more than users with 5000+ edits... that's obvious. Doesn't mean that all IPs vandalize or established editors never do, but saying 'we should be rude and harassing to all of them equally' (and whatever 'good points' this proposal has it IS inherently rude and harassing) is going to have a much more negative impact on established users than it will on IPs. --CBD 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Joining this a bit late, but Rossami is surely right, though I have an extra reason: IP Talk pages don't belong to anyone in any sense, whereas logged-in Users can be said to have Talk pages.  The main point, though, is the tracking of vandalism.  What's the point of having a graded set of warnings if each one is immediately removed?  We'll just get a History of a succession of s followed by page-blanking. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless, of course, you look at the history, which, IMHO, you should do anyway. Also, with any shared IP or dynamic IP, the history of warnings is useless after a very short period, sometimes less than an hour. -- Donald Albury 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should non-logged-in users be treated differently from logged-in users?

message: ===How should "new" and "experienced" users be defined?===
Classes of users:
*New user: Less than 3 months of active editing AND fewer than 200 edits. 
*Intermediate User:  More than 3 months of active editing but fewer than 700 edits.
*Experienced User: At least 6 months of editing and at least 700 edits (both are necessary).
New Users should be given more benefit of the doubt if they claim that they acted ignorantly or did not understand something.
Experienced Users should get less slack. However, there should be an overall parity in the way that they are treated -- a sequence of warnings leading to action if they fail to meet reasonable conditions for participation.
--Blue Tie 17:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion they should be treated the same - while with new users we may get a new good contributor, it may be that experienced users already are ones and we would be losing those. Experienced users spend much more time in wiki and are easily targets for jokes etc. by friends or siblings who get access to their computers for example; and I would find myself believing in a sincere mistake much more from a user with 1 mistake in 6 months or 700 edits for example. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 07:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should new users be treated differently from experienced users?

message: Classes of users:
*New user: Less than 3 months of active editing AND fewer than 200 edits. 
*Intermediate User:  More than 3 months of active editing but fewer than 700 edits.
*Experienced User: At least 6 months of editing and at least 700 edits (both are necessary).
New Users should be given more benefit of the doubt if they claim that they acted ignorantly or did not understand something.
Experienced Users should get less slack. However, there should be an overall parity in the way that they are treated -- a sequence of warnings leading to action if they fail to meet reasonable conditions for participation.
--Blue Tie 17:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion they should be treated the same - while with new users we may get a new good contributor, it may be that experienced users already are ones and we would be losing those. Experienced users spend much more time in wiki and are easily targets for jokes etc. by friends or siblings who get access to their computers for example; and I would find myself believing in a sincere mistake much more from a user with 1 mistake in 6 months or 700 edits for example. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 07:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How should "new" and "experienced" users be defined?

message: *I would say that they don't have to be left for any amount of time.  If a user removes them, they've seen them.  If they then reoffend, give them a sterner warning about the behaviour in question.  JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How long should warnings need to be left on a talk page?

message: ::Sure.  Just don't archive the warning if a reasonable time between its issuance and the archiving has not taken place.--Blue Tie 16:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages can and should be archived in part when appropriate, leaving recent/ongoing discussion in place. -- nae'blis 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As Nae'blis said, using something like werdnabot ensures only discussions of X days old get archived. To me this is a preferred method of archiving as it has less tendency to "archive quickly" to try to cover up behaviour. I've seen this in the past.--Crossmr 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But you are free to declare a conversation "dead" at any time.  (Archiving is a good way to declare "I have no interest in continuing this conversation).  Guettarda 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If a user's talk page is long enough that it should be [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|archived]], and they then receive a warning, should they still be permitted to archive the page?

