Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings

message: Sign under the one you support
=== Vandalism or Acceptable ===
(What to call it)
==== Removing warnings is Vandalism ====
#⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I know what you mean by 'even if you want to remove the comment you made'. What I meant by my comment above was that I generally keep everything (including things like this but I wouldn't want to force everyone to follow the same policy (i.e. I think people should be entitled to remove those sort of comments if they want to). Removal of vandal warnings (of the test/bv variety) should generally be done by a respected third party (such as an admin) as covered by other sections in this page. Petros471 19:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What constitutes a history of multiple warnings? As it's stated, I could only support this if I also supported that warnings must absolutely not be removed regardless of whether there's a history of multiple warnings, in which case it's not much of a special case. –Tifego(t) 06:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Complicated and varies according to case. For example, what if someone has a history of warnings but its really clear that the warning they were given isn't valid? (Say a vandal puts an NPA warning on their page after the user asked the vandal to stop vandalizing). Also the type of warning might matter. Someone who had a history of NPA problems might be reasonably able to remove an MOS warning(in general I think of MOS warnings as a lower level than most other warnings). I don't feel comfortable  making any blanket statements about this sort of case. JoshuaZ 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was history of multiple warnings from Multiple People.  What I mean by this section is that if we end up deciding that we want let all users remove warnings so that if it truly is a bad warning one can remove it.  I think that some people should have that right revoked if they have removed warnings multiple times from multiple people, because I feel that it is Offensive to the person leaving the warning to remove it and not address the issue the warning was left about.  Because I feel people don’t want to leave warnings on other people’s pages.  We Don’t enjoy telling people to fallow policy and when leaving a negative comment we do worry if the comment will be taken wrong and if we fell the issue we commented on was so important that we needed to leave a negative comment on the page then that person should bother to respond.  Many users could be to shy to leave a comments.  If Somebody has been warned about an issue several times it is easier to warn them again.  If somebody is so destructive that they need to be blocked or receive a stern warning it is a lot more comforting to know you aren’t the only one disagreeing with that user’s actions.  It’s annoying when somebody else won’t even bother to leave a response to your comment.--E-Bod 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: (What to call it)
==== Removing warnings is Vandalism ====
#⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or Acceptable 

message: #⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing warnings is Vandalism 

message: #SuportVandalism is deliberate.  What if you are acknowledging you read the comment or you are too lazy to respond to the comment, or you feel the comment is a personal attack WP:NPA--E-Bod 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing warnings is against policy but not Vandalism 

message: # MartinRe 16:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing warnings is discouraged but not against policy 

message: # Support if the warning in question is no longer relevant. People make mistakes and people can change, and I don't think Talk pages should serve as archives of people's past misdemeanours. I don't think any formalised processes around removing such warnings should be used either. If someone removes a warning to which they haven't responded to (e.g. by apologising), then appropriate actions include placing the warning back, placing a new warning, or using the mediation/arbitration procedure. None of these require any new processes. But if its old or no longer relevant, people should be free to just delete it. It will still be in their history anyhow.... --SJK 09:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing warnings is Great 

message: #
==== Your comments ====
===== You should Strike Inappropriate Comments =====
You should Strike your own Comments with Strike If you left them by mistake and you should comment below other peoples bad comments and explain why they are ill given and ask the person who left the comment to strike it themselves and only strike that person’s comments if they don’t respond after a day.  Leaving a bad comment up strike-d will prevent new people from mistakenly giving that warning again.00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I know what you mean by 'even if you want to remove the comment you made'. What I meant by my comment above was that I generally keep everything (including things like this but I wouldn't want to force everyone to follow the same policy (i.e. I think people should be entitled to remove those sort of comments if they want to). Removal of vandal warnings (of the test/bv variety) should generally be done by a respected third party (such as an admin) as covered by other sections in this page. Petros471 19:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who can remove Warnings 

message: ===== You should Strike Inappropriate Comments =====
You should Strike your own Comments with Strike If you left them by mistake and you should comment below other peoples bad comments and explain why they are ill given and ask the person who left the comment to strike it themselves and only strike that person’s comments if they don’t respond after a day.  Leaving a bad comment up strike-d will prevent new people from mistakenly giving that warning again.00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I know what you mean by 'even if you want to remove the comment you made'. What I meant by my comment above was that I generally keep everything (including things like this but I wouldn't want to force everyone to follow the same policy (i.e. I think people should be entitled to remove those sort of comments if they want to). Removal of vandal warnings (of the test/bv variety) should generally be done by a respected third party (such as an admin) as covered by other sections in this page. Petros471 19:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your comments 

message: You should Strike your own Comments with Strike If you left them by mistake and you should comment below other peoples bad comments and explain why they are ill given and ask the person who left the comment to strike it themselves and only strike that person’s comments if they don’t respond after a day.  Leaving a bad comment up strike-d will prevent new people from mistakenly giving that warning again.00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You should 
Strike
 Inappropriate Comments 

message: #(support)--E-Bod 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can remove your own comments 

