Wikipedia talk:Vandalism/Archive 4

message: I have set up a vandalism clinic where vandals can come for cures without being blocked! It is at user:GangstaEB/Vandal Clinic! GangstaEB (talk • contribs • [/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username= count] • ice slides) 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:GangstaEB/Vandal Clinic|Vandal Clinic]] 

message: Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you really want to add nonsense, try adding it to Uncyclopedia. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RocketMaster (talk • contribs) 10:07, July 2, 2006 (UTC).
:No, that would deter users from trying to edit properly.--Andeh 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about this? 

message: As with template vandalism, this can affect a lot of pages. Here is a kind of vandalism that would be hard to clean up, even though I haven't seen it yet. Modus operandi would be something like this:
# Vandal creates sockpuppet.
# Vandal opens ten or more browser tabs (for editing key user warning templates and other substituted templates.)
# Vandal adds categories like Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, Category:Proposed deletion, and Category:Wikipedians looking for help (might flood an IRC channel).
# Vandal adds innocent-sounding edit summaries: "sp", "fixed spelling", "clarified", etc.
# Vandal commits changes as close together as possible.
The end result: many pages are vandalized and this is hard to clean up, as the templates are substituted. These interfere with key Wikipedia processes.
There needs to be a special procedure against this kind of stuff.
Invitatious 22:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  You are sort of clever.  Are you sure you do not have a career in disruption somewhere? --Blue Tie 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm saying is that commonly used substituted templates, like  really need to be protected. Non-administrators are not supposed to edit these. Invitatious 22:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass category vandalism 

message: I have created several user warning templates based on the standard test templates that are for use as warnings for inappropriate page creation. These templates included , , , , and . Please note that I did not create test1 templates or a nonspecific test2 template of this nature because the standard cooresponding test templates are appropriate as warnings for inappropriate article creation.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test templates for inappropriate page creation added 

message: The sub-section on improper use of dispute tags is rather unclear as to what behavior is actually considered vandalism.  Given some of what it says, I'm almost tempted to move it into the "what vandalism is not" section. Could someone please clarify? Thanks. Arbitrary username 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper use of dispute tags 

message: In Talk:Taco Bell, in the 15:24, 3 July edition  there is a section called Ryan Larsen's Taco Bell Adventures, which is an editor considering part of Taco Bell#Miscellaneous a vanity edit (WP:VANITY) and proposed to delete it.
I asked User:aguywearingacape to respond to the accusation on his talk page, and he did come to Taco Bell Talk page, only have that section removed.
It sounds like Talk Page Vandalism or Avoidant Vandalism, but is it?
Samuel Curtis 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's any doubt, it's not vandalism.  I don't think it's hard to imagine how someone would think of that removal as appropriate, so I'd avoid calling it vandalism.  The content in question, I've removed from the article, as uncited nonsense. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the removal of a whole section of an article's discussion page, in this case, vandalism? 

message: Please see my additions to the types of vandalism section, under "Bad faith reverts." The exemplar vandalism occurred on April 15 and I only just discovered it today! SeahenNeonMerlin 08:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly discovered, but months-old, type of vandalism 

message: I deleted the "suck a nut section". Looked like the "dialogue" was strictly on one IP addy anyways. Hope you don't miss it. --Coryma 21:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Vandalism 

message: In the Dimetrodon article, someone added: 
"Creatures like Dimetrodon are our distant ancestors, because they had evolved the same meat-ripping teeth that we inherited today." 
The edit of of that person was reverted by Zntrip under the reason: (Removed Vandalism) Does the edit constitute "vandalism"? Giant Blue Anteater 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's close enough for me. If there was a decision being made whether to punish the person who added that, I'd get a comment from the person first just in case he honestly believed that, but I see nothing wrong with calling it vandalism in an edit summary. -Barry- 04:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very wrong to call it that, unless you know for a certain fact that the editor's intent was to reduce the quality of WP. If there is even a remote chance that in his/her own mind he/she felt this this edit would make the article better (i.e. actually believed that we are descended from those creatures, even without any proof), then it cannot be labeled as 'vandalism'. Improper labeling of vandalism then becomes un-civil behavior and a personal attack. Thanks, Crum375 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The edits the anonymous user made is not vandalism, although they deserved to be reverted. The user obviously got the info from Walking with Monsters, which is not a valid source. I doubt that the users intent was vandalism, the edits were most likely mistakes. Giant Blue Anteater 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold Edits

message: AfD templates are frequently blanked by new creators. Rather than thinking up a form of words each time to warn them, it would be helpful to have a template. This is my suggestion for discussion:
Blanking AfD template - new user
'Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest. If you read the AfD template carefully you will see that you are not permitted to remove it. I appreciate, being new, that you may not have realised this. However, if you happen to do it again a more serious view would be taken.'
BlueValour 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD blanking template needed 