message: No, I don't think that we should give people unlimited licence to edit war on other people's talk pages.  JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users participating in RC patrol often rely on the existence of prior vandalism warnings on the current version of the vandal's talk page to indicate whether and how the vandal should be warned again, or whether the vandal should be listed on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Allowing vandals to hide the warnings in the history of their talk page frustrates countervandalism efforts. From my personal experience in countervandalism efforts, I am able to state that RC patrol is a highly time-pressured activity. Every minute that must be spent on combing through a vandal's talk page history is a minute during which a vandalism warning or a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism must be delayed, an additional minute during which the vandal will remain unblocked and may commit further acts of vandalism. Furthermore, while I identify the placement of vandalism warnings in my edit summaries, some users who place vandalism warnings do not supply such edit summaries. Thus, identifying such "no-summary" warnings in a talk page history would involve viewing every diff between edits, a particularly time consuming process. As a practical matter, the time-critical nature of countervandalism efforts demands that the integrity of talk pages as an quick reference to legitimate vandalism warnings be maintained. John254 00:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm against beauracracy (assuming i've spelt it correctly ;) but I do believe that if a user removes warnings from their own talk page they are vandalising. I do however believe they should be able to archive them. I also believe we should distinguish between warnings and cautions. I believe others have given the weight towards my argument so I express my opinion and not the why because others have more elegantly expressed the why.--I'll bring the food 18:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should removing legitimate warnings be treated as [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]], making reverts to restore them exempt from the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]] and allowing users who repeatedly remove legitimate warnings to be blocked and have their talk pages protected?

message: Vandalism warnings should remain for a determined period.  Disruption and edit warring warnings can be removed if the person leaves the subject that created the disruption, or if a suitable period of time without further trouble has passed.--Blue Tie 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a person stops their problem behaviour after receiving a warning, then the warning has worked. If they subsequently remove the warning, insisting on its re-insertion is simply creating an unnecessary new conflict and increasing tension. People seem to be forgetting that warnings/blocks/etc are a preventitive measure, not a punitive one. Regards, MartinRe 21:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Trying to ascertain risk requires a level of precognition I'm unaware of in Wikipedians as a group. If they've stopped, then the warning is no longer "current" is it? -- nae'blis 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What constitutes "stopped".  One minute?  One Day?  One week?  One month?  One Year?  Some people are never in agreement with valid warnings.  Others say that they will stop and then don't... sometimes on purpose, sometimes because they are clueless.  If there is no consistent action, this actually encourages them to rebel further until the consistent action starts and then its too late, they are in a rebellious rut. --Blue Tie 22:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience, you can tell fairly quickly. 5-10 minutes after I've given a warning, people have either vandalised again, or have not done so at all. Also, I would suggest that starting an edit war over the insertion/deletion of a warning gives more encouragement to potential rebels than simply ignoring the warning removal. It is also inconsistant to tell new users that edit warrring is bad, if by insisting they keep the warning, we edit war ourselves. Regards, MartinRe 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it falls under the vandalism heading, then it is not edit warring. ViridaeTalk 23:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is about whether or not removal should be under the vandalism heading, so that's debatable. In any case, I think that even if classed as vandalism, a "revert contest" over something that causes no direct harm to the encyclopedia is disruptive and confrontational, and edit warring is a good a name for it as any. Regards, MartinRe 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it can be removed. The only reason for warnings is an attempt to prevent future recurrence of the problem. If the problem does not recur there is NO reason for that warning to be present. Further, when a warning is removed we should not be assuming that the user is going to violate policy again... that's inherently not AGF. There is no reason for warnings to remain displayed. A convenience for RC patrollers (of questionable actual utility IMO) must not be held to outweigh Wikipedia's inherent policies of treating our users with civility. --CBD 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If a user stops their problem behaviour, is it okay for them to remove the warning, or should it remain there if there's a risk that they may reoffend?

message: I would say that if someone removes a message, and they don't agree with it, just ignore it unless they repeat the same behaviour that caused the message in the first place.  JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How should such disputes be handled, or is it [[m:Instruction creep|instruction creep]] to even define a process?

message: ===How often are people able to get away with problem behaviour because they remove warnings?===
My suspicion would be very rarely.  JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Small enough that it is not a factor to consider?  I frankly do not know how many people do this and I am not sure anyone knows because it is unknowable.  After all... they "got away" with it. That means it was not found out. --Blue Tie 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet surely there are still RC patrollers who DO check page histories? I know there are, because I do so myself. Eventually any 'warning remover' would get caught... right? In my experience that 'eventually' has always been 'virtually immediately'. I know of only one case where a user 'got away' with something (fair use images on their user page) for a long period of time... and they actually left all the warnings in place. People just never read the whole massively over-sized talk page and thus new admins kept giving warnings for the same issue for about six months. It surely is not irrelevant how often this really comes up. I can tell you that I have seen a few dozen cases where some user was harassed to display inappropriate warnings or valid ones for incidents they have not (and seem unlikely) to repeat. Is there really some need for this practice which justifies the 'collateral damage' which its misapplication and/or overzealous 'proper' application causes? Most of the time I see someone removing a warning it is an established user who doesn't agree with it or knows they messed up and is unlikely to repeat it. Vandals rarely bother. Those who do have always committed lots of subsequent vandalism and been routinely blocked in my experience. I think the vandal who 'gets up to warning level 3, blanks their talk, and then repeats... remaining unblocked for days due to this clever stratagem' is largely a myth. If it is 'unknowable' whether this even occurs - why would we enact a policy to punish it? Especially given the (to me) unacceptable side effects. --CBD 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an RC Patroller but I do not think that they do that and do not want to. --Blue Tie 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How often do people actually remove warnings?