message: # I generally follow this policy on my talk page, but I think there are exceptions, and whilst I would encourage other people to keep everything except for the most blatant of personal attacks/vandalism I don't think this should be policy. Petros471 08:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I know what you mean by 'even if you want to remove the comment you made'. What I meant by my comment above was that I generally keep everything (including things like this but I wouldn't want to force everyone to follow the same policy (i.e. I think people should be entitled to remove those sort of comments if they want to). Removal of vandal warnings (of the test/bv variety) should generally be done by a respected third party (such as an admin) as covered by other sections in this page. Petros471 19:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every comment should be archived 

message: ===== can be removed =====
# Support, although I would discourage it (don't feed the trolls!) AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks 

message: # Support, although I would discourage it (don't feed the trolls!) AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  can be removed 

message: #(support)--E-Bod 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third party 

message: #(don't object)--E-Bod 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive them 

message: ===== You can do whatever you want to your talk page =====
#Absolutely.  Any other vote is, at best, authoritarianism disguised as subjective civility.  --MateoP 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your talk page is yours 

message: #Absolutely.  Any other vote is, at best, authoritarianism disguised as subjective civility.  --MateoP 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can do whatever you want to your talk page 

message: #(suport)--E-Bod 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no you can't 

message: ===== Can remove warnings =====
#Support--E-Bod 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrators 

message: #Support--E-Bod 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can remove warnings 

message: #(Don't Object to)--E-Bod 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should archive warnings no matter how illgiven 

message: # Support Admins are not above the law, and if an admin vanadlizes an article or violates 3RR, there is just as much reason for others to know that as when a user does these things. Thus, I believe Admins may only remove warnings when they are clearly ilegitimate and inapproptiate (though I would even discourage them in that case). AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May Remove Warnings Only When the Reasoning is Solid 

message: #Support I used to think administrators were selected somehow that meant they are far less likely to violate any policy or understand policy better.  Now I realize that admin are just user with tools and I have seen admins that aren’t omnificent (This blue link is actually red.  you can write it!!!  LOL) (note I added this section latter so above votes may apply hear to).  Now I Believe admins have problems with other users too--E-Bod 04:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same as anybody else 

message: ===== Archive only =====
# Support. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third party 

message: # Support. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive only 

message: #(support)--E-Bod 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove warnings 

message: ==== Special cases: People with a history of multiple warnings ====
===== Absolutely can't remove warnings =====
#(support)--E-Bod 23:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What constitutes a history of multiple warnings? As it's stated, I could only support this if I also supported that warnings must absolutely not be removed regardless of whether there's a history of multiple warnings, in which case it's not much of a special case. –Tifego(t) 06:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Complicated and varies according to case. For example, what if someone has a history of warnings but its really clear that the warning they were given isn't valid? (Say a vandal puts an NPA warning on their page after the user asked the vandal to stop vandalizing). Also the type of warning might matter. Someone who had a history of NPA problems might be reasonably able to remove an MOS warning(in general I think of MOS warnings as a lower level than most other warnings). I don't feel comfortable  making any blanket statements about this sort of case. JoshuaZ 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was history of multiple warnings from Multiple People.  What I mean by this section is that if we end up deciding that we want let all users remove warnings so that if it truly is a bad warning one can remove it.  I think that some people should have that right revoked if they have removed warnings multiple times from multiple people, because I feel that it is Offensive to the person leaving the warning to remove it and not address the issue the warning was left about.  Because I feel people don’t want to leave warnings on other people’s pages.  We Don’t enjoy telling people to fallow policy and when leaving a negative comment we do worry if the comment will be taken wrong and if we fell the issue we commented on was so important that we needed to leave a negative comment on the page then that person should bother to respond.  Many users could be to shy to leave a comments.  If Somebody has been warned about an issue several times it is easier to warn them again.  If somebody is so destructive that they need to be blocked or receive a stern warning it is a lot more comforting to know you aren’t the only one disagreeing with that user’s actions.  It’s annoying when somebody else won’t even bother to leave a response to your comment.--E-Bod 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another issue 

message: ===== Absolutely can't remove warnings =====
#(support)--E-Bod 23:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What constitutes a history of multiple warnings? As it's stated, I could only support this if I also supported that warnings must absolutely not be removed regardless of whether there's a history of multiple warnings, in which case it's not much of a special case. –Tifego(t) 06:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Complicated and varies according to case. For example, what if someone has a history of warnings but its really clear that the warning they were given isn't valid? (Say a vandal puts an NPA warning on their page after the user asked the vandal to stop vandalizing). Also the type of warning might matter. Someone who had a history of NPA problems might be reasonably able to remove an MOS warning(in general I think of MOS warnings as a lower level than most other warnings). I don't feel comfortable  making any blanket statements about this sort of case. JoshuaZ 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was history of multiple warnings from Multiple People.  What I mean by this section is that if we end up deciding that we want let all users remove warnings so that if it truly is a bad warning one can remove it.  I think that some people should have that right revoked if they have removed warnings multiple times from multiple people, because I feel that it is Offensive to the person leaving the warning to remove it and not address the issue the warning was left about.  Because I feel people don’t want to leave warnings on other people’s pages.  We Don’t enjoy telling people to fallow policy and when leaving a negative comment we do worry if the comment will be taken wrong and if we fell the issue we commented on was so important that we needed to leave a negative comment on the page then that person should bother to respond.  Many users could be to shy to leave a comments.  If Somebody has been warned about an issue several times it is easier to warn them again.  If somebody is so destructive that they need to be blocked or receive a stern warning it is a lot more comforting to know you aren’t the only one disagreeing with that user’s actions.  It’s annoying when somebody else won’t even bother to leave a response to your comment.--E-Bod 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special cases: People with a history of multiple warnings 