message: I've been noticing a fair amount of statistical data getting changed in articles about US States. Does this seem like sneaky vandalism? If so the example (from TIME ?) that was removed may have a replacement such as this:  and . If sources cannot be found easily, how should edits like these be handled? I've seen some editors drop a note on the user's page and wait, but if the pages are subsequently edited before a decision is made to revert, reversion can be time-consuming. Would reverting any unsourced edit to statistical data be justified? If both the original and the change are unsourced, which is really preferable? Gimmetrow 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't think a new unsourced edit would trump an old unsourced edit.  Nor vice versa.  The best solution might be to tag with  and add a note to the talk page on why.  Mark the page to watch, and wait a few days.  If no one has posted a cite, just remove the entire statement and move it to talk and post it there. Wjhonson 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case the original data was the US 2000 census data but the link to verify was only given in the "external link" section at the end of the long article. I don't know how many editors would connect them, but I would hope an entire section would not be deleted just because an editor didn't notice the connection. The editor did highlight a weakness, that many articles do not have inline, easily verifiable references for statistical data. Gimmetrow 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Report removal of warnings to the admin notice board. Wjhonson 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sneaky vandalism 

message: Hello everyone.
I have added a harmonizing clarification to the policy regarding nonsense.  Previously WP:Nonsense said that Nonsense is not vandalism, where WP:Vandalism said that it is.  The difference was really the matter of intent but neither document recognized this difference.   So I have added a clarifying statement to each policy.  The motivation for this clarification was an observed misunderstanding of the policy directly attributed to the different statements on these two pages. 
It seems clear to me that in the interest of assuming good faith, some instances of errors are not reasonably considered vandalism.  I believe that this is probably already implemented by the administrators anyway.  It is "unwritten".  My clarification makes it written.
Examples of nonsense that would not be vandalism would be connection errors and editors being unclear to the point of incomprehensibility but using real words to communicate.  In both cases repetition of the error would show intent rather than accident, though in the latter case it may simply show incompetence as an editor, which may not be technically vandalism but is functionally no different.
Some criticisms of this clarification have been that it is "already covered under mistake".  This may be true, but it is not clear.   
Some criticisms of this clarification have been that this gives vandals a foothold.  I observe that if this is so, then clearly mistakes are NOT covered and we need to revise WP:Nonsense to state that even if it is a mistake, nonsense is vandalism.   I am not interested in giving vandals a foothold in wikipedia and since I view this as a clarification, not a change, I do not think it provides one.  But others may disagree.  However, if some mistakes ARE vandalism, then I think THAT would be a real change in policy.   
In short, I do not see this as damaging but as clarifying.  Some may see it as s damaging change to policy rather than a clarification.  I would like to ask for inputs and discussion in the following areas:
#  Is this a change of policy or is it a clarification of policy?
#   Is this in harmony with how things are already done or is it a change of practice?
#  Is this out of harmony with the intent of wikipedia?
#   Does this give vandals a foothold (that they do not already have?)
#  Are there any versions of this that would be acceptable or is it all wrong?
#  What implications are there for WP:nonsense and Nonsense being or not being vandalism?
I am asking for this input to put to rest revisions and edit warring on this topic.  I thank you in advance for your input.  --Blue Tie 13:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for Inputs on Nonsense 

message: It is a good idea that we must protect these articles at all cost. Some guy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.117.208.24 (talk • contribs) .
:Which articles? Why should they be protected "at all costs"? Why did you add a .sig that wasn't yours (did you forget to sign in before leaving this comment?) Thanks, Gwernol 16:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protecting article pages

message: Warnings should not be used to be funny or to harass someone or to own a page or to prevent editing. Since a vandal might use the warnings first, the desire to have warnings and blocking seems snobbish and unrealistic. An edit you disagree with is not vandalism. --Chuck Marean 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't misuse warnings. 

message: I posted this on Project:Spam, but I wanted to cc: it here. (Not exactly vandalism, but close.) I just want to point out a new thing I came across tonite. Here, you can see this user adding 15 or 20 commercial links into articles, but doing so within a DIV STYLE="Display:None" element, so they don't actually show up when you view the page. There's even a sad little note included in comments: [We are delicate. We do not delete your content.] An apology, of sorts, I suppose. 
It's not clear to me what end they hope to acheive, but it is clear that this can't be any better for us than any other spam or vandalism. I brought this to User:JesseW who suggested I mention it here, as well as over at Vandalism, to Tawker, CVU and Lupin, all of which I'm doing now. Anyone else? Pls let me know, but I think that should be enough ppl who care about this sort of thing. Hope this helps :) Eaglizard 06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like spam, until their edits begin to say, "Hi im a Spambot from 193.243.156.10. Please ban This IP."  Hardvice 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange New Spam?