message: My suspicion would be very rarely.  JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Small enough that it is not a factor to consider?  I frankly do not know how many people do this and I am not sure anyone knows because it is unknowable.  After all... they "got away" with it. That means it was not found out. --Blue Tie 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet surely there are still RC patrollers who DO check page histories? I know there are, because I do so myself. Eventually any 'warning remover' would get caught... right? In my experience that 'eventually' has always been 'virtually immediately'. I know of only one case where a user 'got away' with something (fair use images on their user page) for a long period of time... and they actually left all the warnings in place. People just never read the whole massively over-sized talk page and thus new admins kept giving warnings for the same issue for about six months. It surely is not irrelevant how often this really comes up. I can tell you that I have seen a few dozen cases where some user was harassed to display inappropriate warnings or valid ones for incidents they have not (and seem unlikely) to repeat. Is there really some need for this practice which justifies the 'collateral damage' which its misapplication and/or overzealous 'proper' application causes? Most of the time I see someone removing a warning it is an established user who doesn't agree with it or knows they messed up and is unlikely to repeat it. Vandals rarely bother. Those who do have always committed lots of subsequent vandalism and been routinely blocked in my experience. I think the vandal who 'gets up to warning level 3, blanks their talk, and then repeats... remaining unblocked for days due to this clever stratagem' is largely a myth. If it is 'unknowable' whether this even occurs - why would we enact a policy to punish it? Especially given the (to me) unacceptable side effects. --CBD 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an RC Patroller but I do not think that they do that and do not want to. --Blue Tie 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How often are people able to get away with problem behaviour because they remove warnings?

message: ===Should we assume good faith?===
Yes, always, unless it can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're removing warnings in bad faith.  JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do people remove warnings?

message: Yes, always, unless it can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're removing warnings in bad faith.  JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]?

message: All of the above.  Everyone is different. --Blue Tie 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do they do so out of [[MeatBall:AssumeStupidityNotMalice|ignorance]], out of embarrassment, or as a purposeful attempt to deceive?

message: Warnings that use the templates should not be considered personal attacks unless a pattern of harrassment can be shown. --Blue Tie 17:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, that sounds like a reasonable position.  In practice, anyone can create a template saying anything they want.  Some templates are themselves personal attacks.  I think you would have to narrow that rule down to "recognized templates" but I don't know how we could really define that phrase in a meaningful way.  Perhaps limit it to established templates as defined on this page?  Rossami (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If the warning takes the form of a [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack]], can it be [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks|removed]]?

message: ===Is a guideline fine, or does it need to be policy?===
We need a policy. --Blue Tie 17:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a Wikipedia:User talk pages (interestingly, a redirect to a mirrored copy of Help:Talk page now) guideline come out of this, parallel to the Wikipedia:User pages guideline that currently exists. It would allow us to consolidate things like "Don't use your talk page as a blog or social networking node", suggested ways to archive, and how to deal with spurious/valid warnings. I think they're a different enough creature from mainspace/category/template/etc talk pages that it shouldn't be included (but of course referenced) from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, as it's really about the individial rather than the project, and like userspace has a certain degree of ownership involved. I'd also support an expansion of Wikipedia:User pages to have a section just about user talk pages, if that seems too much like page creep.  -- nae'blis 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that makes sense.  JYolkowski // talk 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the results of this discussion be documented as part of an appropriate [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy or guideline]]?

message: We need a policy. --Blue Tie 17:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is a [[Wikipedia:List of guidelines|guideline]] fine, or does it need to be [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policy]]?