message: #(support)--E-Bod 23:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely can't remove warnings 

message: #Stifle (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same rule for everyone - don't pick on people because of past problems 

message: :What constitutes a history of multiple warnings? As it's stated, I could only support this if I also supported that warnings must absolutely not be removed regardless of whether there's a history of multiple warnings, in which case it's not much of a special case. –Tifego(t) 06:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complicated and varies according to case. For example, what if someone has a history of warnings but its really clear that the warning they were given isn't valid? (Say a vandal puts an NPA warning on their page after the user asked the vandal to stop vandalizing). Also the type of warning might matter. Someone who had a history of NPA problems might be reasonably able to remove an MOS warning(in general I think of MOS warnings as a lower level than most other warnings). I don't feel comfortable  making any blanket statements about this sort of case. JoshuaZ 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was history of multiple warnings from Multiple People.  What I mean by this section is that if we end up deciding that we want let all users remove warnings so that if it truly is a bad warning one can remove it.  I think that some people should have that right revoked if they have removed warnings multiple times from multiple people, because I feel that it is Offensive to the person leaving the warning to remove it and not address the issue the warning was left about.  Because I feel people don’t want to leave warnings on other people’s pages.  We Don’t enjoy telling people to fallow policy and when leaving a negative comment we do worry if the comment will be taken wrong and if we fell the issue we commented on was so important that we needed to leave a negative comment on the page then that person should bother to respond.  Many users could be to shy to leave a comments.  If Somebody has been warned about an issue several times it is easier to warn them again.  If somebody is so destructive that they need to be blocked or receive a stern warning it is a lot more comforting to know you aren’t the only one disagreeing with that user’s actions.  It’s annoying when somebody else won’t even bother to leave a response to your comment.--E-Bod 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 

message: I Don't object strongly to calling it vandalism but i know times whare non vandals remove warnings--E-Bod 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the People who Expressed that one Should sometimes not be allowed to remove a comment they made that they want to retract expand on that.  I Understand that in cases were it would break the conversation up to remove a comment is bad and make other comments out of place, but If somebody makes an offensive comment I think that person should be able to apologize.  Some people commented that their are cases that you shouldn’t be allowed to change your comment.  I think if you change your comment you should resign it (keep both signatures) and say why you changed it like
changing 
*Your a bastard because you keep removing my comment’s without reading them--E-Bod 20:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That violates the rule on "making things go out of context". ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments and other discussion

message: You can remove your comments or  Every comment should be archived.
I meant this category to be Every comment should be archived even if you want to remove the comment you made.  (I can't Re-titled the section because somebody already voted under it.)
:Can the People who Expressed that one Should sometimes not be allowed to remove a comment they made that they want to retract expand on that.  I Understand that in cases were it would break the conversation up to remove a comment is bad and make other comments out of place, but If somebody makes an offensive comment I think that person should be able to apologize.  Some people commented that their are cases that you shouldn’t be allowed to change your comment.  I think if you change your comment you should resign it (keep both signatures) and say why you changed it like
changing 
*Your a bastard because you keep removing my comment’s without reading them--E-Bod 20:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That violates the rule on "making things go out of context". ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your comments 

message: I see frequent inquiries regading vandalism on talk pages. And I see general consensus that removing parts of talk pages is vandalism if the content removed was not personal attack. Do I see that right? If I do, lets add this to list: . I propose this paragraph to be added:
;Talk page vandalism: Deleting other user's comment or deleting the whole section of talk page. Exceptions are deleting the section to put it to archive and removing a personal attacks.
:User:talk should be excepted.  A user should be able to modify their own talk pages in any way they wish. Wjhonson 16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I replied to you with several options and an offer of help on my talk page. 2) Removing warnings is vandalism per current policy. Feel free to attempt to change policy if you wish: that is usually a long and winding road, especially for this. It is to prevent vandals from removing warnings with the subsequent result that other editors and Admins AGF looong after it is reasonable to do so. On the other hand, if the warnings are without merit, Admins generally ignore them and watch the warners rather than the warned, so either way it helps. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The warnings are without merit in the sense that people make mistakes.  I don't feel like I should carry around these warnings for the rest of my life.  And it doesn't appear that everyone is in agreement on the ability to blank user talk pages.  Those things you reposted are mostly due to attacks by Baha'is because I'm adding details to their propaganda articles to make them npov.  But at any rate, even arbitrators remove things from their own user talk pages. Wjhonson 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets sort out talk page policy once and for all 