message: I've found that there are vandals who sneak into the talk discussions as well. Are there bots who patrol the talk pages as well?Wikichange 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watching a page automatically also watches its talk page.  While talk pages are not as well patrolled, I certainly revert vandalism on talk pages. --TeaDrinker 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the helpful information! Wikichange 22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism to talk pages

message: I am not sure if the following issue would be considered vandalism.  I have reverted the change and added the below to the appropriate AfD discussion. 
* Changing a users "vote" from Speedy Delete to Keep is EXTREAMLY poor form! Especially when the change is by the article's author!  Reverted the page.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clear-cut vandalism, in my eyes.  --TeaDrinker 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in my opinion this is worse than simple vandalism. Its an attempt to undermine the process without which vandalism would run rampant. Sort of meta-vandalism. Gwernol 23:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think changing another user's comments on a discussion page of any sort in a way that changes the meaning/tone of the message is vandalism. Doing anything to another user's comments (including spelling fixes) is generally frowned upon, but I wouldn't lump those good faith efforts into the vandalism category. However, trying to make it look like a user said something that they did not is a very bad thing. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 23:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is changing others "votes" on AfD vandalism? 

message: I hate to give people ideas, but this seemed different: category silliness.  Gimmetrow 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that was covered as "Sneaky vandalism" under the "adding minsinformation" clause. Gwernol 14:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another form of vandalism? 

message: I have made the policy reflect reality by noting that removing internal spam is not considered vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing spam 

message: There is someone going around deleting content from articles that mentions a ranking on a list (linked to another article about the ranking), because they feel the list is biased. I'm of the opinion, that if they think that, they should bring it up and discuss it on the list's talk page. The fact that these things were ranked by this list (which is clearly stated in each article - this isn't the definative list, it's just one ranking) is a fact, not opinion. The articles don't purport to say that the one ranking is the true ranking, it's merely a note of interest. Anyhoo, this person is going around deleting any mention of this ranking in every article. I mentioned it on their talk page, and they went about reverting the one re-add I did (at the time I only knew of one article they were doing it to). I then posted again in their talk page, and they again reverted the article. I've posted a 'please do not delete' vandalism warning tag, but I fear that this person is going to continue to ignore it.
Their other edits on wikipedia seem to be fine and even constructive, but they are ignoring their talk page and continue to revert these edits (also demanding 'do not readd' in the comment for these edits, even before anyone has attempted to). I don't think that someone who's doing good editing on other articles deserves to be treated like someone who just goes around vandalizing every article they can find, but this person is ignoring attempts to communicate with them. I'm not sure what to do about it. I wouldn't have called this vandalism initially, but after ignoring two talk page attempts to contact them and ignoring the points I made in comment of re-adding the material, (and basically insulting me in the latest), I posted the mild vandalism warning. I'm guessing they will continue to ignore it, and may likely repeat deleting the comments. Thoughts? TheHYPO 11:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor problem? 

message: It seems like there are allot of page rewriting by some users here, who wanna claim things to a pro-Norwegian point of view with no sources.
I'm pretty new here and don't know how things work like yet and deal with this kind of vandalism here on wikipedia. 
But on the article Normans the two Norwegian users Barend and Inge keep putting Norway in from no where. I have asked like 5 times in the discussion, what the sources are. I haven't got any answer, since there is no sources for it. Here the fake claiming started.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normans&diff=27008966&oldid=26282705 Thanks --Comanche cph 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is slander at best. I view this entry as a personal attack as it is not based on facts and is made in order to discredit two editors trying to resolve the problems caused by User:Comanche cph. This user has been causing problems in articles which might not be considered main stream so a small number of wikipedians have been forced to face this users malicious behaviour. Any long term involvement by anyone is welcome (short peeps and comments have proven not to be effective)Inge 02:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sneaky vandalism 