message: In the policies that deal with the infractions.  For example Vandalism warnings and their removal should be on the Vandalism Policy page.  --Blue Tie 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a Wikipedia:User talk pages (interestingly, a redirect to a mirrored copy of Help:Talk page now) guideline come out of this, parallel to the Wikipedia:User pages guideline that currently exists. It would allow us to consolidate things like "Don't use your talk page as a blog or social networking node", suggested ways to archive, and how to deal with spurious/valid warnings. I think they're a different enough creature from mainspace/category/template/etc talk pages that it shouldn't be included (but of course referenced) from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, as it's really about the individial rather than the project, and like userspace has a certain degree of ownership involved. I'd also support an expansion of Wikipedia:User pages to have a section just about user talk pages, if that seems too much like page creep.  -- nae'blis 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that makes sense.  JYolkowski // talk 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where?  No policies or guidelines deal specifically with user talk pages, although there is [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|a guideline that deals with talk pages]].

message: Note that in this case there's 2 groups. One group is vandalism patrollers, and the other is regular admins. 
Vandalism patrollers like putting all kinds of warnings down and not thinking too much (they have more work to do, so this is understandable). They're really very interested in preventing people from removing warnings, because checking page history costs 6 seconds more, and if you have 100 vandalisms to check, that adds up to 10 more minutes, and very sore wrists.
Regular admins always check page history, and they are often unhappy if people don't think long, and especially unhappy when people edit-war. They'll likely block a vandalism patroller pretty quickly, if they catch them applying a removing warnings template.
I think the best compromise here is to make it easier for patrollers to look in page history. 
Some say that this means someone will carry the stigma of being warned forever. Well... as far as admins are concerned, they already do, so that's no argument.
Others say that this might require a software change in some of the software we are using. Well, I know who to talk to to get a change made.
Any other objections from either side, or suggestions as to how to get admins and vandalism patrollers back on the same side (as they should be?)
Kim Bruning 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of a warning log like that block log instead of on the user page.   But does it require more strokes to put it in  and notify the person?  Would be good if person were automatically notified.  --Blue Tie 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment combined with the mention of scripts below gave me an idea...  see below for details.  JYolkowski // talk 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (Excuse the rambling tone) That probably characterizes the debate reasonably well.  As an administrator, I personally don't see the "takes too long" thing because, when I click on the users' contribs link, I see rollback links beside all of the users' contributions that can be rolled back, which for me is a faster way of reverting vandalism (just open everything in a new tab).  While I'm there, I'd notice if the user edited their talk page.  However, I completely acknowledge that non-admin RC patrollers can't do this, so they may see this as more of a time-waster when they're trying to do everything as fast as possible.  Anyway, I'd be interested to see any suggestions that anyone had regarding this.  JYolkowski // talk 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, true, software solutions already exist. Perhaps we should just get more admins :-) Kim Bruning 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually prefer the 'god-mode light' script to admin rollback in most cases - because I look at the history of the vandalized page and often find that it had been vandalized by more than one account in quick succession and I want to skip back over several edits to the last clean version. However, I still always look at the contributions of the vandals to see if they hit any other pages. I suspect almost all RC patrollers do the same, as frankly it is faster to remove everything by a single vandal all at once than to do so only as you get to each vandalized article in the changes history. Thus, I don't really see the 'takes too long' argument either. As to software upgrades going forward - 'godmode light' has buttons for automatically placing the warning templates and adds a standard edit summary at the same time... the text of those edit summaries could easily be updated to any new standard. So exactly the same amount of 'effort' (a mouse click) would be required as is used currently. The external anti-vandal tools I have used were similar. --CBD 10:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So according to you, this is a question of people not knowing their tools? Kim Bruning 12:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe it is a matter of not having the tools?  I have no idea what you guys are talking about.  Perhaps most non-admin users are the same way.  --Blue Tie 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you look at someone's contributions, you see a (top) next to each of their contributions for which they are the most recent contributor.  Next to the (top), administrators see a "[rollback]" link, which they can click for one-click rollback of the edit.  As for the "godmode light" script, see the link below... it's not too difficult to try out, so you might want to do that.  JYolkowski // talk 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kim, no I wasn't saying that users could update the tools to display some sort of standardized edit summaries themselves. Actually, they could update some if they were at all tech savvy, but most users would need the primary developers of the tool to do so. I was just saying that those changes would be trivial. For instance the 'godmode light' script (link for those who aren't aware of basic/common non-admin vandal-fighting tools) currently automatically adds the edit summary "your test" when you click to insert a 'test1' template on the user's talk page. Changing that edit summary text to some other edit summary text that would stand out better and follow a consistent hierarchy would be a trivial change... just a matter of locating the existing text in the code and typing in the new text. --CBD 10:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I also don't see the "take too long" thing, as even if policy states that removing warnings is prohibited, RC patrollers will still need to spend those 6 seconds, as being against policy doesn't stop it being technically possible, so any time saving argument falls down on that score. Personally, when I RC patrol and spot a vandal, the first thing I do is check their contribution history. This is a quick way to see what other/how many articles they may have atttacked, and at the same time any talk page edits would be obvious. I don't think that is too much to expect, and is available to admins and non-admins alike. The reason I dislike treating removal as vandalism is that in my RC patrol phases, I have never seen a vandal evade warning/blocking due to removing warnings, but I have seen that policy used to start edit wars and generally cause unneccessary disruption, so, from my viewpoint it has all negative uses, with no positive ones. While most RC patrollers are excellent, I have seen a significant minority that appear to treat it like a game, treating warnings and blockings in a "strike 1/strike 2/strike 3 - you're out, he scores!" type fashion. In those cases, blocking seems to be the goal, not the last resort, so they try and get there as quickly as possible, and dislike anything that slows down reaching the target of blocking someone. Obviously we want to do things as efficiently as possible, but if it does take time to do something right, then that time should be taken. Regards, MartinRe 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure its useful, but... WOW!  Cool programming. --Blue Tie 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  If anyone has any suggestions for something that would be useful though, please suggest them here and we can discuss how to best get them done.  JYolkowski // talk 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was not being critical about its usefulness. I do not know if it is.  I am not an RC Patroller.  I was just thinking that you are good!--Blue Tie 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I didn't take it that way.  If any RC patrollers (especially non-admin RC patrollers) would like to comment on its usefulness, that would be great.  JYolkowski // talk 20:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins vs Vandalism patrol? 