message: Another issue is the age of warnings.  If a warning must stay, then there must be a clear policy on how *long* it must stay.  Forever, is not acceptable in my opinion. Wjhonson 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. This is not even vague, its just not addressed. Of course one can always archive, but how long should it stay prior to archiving? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest a time frame.  Since you just complained that I deleted an archived warning from um... 16 months ago. Wjhonson 03:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How about a week.  I would think a week of looking at some warning would be a sufficient spanking.  I don't any need to archive warnings, but if you do, I don't think you really want them to live forever in the archive do you? Wjhonson 03:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who complained? It was not I. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me retract "complained" in favor of "reverted".  I'm going to go ahead and post "week" as a policy inless there is a "guideline but not policy" page for warning-archiving or whatever.  Since no one else seems to want to talk about this here, I suppose they are agnostic about the issue. Wjhonson 00:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm you got strong support *before* you made your change?  I don't seem to recall that happening. (See discussion above.) Wjhonson 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make a change. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings - how long to leave on user talk page? 

message: Let's move this Debate to Wikipedia:Removing warnings so we don't keep changing the Policy
:This Conversation is taking place on several Locations on this talk page.  Anyway whether or not we call removing warnings Vandalism I feel it should not be allowed to pretend they never existed.  I Don't care what you call it but If it is a vandal that is removing warnings it doesn't really matter because their Talk page history should be manageable and any warning would also be pernamently in the talk page history.  If it is a Good faith editor calling removing warnings shouldn't be called vandalism because they aren't vandals.  Mabe we should make a whole new policy page for removing warnings.  May by we can call it Wikipedia:Removing warnings.  We can then point the templates there.  :Template:Wr0 :Template:Wr :Template:Wr2.  My problem with people removing warnings is that instead of resonding to the warning they just remove it.  If they leave the warning on or archive it then they can just respond to the warning and explain how it is inappropriate.  But just removing the warning without an explanation almost Proves that the warning was unjust--E-Bod 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Acually I just realized it is already Here Wikipedia:Talk page More Specifically Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?--E-Bod 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved again to Wikipedia:Talk_page#Etiquette But the Offical policy M:Help:Talk_page has nothing on the issue--E-Bod 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]] don't Vandalize the Policy 

message: Just Found out About this Talk (I Still need to read it).  Moments before this Conversation started i created Wikipedia:Removing warnings to move the comments about Removing warnings to stop cluttering Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism because the talk about Removing warnings was/is scattered throughout the page.  Please help me clean up Wikipedia:Removing warnings and i will read the above comments shortly--E-Bod 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read though the post and i will move a copy to Wikipedia_talk:Removing warnings.  I am also proposing moving this talk to that page, however this could just be my Arrogance Speaking (because I created that page and by default I have a preference for pages I make).--E-Bod 21:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]] 

message: What do you do If somebody breaks the rule and Removes a warning
:Honestly I have no clue what to do.  Even thou we aren’t supposed to re add them I have rewritten the warnings.  Once Somebody removed my warning again and I rewrote it a third time and after that I left it out but put a WR0 and linking to the history.  It was removed and I gave up.  Latter the user removed another person’s warning so I gave them a WR and the other user and remover revert war for a few times.  The person I put the warning on accused me of bringing up an old issue that was over and So I Apologized (and the Apology was also removed).  I Definitely Did something wrong (I had asked for help and the advise was to stay out of it and let the user get in trouble with somebody else.  I should have followed their advise but It is so Frustrating seeing somebody remove a message you left on their talk page and not even address the issue (Not even the Edit summary explained the problem).--E-Bod 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I would like to address the issue If Somebody removes your warning.  Let's say calling it a personal attack and you don't think your comment was a personal attack but you decide to re write the whole comment and check against the what a personal attack second says and then repost your comment.  The question I am raising is “is it Appropriate to re write a warning you made that was removed”. (in my case it was written (me), removed(him), re written(me), re removed(him), re re written(me), re re removed(him), “Removing warning template 0”(me), removing “removing warning template”(him), Give up (Me).  Se somebody else engage in the same conflict I had(third party), Repost removing warning template(me).  removed warning template (him), watch revert war Laughing between Him and third party over whether to keep my warning (LOL).  Everybody Gives up with him. Blanks page (him), Revert (4th party) re blank.  Etc.  It's actually funny in retrospect--E-Bod 20:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only advise i can get about this issue is just to stay out of it all togeter and let the trouble user do what he/she wants to do becose it's not worth fighting over.--E-Bod 20:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Rule 

message: ==== Re add them ====
#and give them a warning removal template, usually wr0. If it persists, ask an admin to protect their talk page.⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings you left 

message: #and give them a warning removal template, usually wr0. If it persists, ask an admin to protect their talk page.⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re add them 

message: ==== Re add them ====
#and give them a warning removal template, usually wr0. If it persists, ask an admin to protect their talk page.⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 03:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings Somebody else left 

message: #and give them a warning removal template, usually wr0. If it persists, ask an admin to protect their talk page.⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 03:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re add them 

message: Gurk. What a lot of talk. Sorry I haven't read it all. I've just changed "prohibited" to "discouraged" on the page, since I don't think it is completely forbidden. I too do not like "Removing warnings: Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." because I've seen too many cases of trolls merrily posting warnings onto good users pages and then reporting them for removing these (invalid) warnings William M. Connolley 19:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Both becose it is a Quote of what the Policy says.  And it still says "prohibited" not "discouraged" but at times it has said both--E-Bod 21:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   "prohibited" to "discouraged" 