message: I removed the following from the list of types of vandalism;
;Bad faith reverts: Reverting most or all of a legitimate edit to an older version without explanation in the edit summary or anywhere else. An example is  reverted by . This has a similar effect to partial blanking, but is much harder to detect on a diff to previous revision. It can go undetected for months, and there can be many intervening edits when it is detected, making it more time-consuming to reintegrate the affected edit. Editors are expected to explain reverts, and reverts with no edit summary, especially by new or anonymous users, are suspicious. (Even automated reverting tools, such as popups and the admins' rollback links, produce a default edit summary.)
This section was added by NeonMerlin and announced on this talk page about a month ago, but it seems to me to be in direct contradiction of the 'What vandalism is NOT' section. For instance, the example does not look like vandalism to me at all... it looks like a content dispute. Yes, people should use edit summaries... but not doing so isn't vandalism. Are we ready to say that any revert without an edit summary/explanation is vandalism and may be freely reverted in turn? Look for a vast increase in edit warring if we do. If we are going to say that edits without summaries are vandalism then we should just change the software to require edit summaries. --CBD 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree with your edit, with the caveat that I think it waffles a bit too much about spam.  We do need to be careful about what we call "vandalism", not just to avoid WP:BITE, but also because this page defines what WP:3RR exemptions are.  Jkelly 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wasn't sure how to word the spam one. As an example of what I was trying to avoid; suppose a user adds an external link to their 'Foobar Wiki' on the Wikipedia 'Foobar' article. As the policy was written, if someone felt such a link was "inappropriate" they could claim that it was vandalism and they should be able to revert at will. Yet the person adding it could very well legitimitely think that their Wiki's more extensive coverage of Foobar is something which should be mentioned... they might even be right. I guess it is the ambiguity of 'inappropriate' that bothers me. I've seen similar problems with interpretations of "provocative" on the 'image vandalism' section... users who don't like a particular picture of Ann Coulter (cover of Time as I recall) label it 'provocative' and thus claim reverting it is immune to 3RR limits. I was trying to get more precisely to the intent of the policy to avoid these 'interpretations'. What kind of things are "inappropriate" or "provocative" in reference to this policy. --CBD 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: Looking at this page I am reasonable sure that there is some vandalism but I really am not certain what point the page should be reverted to.  At the very least the External Link to "Wikipedia" site has been tampered with - I would do it bu I might merely complicate reverts of a more experienced editor.  Cheers -- Nigel  (Talk) 11:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I guess I looked at the pattern of editing from the IP address.  First "afraid of moths" went in then "afraid of cats" in place of moths, that sort of thing combined with a number of changes to the "Quotes" bit made me suspicious.  Thanks and regards -- Nigel  (Talk) 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure vandalism to [[Teresa Palmer]]

message: Spelling error on this page. "unvicil" should be changed to "uncivil". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wlmh65 (talk • contribs) .
:Good eye, thanks for fixing it!  --TeaDrinker 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was me. Thanks. --CBD 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unvicil: minor edit 

message: According to test5 template: "...and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism". I cannot find such a criterion for vandalism under WP:VAN#Types_of_vandalism. If we consider repeated NPOV violation as vandalism it should be added to the list, otherwise the template should be fixed, or the discrepancy explained. Thanks, Crum375 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the established policy that NPOV edits are not vandalism takes precedence and thus have edited the template. --CBD 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated NPOV violation as vandalism 

message: As I stated on Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings There is supermajority support on this page for the belief that removing legitimate vandalism warnings either constitutes vandalism or a non-vandalism policy violation. With 6 established users supporting "Removing warnings is Vandalism", 13 established users supporting "Removing warnings is against policy but not Vandalism", 7 established users supporting "Removing warnings is discouraged but not against policy", and 1 established user supporting "Removing warnings is Great" we have 19 comments in favor of the removal of legitimate warnings being characterized as some type of policy violation, but only 8 comments opposed to characterizing such removals as policy violations.
I believe that 19 comments in favor of prohibiting the removal of legitimate warnings, but only 8 comments in favor of allow such removals indicates supermajority support for characterizing such removals as against policy, whether they are actually vandalism or not.  Note that my edit did not actually characterize such removals as vandalism:
The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of legitimate warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.
It is necessary to indicate that the removal of legitimate warnings is against policy since the preceding language "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion" would otherwise provide express permission for such removals. John254 18:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'poll' you cite was closed / superceded by Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll and does not include the opinions of many others who have stated opposition on that page. In any case, a 21 to 6 majority (by your own numbers) saying that removing warnings is not vandalism seems to me an ironclad reason for not listing it on this page in the 'types of vandalism' section. Addendum: Also, please note that MANY things are 'against policy' without being vandalism or blockable. Policy requires NPOV and civility, but we don't block users for any infraction of those issues... and repeatedly reverting them is considered edit warring. Thus, the fact that a large number of people felt 'removing warnings' should be 'against policy' does not mean that such should be blockable... or infinitely revertable as per vandalism. --CBD 18:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The users who started the 'poll' you cite agreed to close it in favor of the other and said so... among other places in the box with the big 'i' at the top of THIS page. To me "closed / superceded" seems like an entirely accurate description of those facts rather than the 'literal falsehood' you call it. As to the, equally charming, "specious" comment... the 21 to 6 split on whether or not removing warnings is vandalism is simply a fact. Nothing specious about it. Further, 'against policy' is not the same as 'vandalism'. Vandalism is a blockable offense which may be reverted at whim. Making NPOV edits is "against policy" but is not blockable and reverting such will eventually result in a block on the person repeatedly removing the NPOV text. It is inappropriate to include removing warnings in the "Types of vandalism" given the absence of any consensus for that position. --CBD 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism&diff=69247201&oldid=68965288 Removal] of language stating that removing legitimate warnings from talk pages is prohibited and proposed reintroduction of such language