message: :Removing warnings doesn't hide them, as they can still be seen in the talk page history or in a user's contributions, so they don't need to be displayed.
I disagree. Especially when warnings are selectively removed while other comments are left alone, such warnings ARE hidden. Of course, the page doesn't need to be a permanent history of a user's warnings, but the general problem tends to arise when they remove the warning immediately after reading it (often on the same day it was posted) without taking action to change the questioned behavior. I'd say comments that are over a week old can be archived, otherwise, the warning should stay. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that you disagree, but then don't address the point you are disagreeing with. Obviously removing warnings makes them not visible on the talk page itself... but it doesn't do anything to the page history. If the edit summary given with the warnings were, '** Level 2 vandalism warning **', then that would still be completely visible in the page history... not 'hidden'. That's the point being made by the text you quote above. --CBD 19:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Which I agree with. Sure they are in the talk page. But unless its a brand new problem user, it can be hard to go through talk page histories to find out whats been removed.  Warnings can be left for established editors who have busy and extensive talk pages. Trying to find any and all warnings left in that mess of a history would be hard. There is no negative effect by archiving legitimate warnings after one weeks time.--Crossmr 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiding 

message: diff
I would, but I can't find an active policy that explicitly agrees, so I came here to see if this is a clear cut situation, or not. TransUtopian 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a policy page.  The active policy is that it is generally prohibited to remove such warnings.  In the case of these diff's that you showed, it seems reasonable to wait a while before removing them.   Others, however, will disagree.  That is what this page is about... disagreement or agreement with current policy and related discussions.  --Blue Tie 00:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it seems reasonable. It's the "Others will disagree" part I'm concerned about. I know this is a discussion and not policy page. It appears to be the most current/active discussion since it's not set in wikistone. I want to know that if I revert that diff or similar, I have something to point to if challenged. TransUtopian 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user is already indefinitely blocked. At this point, blanking of their talk page falls under the category of 'irrelevant'. --CBD 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a user removing of a warning s/he was given yesterday be reverted? 