message: While I mean no specific offense to E-Bod, this page is rather awkwardly constructed and poorly advertised.  In particular, there was no discussion about the contents/format of the poll before people started voting.  I would like to construct a more serious poll and widely advertise it to get a better diversity of opinion than is shown here.  Towards this end, I have created Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll, which I think addresses most of the major issues.  I would appreciate feedback on the format of this poll at Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings poll.  I would also appreciate it if people would not start voting until after we have given it some time to make any modification people believe are necessary.  Dragons flight 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I totally agree That i Fromated this Wrong.  That why i left the note on the top "Please help cleanup this Proposal".  This Page Even has a To Do List For advertizing. (note that Noting is under the "Done" Catigory).  Thank you (So much) For Fixing it for me.--E-Bod 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a better poll 

message: When you want to decide the Policy on removing warnings you need to take into account the People Removing the warnings and the People who will get into and edit war about it.  When I see warnings put on somebody’s page that was put there by mistake I don’t see the warning removed I see comments below that explain why the warning is wrong.  When the comet is legitimist and the user is very uncooperative then they will get into an edit war about it.  I don’t think it is far to discourage the Innocent form removing warnings (because a discouragement is enough for them to stop) but to not prohibit the Stuck up and uncooperative from removing warnings (Because those people won’t stop unless the rules spell out in Bold Bring that they will be blocked if they don’t stop).  You have to understand who removes warnings before you set the rules.  My Problem is that If we say it is discourages so that the Good editors leave bad comments on their talk page and the bad editors remove them.
These are some Examples of Situations I feel good about.
Found Somebody Else’s mistake
User_talk:198.168.191.52 User_talk:Friendly_Neighbour/Archive01#Not_all_annons_are_Vandals
I made a comment that was 100% wrong
 User_talk:Yskyflyer#Removed_out_of_context_question
Situation that lots of people have problem with One user
.  In this case of the revert war Multiple people have had a problem with one user about the same issues over and over again.  While One could say just letting the user have absolute control stops the revert war I say that telling that one user to reply to their comet’s also stoops the revert war become their won’t be such negative vives.  If a user can’t handle poorly written comets then they shouldn’t be repeatedly re adding edits to articles that others disagree with.  What’s different about this failing scenario is there is no talk about the issue but rather just removing.  It is really stressful to make a comment and just see it deleted.  It is eve more stressful to come to terms with your comment wasn’t written the best way, re write it so that nobody could object to it and then see it deleted again with some bizarre reason
Who removes warnings--E-Bod 22:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who removes warnings 

message: What are we trying to find out and how do we want to present this?
How do we want to start this page? 
It currently starts 
*“Should removing warnings other users give you be disallowed?”
I think it should be clarified into 
*“Should a user be allowed to remove warnings other users give?”
But then again this Proposal/Clarity of Policy Is more complicated that one being alloed to remove warnings form one one’s talk page.
We need to address removing warnings, warnings about removing warnings and 
re adding warnings
. 
*Who can do what
*Where can one do what
*What can one do. & What can be removed
*When can what be removed (how long should the warnings stay up)
*Why can/cant one do what (The explanation for why we chose this policy)
*How can one go about doing what (reply & keep/archive/delete,) (warn and re add/leave off))
I think it should read
*When can who do what to warning?
But that doesn’t quite flow well
What we are aiming to find out is more of a table.  
*On one axis of the table is the “who can”.  On the other Axis of the table is “do what about warnings”. 
We also need to deal with violations of the rule
Who can & When to
*Re-add warnings
*Tell somebody they can’t remove warnings. Wr0 Wr Wr2.
Basically this issue has so many parts to it we may need to break id town into its elements.--E-Bod 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are we trying to find out? 

message: As mentioned above, this issue has many parts. However, I think that breaking it down into separate elements (like the curent polls) is fraught with difficulties as many elements are co-related, and by separating them there is a risk of the resulting totality being inconsistant when added back together again. So what about looking it from the other angle, and trying to build the policy in one go? IOW, someone creates drafts a policy on the poll page, where people can comment yes/maybe/no. The comments can include minor tweaks as suggestions, but nothing major. If anyone has another suggestion that's not covered by an existing draft, they can add another draft, but hopefully the number of majorly different drafts should be within a reasonable limit. This also has the advantage that once the voting is done, the policy is almost pre-written. Comments? MartinRe 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top down policy or bottom up?