message: Why does it take at least four warnings to ban someone? If the first two don't work, much less three, there usually are no constructive posts, and no reason to ask the person to stop a fourth time. Why not have three warnings, then a 24-hour ban, and then a permanent ban? Axeman89 18:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've seen plenty of cases where vandalism has continued past two warnings but stopped later. Can I prove this is because of the third and fourth warnings? No I can't, any more than you can prove that "if the first two don't work...there is no reason to ask a person to stop a fourth time". The basis of the four warnings is assume good faith. For all the pain of vandal hunting, I'd rather be in an environment where we err on the side of AGF. Many users start out by testing out their ability to edit - we encourage them to do this. After a few warnings they realize that's not productive and settle down to be good solid editors. Gwernol 18:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, it's very important to assume good faith in dealing with new contributors.  Another reason why we typically give four warnings is that we (generally) don't block people punitively; we only block to prevent further problems.  Based on my experiences, it's fairly common for someone to vandalize three or four pages and then give up.  So, if someone's only vandalized three or four pages, it's certainly not clear whether they are going to cause further damage and hence warrant blocking.  For the typical run-of-the-mill vandal, only after vandalizing five or six pages or so is it clear that they are both acting in bad faith and are likely going to continue vandalizing, thus warranting a block at that point.  JYolkowski // talk 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Four Strikes?

message: User:Paul Cyr has just used the following section to "warn" me not to remove material from my own talk page. The material I archived was a "warning" from User:Gnetwerker, posting as an anon IP, who is harassing me because I blocked some of his sockpuppet accounts. The section says: 
:"However, removing legitimate warnings [from one's own talk page] especially with the intention of misleading other editors, can be disruptive and inappropriate behavior even though it is not specifically a form of vandalism.  Removing comments without responding may be considered uncivil or become an issue for arbitration."
I think this section opens up opportunities for trolls to post "warnings," and then try to make trouble when the user removes them, and so I have moved it here, with a view to removing it entirely. Users are given a lot of leeway regarding what they have on their talk pages. Rare exceptions are when admins leave warnings that others admins need to see e.g. during a block, or because of abusive sockpuppetry. But these are the exceptions, not the rule. By and large, users are allowed to control the contents of their talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the sections three above and two above this one where this issue was recently discussed at length. The text you removed was actually a 'watered down' version of this 'do not remove warnings' philosophy. Removing it entirely works for me though. --CBD 00:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User talk pages 

message: The language removed from the policy by SlimVirgin, by its own terms, only prohibits "removing legitimate warnings".  The removal of frivolous, disruptive warnings, is not prohibited by this language.  The relevant edit by User:Paul Cyr appears to be based on an old version of Wikipedia:Vandalism which, at least when read literally, prohibited the removal of all warnings, whether legitimate, or not -- though I don't believe the removal of frivolous warnings was ever really vandalism, even under the old policy.  Since User:Paul Cyr's actions are clearly not supported by the language removed from the policy by SlimVirgin, I fail to see how the removal of this language from the policy will dissuade either User:Paul Cyr or anyone else from engaging in the disruptive practice of issuing frivolous warnings.
Additionally, I note that Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_9#Template:wr.2C_wr2.2C_wr3.2C_wr4 indicates a clear consensus to keep the warning removal templates, and, by implication, the policy language that authorizes their use. John254 05:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, most of the people who oppose this process did not comment on that TfD. I didn't even know those templates existed... while the people who support them obviously do. If you had mentioned that TfD while it was still running (concurrent with our discussions above) I, and likely others, certainly would have opposed. There obviously is not a consensus for the philosophy behind the templates, so no... there is not "a clear consensus" for the templates - just a previous lack of knowledge that they existed. As to 'legitimate warnings'... User:Paul Cyr doubtless felt the warnings were 'legitimate'. It's a 'weasel word' which can be interpreted any way someone wants to. --CBD 11:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinsertion of removing legitimate warnings prohibition

message: There's a grammatical error:
careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism.
THE new data or information? I think the article is unnecessary here. Thanks! 202.156.6.54 08:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I checked the article again and it is actually correct. Sorry for the inconvenience... 202.156.6.54 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Data is plural, datum is singular "Information" is redundant here anyway. The version(s) I'd prefer would be:
careful attention needs to be given to whether new information is correct or if the edit is vandalism.
or
careful attention needs to be given to whether new data are correct or if the edit is vandalism.
TimVickers 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TYPO