message: If Wikipedia policies are descriptive, then the following might best describe the current practice with respect to warning removal:The removal of legitimate warnings may or may not be prohibited depending on a balancing of many factors, including but not limited to whether the editor who received the warning is an unregistered user, a new user, or an established user, the seriousness of the misconduct for which the warning was issued, how recently the warning was issued, whether the editor was blocked at the time of the warning removal, and the preferences of the administrator responding to the report.  Unregistered users who remove legitimate warnings may or may not have their talk pages semi-protected depending on whether their warning removal is or is not prohibited as described above.John254 22:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many unregistered users have had their talk pages semi-protected to prevent further warning removal -- for a few examples, see  and . John254 01:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Datapoint I have semi-protected in such circumstances but that has almost always been when the user in question is removing the templates and replacing them with profanity or similar items. JoshuaZ 03:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A possible compromise

message: okay, I'll admit that I have no clue what's going on, and I'm not reading 236kB just to find out. I instead have an idea. A small idea. An unobtrusive idea that would be easy for vandalfighters to see. And that is a template. This would be a mini-template like the one with the star for featured articles, except it would have a list of all levels of warnings recieved and the most recent date, all someone would needto do is add a template ( - mini-warning1?), this would put a little 1 or I or whatever in the top margin with the date. The next person would have to add  and delete the old date, then you have 1 2 21:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And when the user removes this template because they feel, perhaps correctly, that it was placed there improperly and/or to harass them? Making the warnings less obtusive as you suggest might be less objectionable than the current big red 'X' and 'stop hand' octagons, but the essential problem remains... people are going to disagree about when warnings should be placed/removed and allowing people to edit war on this issue to enforce their view is, by its very nature, disruptive. --CBD 19:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mini-record?

message: I hate to jump in here from nowhere, but I have had problems with editors using ,  and  to justify edit warring on other editor's talk pages.  Since it is not currently policy that removing talk page warnings is vandalism (and I hope this discussion is not going in that direction); shouldn't those templates be reworded or even MfD'd?  There is  which is neutral and informative, but having levels 1-4 on the vandalism scale is trouble. Thatcher131 23:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these templates need attention for the reasons stated above, though I do not necessarily agree with Thatcher131's position on the removal of vandalism warnings from one's own user talk page. --Neurophyre(talk) 02:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of legitimate warnings doesn't have to be defined as vandalism to prohibit it.  In fact,  states that "Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered disruption."  Disruptive behavior can be prevented, even when there is no written policy against it. Indeed, many unregistered users have had their talk pages semi-protected to prevent further warning removal -- for a few examples, see  and . Furthermore, the warning removal templates have recently undergone a TFD discussion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_9#Template:wr.2C_wr2.2C_wr3.2C_wr4, which indicates a clear consensus to keep them. John254 21:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Wr]] 

message: See here for a discussion about the status of the 'removing warnings templates'. --CBD 13:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review 

message: I seem to have gotten myself in to a minor edit war with an anon about the removal of a legitimate warning. I had thought that it was clear cut considered wrong to remove warnings if you aren't archiving but I now see it isn't. The specific case I need advise on is with this user User talk:66.190.74.105. 
A little background. I checked out this users contributions because I wanted to offer some constructive criticism of an edit they made and I tend to check out the contribs of anons just to see if they've been up to anything. It was from this that I realised they'd removed a warning for vandalism. I reintroduced the warning which they promptly removed. I then welcomed them and explained why I came to their page in the first place. I also advised them why I reintroduced the warning. A bit later I realised I hadn't explained that well why I had reintroduced the warning so I went back and explained some more.
I came back at a later date and realised they'd removed it again. So I warned/asked them again not to remove the warning with one of the templates which had now been deleted. I later came back and found the warning had again been removed and a message left for me justifying their removal on the grounds that the user hasn't vandalised anymore (which is true) and threatening to vandalise my talk page if I continued. I again reintroduced the warning and attempted to explain again why I felt they should not remove the warning. I also warned said user against vandalising my talk page.
I accept now that the template was a bad idea and some of my advise was incorrect (it's not against policy and I suggested it might be). However I still feel that this user should not remove the warning. It is a legitimate warning (even if from a bot) and it was only a little over a week ago. Said user (I'm assuming here it's the same user which I don't know for sure since the vandalise was after nearly all of the other edits) did only vandalise once and has made other contructive edits previously however as I've stated, I feel a user contribs should speak for themselves. A single warning is not going to reflect poorly if a user continues to edit contrusctively. Also, this is an anon so I personally feel they have less right to modify the talk page as they see fit. However I'm seeking feedback on how to deal with this matter.
What I'm seeking advice on is whether I should I let this user be or is it acceptable for me to continue to re-add the warning? If you think I should stop, do you feel my actions are wrong or in violation of policy or simply that there is no point continuing to try and convince this user not to remove warnings?
Nil Einne 10:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on what I should do 