message: At several points in the discussion, we talk about archiving as requiring preservation on a specific archival page.  Yes, many people do that but some archive into the page history.  That has been my practice for quite a while and, as far as I know, it's never been controversial.  I'm not hiding anything but I don't see much point to consuming yet more server space for a bunch of random questions and comments.  It's easy to say that server space is cheap but even small costs do add up eventually.
In general, removal of comments about vandalism are inappropriate, especially on the Talk pages of anonymous IPs.  But sometimes, the warnings are just too old to care about even there.  Perhaps a time limit would be appropriate?  And perhaps there should be a caveat that the warning can be removed when it's addition was clearly in bad faith?  But then you get into the question of who determines "bad faith"...  It's a difficult question.  I'd recommend making this a guideline with the clear expectation that the removal of such warnings will be viewed by the community with great skepticism.  I'd also make a specific mention of the three-revert rule.  If you delete a warning but it gets added back, somebody's trying to tell you something.  Rossami (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of quibbles 

message: Could someone please tell me what the 'positive effects' of forcibly keeping warnings on talk pages are? I can only think of one... specifically allowing admins to see that the user has been warned before. Is there anything else? That doesn't seem like a particularly needed addition... we generally know who the 'trouble makers' are, and with the block log, contributions list, talk page history, et cetera it isn't like it is hard to find out currently. Basically, that seems small cause to go out of our way to harrass already annoyed/hostile users. Instituting a Wikipedia 'scarlet letter' policy wherein we force people to 'wear' the  symbol on their talk pages seems like a terrible idea to me. What exactly is 'good' about this? --CBDunkerson 00:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scarlet letter itself has some advantages as a mark of shame. Kind of like being branded as a criminal in the Middle Ages (I think?) - it discourages the recipient, and other users, from such actions. But I agree that it does more harm than good, in most cases. TheJabberwʘck 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits? 

message: What a contentious debate! A lot of us are unhappy with the way that talk pages are being used and it looks as if many of us have dragged our grievances here. Please allow me to make a few suggestions: 
* It may not be wise to label anyone's edits vandalism unless you really, really mean it. "Vandalism" is when someone scribbles sexual suggestions, racist remarks, or patent nonsense on a page. "Vandalism" is when someone blanks an encyclopedic article or project process. The term should be restricted to an obvious and blatant act that disrupts the project or community with no redeeming value. By definition, if it can be debated by rational people whether an act is or is not vandalism, then it is not. 
* Many edits which are not vandalism are unwise or unhelpful. These range from simple mistakes and misstatements of fact through biased contributions, spam, rants, and all kinds of policy violations. It doesn't need to be vandalism to be very bad. 
* One's user talk page is in one's user space; this puts the responsibility for its maintenance on one's shoulders, by default. I don't own my talk page but I assume that if I don't keep it clean and neat then nobody will do this for me. And if it's my responsibility then I generally don't expect anyone to dictate to me how I should do it. There can be no responsibility without corresponding authority. 
User talk pages serve at least four very different functions and this is the root of the issue surfaced in this discussion -- as well as many other issues. 
(1) You want to talk to me. (red arrow) You want me to be sure I read what you have got to say. You may be talking about me or about something else. 
(2) I want to talk to you. (blue arrow) Having read your comment, I want to reply directly to you (while keeping the thread intact). 
(3) You want to talk about me (green arrow) You want to be sure that anyone visiting my talk page reads what you have got to say about me. 
(4) I want to tell everybody something. (amber arrow) This may not be appropriate for the Pump or some other common page but I want everyone who visits to see it. 
It's no surprise that one page is hardly enough for these various purposes. At first the idea was that at least (4) would be fulfilled by one's user page. But users tend to go directly to user talk if possible; there's a widespread demand for direct talk links in sigs and this desire is also reflected in  and its variants. I don't really expect anything I put on my user page to be seen by most visitors to my talk page. Some maintain their user pages as showcases and UBX farms; others just concentrate links to resources and projects. A surprising number of longtime users refuse to put anything at all in their user pages; a few redirect them to talk! In no case do these user pages seem to be handling any part of the talk page burden noted in the figure. 
* User talk pages are poor places to hold threaded discussions; these frequently end up fragmented among two or more pages. Whenever possible, and when the topic is not a particular user, it may be better to move a thread to a common, more appropriate page. 
If we accept that I have at least 2 valid reasons for editing my own talk page then it's very hard to tell me how I should edit it. Where do we draw the line? I can see this discussion going on all year. 
I archive my talk page frequently; I hate to see any talk page cluttered with old comments. History is always available and for those who don't wish to pick through it I list the versions immediately prior to mass deletions. I certainly don't think anyone has cause to complain -- but what if someone put a tag on my talk? How long would I be required to leave it up? A week? A year? If I rm it instantly it is still there forever in history. I think the question is not whether I rm it; it's whether I pay any attention.