message: User:Dwain has for a long time routinely blanked his talk page rather than archiving it. Recently someone noticed this and declared it vandalism... which, of course, wasn't true. While blanking one's user talk page is not the 'preferred' method of cleaning up, it also is not vandalism or in and of itself a blockable offense. Note, there weren't even any 'warnings' on the page, just standard discussion. However, Dwain then also removed the 'warning' about the 'vandalism' of blanking his page... which led to a revert and a new warning about how 'removing warnings is vandalism' (which... also isn't true)... followed by a full scale edit war until Dwain got pissed off at this blatant harassment and became uncivil. This was not a vandal. This was a regular user who has never committed any vandalism, never been blocked, et cetera. Yet someone repeatedly made false accusations of vandalism against him and tried to enforce the display of those insults on his user talk page. That's harassment and abuse. and if people keep using this 'removing warnings' schtick in this way I'm gonna start handing down blocks. --CBD 11:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example... a user who had previously been welcomed removes a  template from their page and gets hit with removing warnings. So now 'welcome' messages are warnings which have to be displayed (for at least a year according to some)... even if you have two of them. Again, this practice has minimal impact on vandals and hugely detrimental impact on contributors. Heck, I'd go so far as to say it probably increases vandalism. --CBD 12:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks CBD for pointing this out. I'm not proud that I got angry over this fiasco, but I couldn't believe things got so crazy at Wikipedia to make that policy as it was being suggested. I hope that yours is the official opinion on this subject. People can check my previous talk messages I'm not trying to hide anything but I don't care to archive every single message on the page either. Thanks for you opinion. Dwain 14:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about official, but there's a lot of discussion up-page about the inappropriateness of a blanket "you may not remove warnings" codicil to the vandalism policy. Consensus seems to be that it's not vandalism, isn't always a bad thing, and can be handled pretty much as in the past, on a case-by-case basis. -- nae'blis 14:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See also Wikipedia:Removing warnings, which appears to have been rejected. -- nae'blis 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It certainly does not have consensus yet, either. -- nae'blis 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, there is absolute consensus that incivility is against policy... but that doesn't mean you can revert it at will or harass people who do it. You keep trying to say that people who felt it was 'against policy' to remove warnings should be counted with those who think that it should be treated as vandalism. That's not the case. More people were against treating removal of warnings as vandalism than were for it. The large group in the middle didn't really say one way or the other. And the proposal wasn't so much rejected as abandoned. Again... if you want this to be policy I'd suggest restarting the proposal or making a new one... because it isn't policy currently. --CBD 14:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it true that though most were against calling it vandalism, most were also against allowing them to be removed?  If the vandalism policy is not the place for this restriction, what policy is the right policy?  I would argue that removing them is NOT vandalism, but it is part of the vandalism policy that vandalism warnings should not be quickly removed. --Blue Tie 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of misuse of 'removing warnings' 

message: Every time this issue has been considered, there has been a consensus to prohibit the removal of legitimate warnings.  Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_9#Template:wr.2C_wr2.2C_wr3.2C_wr4 shows such a consensus, as does Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings, as explained above.  If Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_9#Template:wr.2C_wr2.2C_wr3.2C_wr4 was sufficiently publicized to retain the templates, then it was sufficiently publicized to retain the policy language that authorizes their use.  Unless the closure of the TFD nomination of the warning removal templates is going to be reverted, it seems inconsistent to, on the one hand, retain the warning removal templates, but then to rewrite Wikipedia:Vandalism to prohibit the use of these very templates.  Furthermore, since some comments in the poll contained in Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings are quite recent, it doesn't appear to be the case that "the proposal wasn't so much rejected as abandoned."  Additionally, the current language prohibiting the removal of legitimate warnings specifically states that such removals are considered to be disruption, not vandalism.  While I have opened Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll to provide more information about this issue, the best evidence currently available indicates that there is a consensus to prohibit the removal of legitimate warnings. John254 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the discussion above, it doesn't sound like there's consensus for the discussion of removing warnings on this specific page.  As for the templates, they can be rewritten too.  Furthermore, Wikipedia:Removing warnings still seems to be in development stages, so it doesn't make sense to have something firm on a policy page such as this one.  Finally, the word "legitimate" in the last sentence of your post is very problematic, as explained above.  JYolkowski // talk 19:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your statement that "it doesn't sound like there's consensus for the discussion of removing warnings on this specific page." I am inserting the following clarifying language to avoid the implication that this policy grants express permission for the removal of legitimate warnings: This policy does not discuss the question of whether users are permitted to remove legitimate warnings from their talk pages. John254 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of language prohibiting the removal of legitimate warnings