message: To quote Winston Churchill "This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."  
Can't this just go to a vote for consensus already?  You don't hold up a presidential election just because the whole "community" hasn't voted.  A poll is fine.  Put it up for a month. There is way too much back and forth on this issue and it is entirely unproductive.  The horse is dead!
The questions are:
*Should users be allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page?  YES/NO
*Should removing warnings from your own talk page be considered vandalism? YES/NO
*Should the warning templates be restored?  YES/NO
Whatever the consensus is, write the policy from there.  This is Wikipedia for crying out loud, not human rights legislation!  -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not establish consensus by voting. Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- Donald Albury 01:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But, Wikipedia:Consensus is policy. Read it carefully. -- Donald Albury 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The past discussion here indicates that there is no consensus to change the guidance at Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. If there is no consensus to change something, we let the status quo ride. People have pretty much exhausted the topic for now. I don't see any reason to try to force a re-opening of the discussion. -- Donald Albury 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What if we tried with something very simple and moved from there, for example, attempting to get a consensus on whether or not "Non-vandalism, non-abusive comments left on talk pages should absolutely be archived or if they can just be blanked".--Crossmr 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to start a new discussion, make a specific proposal and advertise it on the Village Pump. Please do not try to call a poll before a thorough discussion has taken place, however, and please do not be surprised if no consensus for a change can be found. Personally, I think it's a waste of time to bring it up again so soon, but I'm often a lonely voice in the wilderness, so don't let me stop you. -- Donald Albury 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This discussion has dragged on way too long

message: Excuse my bitching here.
First of all, all this hand-wringing about people being branded with a scarlet letter, or WP:BITEing people who make an honest mistake...  There are painfully obvious solutions to both those problems:  If a warning is stale, e.g. 24 hours old, go ahead and remove it.  If a user says they are sorry or that they made a mistake, or any vague way indicates that they are not going to continue the behavior, let them remove even a fresh warning.  Even if they are lying.
What drives me up the wall is the people who get a warning, blank it with an edit summary like, "Whateva, I do what I want!", and go on with the bad behavior.  Yes yes, page histories, yackety-yackety... I know admins check the page history when the block, but the vast majority of vandalism patrolling and general policing on Wikipedia is done by non-admins who just happen to spot bad behavior while in the process of doing something else.  If they open up the edit screen for the user's talk page and realize the warning they are adding is just below "This is your final warning", they are far more likely to report the abuse.  If there's nothing on the talk page, they are likely to issue a level 1 or 2 warning without checking the history.
Does this let vandals and other cranks get away for free?  No, but it does let them get away with it for longer, and in any case, it's annoying as hell.
As far as bad faith warnings, well, it's just like WP:3RR.  It is okay to go past three reverts if the thing you are reverting is obvious vandalism, or in some other way it is clear that the community would never let the content remain.  Same with a bad faith warning.  If it's obvious that the community won't stand for it, go ahead and blank the warning.
But none of this matters because Wikipedia is so large now, that no matter what policy is proposed, fifty or sixty people will show up and come up with phantom problems with it, meaning that consensus in the Wikipedia sense cannot be achieved on new policies, ever.  Seriously, have there been any new policies in the last two years?  At all?
That flagged revisions thing seemed to have critical mass, but now it seems to be festering.  (While I was initially in favor, I now think it is a bad idea anyway, but that's not really my point here)  I dunno, I guess I am just bitching.  WP:BLANKING is one of my least favorite policies.  --Jaysweet (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah hah!  I have come up with an example where a user removing warnings could significantly prolong their detection as a repeat vandal.  In the case where a person is creating pages that are speedy-deleted, the page creation does not appear in their edit history, at least not to non-admins.  Yes, you could still see the warnings in the history, but that starts to get a little excessive in terms of process, especially if the warnings are not well-commented.  So if I do it at a low enough frequency, I could create attack pages that get CSD'd all the livelong day, by just blanking the warning and then waiting an hour or so to make sure it is not the same person warning me.  Every person who came along, unless they really read the history of my talk page, would just assume I was a new user who didn't know any better. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There are too many people on Wikipedia to ever affect any meaningful policy change via consensus