→ I suggest that we not attempt to set precise limits on what edits a user may make to the corresponding user talk page. Existing policy is sufficient word to the wise. I suggest that if -- for example -- Bob puts a  template on my talk page and I remove it without responding to the charge, then this action of mine should be considered to accelerate the warning progression. If I rm a test1 and Sue thinks she has cause to add another warning, she should go directly to test3. If I rm a test3 then I can expect an immediate block the next time I cross the line; no further warning should be given. 
Admins should never exercise admin powers to rm comments from their talk page history. If something truly vile lands there then you may persuade a fellow admin to rm it for you. We simply don't trust you to decide what is sufficiently objectionable to the community that no common user ought to be able to read it, ever. You're an interested party. 
We're concerned that vandals may rm warnings, leading to repeated test1's and an extended period of free play. Well, that's what AN/I is for. I encourage vandals to rm warnings from their talk pages; I encourage admins to check talk history before taking action and, if a user has rm a warning, well -- no need to cut this one any more slack. 
* To tell the truth, I'm not so certain we really need to issue four warnings before blocking. I'd favor 3 strikes and you're out -- which translates to two warnings only and then a block. Under this system, an admin who visits a talk page to warn and finds an earlier warning removed by the user should immediately block. Why coddle kiddies? WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors; must we hold our editing community open to juvenile delinquents? 
In sum: No, it's not vandalism; in some cases it may be very unwise. We should not be afraid to deal with bad actors quickly and decisively. But yet another policy is unneeded instruction creep. To paraphrase Yskyflyer: If removing warnings is criminalized, only criminals will remove warnings. What's the point? John Reid 10:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Love your Diagram.  Did you make it Just for this page.  It is Awesome.  And I Love you Explanation of the Situation to.  You are Rally good ad Evaluating situations.  OK.  Now here is my response.  I was getting sick and tired of watching people revert the Vandalism page by adding and removing the section on removing warnings.  The talk page of Vandalism was becoming a mess and so I decided that we can’t keep having people reverting the page and the winner be whoever is the least compromise-able and most dedicated to reverting the page.  That is why I made this proposal.  Not to actually make a proposal but just to clarify the policy.  It also served to Trick any fool reverting that page again into believing that their is a page to battle this out.  This page isn’t hear to make a policy.  The page is hear so that people stop Filling up the talk page of policies with this issue.  I did create this page with the intention of lots of people supporting one side of the issue and passing any policy.  I created this page to make it Clear to people what the policy is.  I can see know that there is no General feel to what should be done.  
Here is my experience and why I feel we should have some policy telling people not to remove warnings.  I saw a user make a horrible ugly edit to a guideline page.  I reverted it and apologized for the revert.  Anyway I tried several times to explaining that this was a guide line and he/she should stop changing it like that.  This user totally misunderstood the policies and continues to confuse notability with verifiability.  This user always responded to any comment by requesting to know what policy we were talking about and throwing around big policy names.  I started to suspect this user was a troll because the user never actually responded to any points made in a comment to him/her and always asked to see the policy page we were referring to even when we linked to the policy page.  It was like talking to a wall that kept asking for you to prove you points but never listened when you did.  I eventually got around to reading other comments on the talk page to realize this was no the first time somebody felt this way about this user so I decided to put a warning on the page so that future users can save the trouble of responding to this user’s request and just know What issues this user has set their mind on and will not change.  
I do not care what the policy is.  I just want their to be a clear policy so I know what to do if I encounter this problem again.
I agree that if somebody is behaving properly and happens to remove a waning noting needs to be done but if somebody has been warned for misbehaving, removes the warning, another person encounters the same problem with the same user and assumes good faith again and leaves a warning to behave.  I Just feel uneasy to know their are user who are continually warned about the same ting.  Won’t accept that Wikipedia poly says something and then keeps pretending that this is the first time somebody has objected to the way this user is acting.  
Ok.  Now the way I put this is very one sided.  The specific case I am talking about is more subtle and The issue is not so This or That.  This person does have some legitimacy but I am sore to see that I Spend a lot Of time Explaining myself to this user only to have that user call my comment my personal attack.  But to top that off I Re word my comments using the WP:NPA as a guideline and coping the boilerplate suggestion on the talk page and it still ges revered and I again feel I can word my self better as third time and is is still just a revert.  I Now want to point to a poly that take some side and doesn’t just say you are wrong if you remove a comment and you are wrong it you re admit I want somewhere for it to say you can’t Just remove a comment to hide it form other people.  I love it when user leave patent Personal attack on their talk page with a comment like this about comment speaks for itself because any comment obvious enough to merit removal speaks for self as an illegitimate comment.  To make myself celar this is what I am talking about --E-Bod 02:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Magic Bullet 