message: Wikipedia:Vandalism is reported in this Norwegian article in Dagbladet. Apparently "vandals have struck Wikipedia again", and the Wikipedia administration have decided to put a little lock icon on it so vandals cannot edit it. Or something. That's what you get from bored journalists who read The Inquirer on slow newsdays. Haakon 10:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article tries to point out the irony of semiprotecting WP:VANDAL. -- Ec5618 10:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should point out the irony of journalists who try to create news, instead of just reporting it? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You made national press

message: This has been protected since July 2nd. Is this page to be permanently sprotected? If not, then perhaps it is time to unprotect it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with unprotection is that an unprotected vandalism policy would attract large quantities of vandalism, which would flood the page history with vandalism and reversions, thereby seriously reducing the value of the page history for other purposes.  Additionally, high levels of vandalism would lead to numerous edit conflicts, the destruction of many legitimate edits in the course of reverting vandalism, and the display of the policy in vandalized states for significant portions of time.  Furthermore, JYolkowski has offered no explanation whatsoever as to why unregistered users are likely to make legitimate contributions to this policy page.  Indeed, a strong argument could be made that only established users who have achieved a certain level of familiarity with Wikipedia should directly edit policy pages. John254 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this argument against IPs editing policy gets made quite a bit. It gets rejected. I think you can find it under perennial proposals on the village pump. 192.75.48.150 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't under perennial proposals. I'm sure I've heard this before though, but I might be on drugs. 192.75.48.150 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be thinking of User:Kaiwen1/Vote to prohibit anonymous edits? -- nae'blis 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That vote concerned whether all unregistered editing should be prohibited, not whether unregistered users should be permitted to edit the vandalism policy. John254 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I do "see vandalism on this page as a problem" because official policy pages are intended to provide guidance to users on the current consensus as to acceptable standards of conduct, not to serve as decoy pages that we can let vandals attack so "that people aren't messing up the article space... [and to make] it pretty obvious that they're acting in bad faith, so they can be blocked".  Should I create Wikipedia:Vandalism policy permanent semi-protection poll in order to show the consensus for re-semi-protecting this page? John254 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't create policy by polling.  JYolkowski // talk 01:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotected 

message: Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll does show a consensus for the inclusion of the following language in Wikipedia:Vandalism: The removal of legitimate vandalism warnings given within the last month is prohibited.  If users remove legitimate vandalism warnings given within the last month from their talk pages, the warnings may be restored and additional warnings about removing warnings added.  Such restorations are an exception to the three revert rule. Users who repeatedly remove legitimate vandalism warnings given within the last month from their talk pages may be blocked and may have their talk pages protected.
Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll currently contains 25 comments in favor of "Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong", and 19 comments in favor of "Deleting valid, recently given vandalism warnings is wrong", which gives us 44 comments in favor of at least prohibiting the prohibiting the removal of valid, recently given vandalism warnings.  By contrast "Deleting valid vandalism warnings related to ongoing disputes is wrong" currently only has two comments, "Deleting valid vandalism warnings is discouraged but should be tolerated" only has 4 comments, and "Deleting valid vandalism warnings is acceptable after reading said warning" has only 1 comment, which gives us only 7 comments in favor of allowing the removal of valid, recently given vandalism warnings under at least some circumstances.  Thus, at least prohibiting the prohibiting the removal of valid, recently given vandalism warnings has the support of 86.3...% of the established users who have commented at Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll, which results in a consensus for this prohibition.  Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll currently contains 28 comments in favor of "The warning should always be restored and an additional warning about removing warnings added" (in the case of inappropriate warning removal), and only 6 comments in favor of "Issue additional warnings when and if appropriate, but do not try to restore warnings that a user has deleted" with respect to vandalism warnings (there is one comment in this category that only applies to non-vandalism warnings.)  Thus, "The warning should always be restored and an additional warning about removing warnings added" (in the case of inappropriate vandalism warning removal) has the support of 82.4...%  of the established users who have commented at Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll, which results in a consensus for this language.  With respect to the removal of vandalism warnings, Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll currently contains 20 comments in favor of "Repeatedly removing warnings should lead to blocks and/or talk page protection, even in the absence of other ongoing disputes".  By contrast, with respect to vandalism warnings, the other categories on this topic only contain 6 comments.  Thus, "Repeatedly removing warnings should lead to blocks and/or talk page protection, even in the absence of other ongoing disputes" (in the case of vandalism warnings) has the supoort of 76.9...% of the established users who have commented at Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll, which results in a consensus for this language.  There is currently a clear consensus for including the above quoted language in Wikipedia:Vandalism, and the current removal of such language is against consensus. John254 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object to using a straw poll like this. Incidentally, the poll also shows an opinion that the poll itself is either evil or confusing. 192.75.48.150 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You can consider "poll evil" and "poll confusing" to be a global option applied to all setions, if you like. Or did you mean you are just going to discount me completely unless I can quote something at you telling you that this not the way to use a straw poll? 192.75.48.150 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of removing warnings language