message: I have Now seen some cases where people will archive negative comments on their talk page Immediately without ever commenting on the message.  This is Unacceptable.  It is already called Uncivil on policy pages but i think it would be nice to Have some template warning about it.  Technically they are archive it but they are still trying to cover up the negative messages--E-Bod 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not responding to Messages 

message: This is the only part I object to.  Users should be able to archive whenever they want, and as long as they link to the archive, they're not really hiding the warning, they just archived it.  I archive my talk page whenever it hits 50 topics.  What if the 49th topic is a warning?  If I archive it after one more message I'll get blocked because I didn't wait a reasonable amount of time?  That's silly. --Rory096 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I wrote the proposal to clarify the policy I was talking about removing warnings without archiving them.  As of before this edit I was thinking that archiving is OK in any circumstance but removing the warning without archive is bad.  However Very recently I was frustrated When I came across a user who was miss using WP:AWB and I came to there talk page and it was empty and but they did archive it and on the talk page and read numerous complaints scattered throughout the archive Very similar and more serious than mine.  These warnings asked Questions and Probed for a response however the user did not respond to any of them.  I coped one of the more recent discussion from the archive back to that user page so other users would see the warning and not double up on it and included my warring on the bottom (I left the other unrelated warring on the archive alone only the repeated office.  The user then removed my warning so I put a notice telling them the respond to my comment and not hide it.  The user removed that too and then put a speedy delete tag on his talk page to remove all records.  Another user removed that tag. This user hasn’t uses AWB since my warning so I haven’t taken further action  Ian Pitchford
I believe a user should be Blocked for repeatedly and deliberately trying to hide and not respond to complaints from other users.  This interferes with our effective ness in finding these troublesome users.  Removing a warning within 30 seconds of the warning being placed with no response is wrong.  If that warning had been issued independently several times by user who Assume good faith they should receive a strong message that they cannot repeat what they did.  They should receive a short block because they are deliberately or doing noting to avoid the discouraged behavior.  I did not mean this to Apply to the Good faith user who just treated the warning as any other message on their talk page.  The problem is that some people will say that if it isn’t directly prohibited they have a right to do it.  They should be blocked for trying to manipulate the system.  However I am not saying just block them I am saying we should evaluate the situation and in a case by case situation if it is obvious that they have been told to stop dong this behavior and they Abuse WP:AGF them they should be blocked.  In your case we would tell right away what you were doing regular house cleaning.  If you are fallowing the spirit of Wikipedia you should be ok.  If you are gaming the system you will be warned with a short block.
A different user had also removed warning and told be that the Policy Page only discouraged it and did not prohibit it so he felt entitled to remove the warnings.  There is no reason to achieve only the messages you don’t like or to archive all the messages on a really short talk page (If that is the only message you should not achieve because I feel the talk page is not only to receive messages but also for others to know what messages you have received in order to take proper action.  If we give progressively severer warnings a users should not be allowed to remove the warnings so new users start back and the early warnings.)--E-Bod 15:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking for archiving? 

message: Here's my take on this; my proposed version of the policy, if you like:
Removing recent warnings from your own talk page should be treated in the same way as vandalism. It's not vandalism, but like vandalism, removing recent warnings causes you to be given a warning such as . Repetition of this behavior leads to a more severe warning such as , and then to a short edit block. Continued repetition then leads to longer blocks, as with vandalism. Also like vandalism, reversion of warning deletion should not count against the 3RR (but repeated deletion of warnings may).
I'm open to discussion on the definition of recent. One month seems fine to me. Whatever definition of recent is chosen, deleting warnings older than that is discouraged in the same way that deleting other talk page comments is. Archiving is preferable, but not mandatory.
Note that I do not propose that removing warnings from someone else's talk page be treated as vandalism. A neutral third party may remove a warning, ideally leaving behind an explanation that an invalid warning was removed. This allows a user who has been unfairly warned to request help from another user or an admin. Similarly, the person who put the warning there is free to remove it if he/she changes his/her mind.
The higher level warnings for warning removal should be given with discretion. A user who removes a clearly invalid warning from his or her own talk page is taking a risk that other users will issue a further warning for this, but in a case where it's clear that the warning being removed is false, it's appropriate to ignore the removal.
One side note: I have seen several users assert in this debate that their talk page is theirs, and that they are free to do whatever they like with it. I disagree. Talk pages and User pages are part of the project too. Anything written on your talk page is issued under the GFDL (see the license notice under the edit box), and is owned by everyone. Usage of these pages is governed by the appropriate policies and guidelines.--Srleffler 23:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking is just this: What if a user joins Wikipedia and, not knowing wht they're doing, messes around and gets a vanadalism warning. A year later, they are a prominent editor of many interesting articles, but people who go to their talk page still see the vandalism warning they outgrew. Can they remove it then? I think the warning templates should have a statute of limitations and a date on them-- you may remove this warning if you have not accrued another by X date. Kuronue 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The general rule of thumb has always been that archiving after a week or two is fine. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed policy

message: I feel you should be able to revert talk pages where the user has intentionally blanked messages.  Unless you go through the edit history, it is difficult to get a "feel" for the user when this occurs, as the user is able to select the "image" they portray on Wiki.  -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting user-blanked talk pages 

message: Actually the tradition is simply that if a warning is removed, it counts as having been read (you need to actually go to your page, find the warning and edit it out, after all).
This basically solves the entire problem quickly and succinctly, I don't think this page is adding anything new or improved to that.  If the person avoids the warning again, just block them. This is why it's important to check user talk page history before issuing a warning ;-)
If anyone disagrees, please specify why, and let's discuss. (as per bold revert discuss :-) )
Kim Bruning 07:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you clearly mark a warning as such in your edit summary, it is very hard to hide it in page history. If bots don't make viewing page history easy, we can fix that quickly. Also, we could get the antivandalbots to trigger on earlier warnings in the edit history itself, possibly. All these methods would be handier, faster, and clearer than editwarring, if you ask me :-) Do you want me to go make a change request for (cd)vf, for instance? Kim Bruning 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Those of us that use apps like vandalproof, don't see the history of the page. ViridaeTalk 13:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So don't use vandalproof. It's not free software, so it's harder to commission someone to make the changes we want. Kim Bruning 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is messy , so I've marked as rejected 

message: Since this page looks like a rather messy place to continue discussion, I've created this page.  Please direct all new discussion about this topic there.  JYolkowski // talk 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings]]