message: I have explained in great detail in the above section why the insertion of this warning removal language is supported by the clear consensus found in the poll conducted on Wikipedia_talk:Removing_warnings, the templates for deletion discussion for the warning removal templates, and Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll.  Now, consider the following rewriting of the warning removal language However, the removal from talk pages of legitimate warnings given within a recent time frame is discouraged. Users who remove such messages disruptively may be blocked and have their talk pages protected. The use of the term "discouraged" instead of "prohibited" eviscerates the force and effect of the policy, by implying that we may not appreciate the removal of legitimate warnings, but that such removals don't actually violate the policy.  The use of the term "within a recent time frame" instead of "within the last month" further divests the policy of ascertainable meaning and enforceable effect.  Deleting the sentences "If users remove legitimate vandalism warnings given within the last month from their talk pages, the warnings may be restored and additional warnings about removing warnings added. Such restorations are an exception to the three revert rule." ignores the fact that Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll found a consensus for allowing the restoration of legitimate vandalism warnings.  Finally, the use of "disruptively" in "Users who remove such messages disruptively may be blocked..." renders the sentence meaningless -- disruptive actions are, by definition, already blockable offenses.  In essence, the rewritten warning removal language has been rendered almost completely meaningless, ineffective, and unenforceable.  Modifying the consensus version of the warning removal language so as to render it meaningless and ineffective has the same practical effect as removing the consensus version.  Now, considering that some of this rewriting of the language occurred in edits whose summaries did not refer to consensus at all, but merely advanced a position as to the claimed merits of the policy change , this rewriting of the policy veers perilously close to official policy vandalism, which the current policy still describes as follows: Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism... Please stop. John254 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that multiple people are removing the language and you're the only one restoring it, it certainly doesn't seem like there's a consensus.  JYolkowski // talk 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: John, would that have anything to do with your appeal at CVU for backup, less than an hour earlier? I'm trying to assume good faith here but you're really railroading the issue... -- nae'blis 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the issue of whether your poll demonstrated a consensus, which I don't believe it did, the wording that you added also includes several things that were not mentioned in the poll at all, such as an exemption from the 3RR for editwarring on other users' talk pages.  JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll get all my thoughts together one day (-: but looking at Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings poll, it would seem that most of the people commenting there are against considering removing warnings to be generally wrong.  Discussion is how we create policy, not by polling, so based on that I believe that the consensus is that removing warnings is acceptable.  JYolkowski // talk 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of consensus version of warning removal language 

message: I created this template to serve as an alternative to Template:Imposter. It is more appropriate for use in cases when a username is created that is too similar to one of an existing user, but is not a blatant imposter or attack, as it is not accusatory.--Lorrainier 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I'm understanding your intent, but you might want to start off with "This username was blocked..." instead, if the intention is not to taint the user/editor/person behind the screen for a username they didn't know was going to be a problem. -- nae'blis 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Similar]] 

message: I feel that two more vandal messages should be explicitly stated on the project page. For example, templates test 3a and test 4a do exist, but it is not being stated there. Only template test 2a is being stated. However, I acknowledge that some editors would find this a bit redundent as well. Any comments about this would be appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: Given that there's a dispute as to whether the previous poll represents consensus, I think that we need to discuss this issue some more, since policy is created through discussion, not voting.  Please discuss at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings ... not here, the page is full enough already.  JYolkowski // talk 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings]] 

message: I've stumbled on an IP address ( Special:Contributions/221.146.173.143 ) which tries to remove content from articles and paste some spam HTML. To me that seems to be vandalism but I couldn't find anything special in the vandalism article on how to deal with those characters. The talk page of that IP already lists a warning but that IP was responsible for subsequent edits.
What should be done in this case? Is there any policy which us, wikipedians, could use as a template? --Mecanismo | Talk 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the time edits like these are from open proxies and warnings are futile. See . List it at WP:OP (I have added this one). -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above but use the "warn" templates in sequence (either spam or vandal) and report if they keep on.  It solves the problem short term tho not long term.  If warnings aren't left any following editor can only issue a first warning I guess (tho if I see a recent history I may go to second level or blatant vandal).  Regards --Nigel  (Talk) 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: template:Spam4im might work. John254 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not noticed that one (yes I know I should read it all!) - thanks John - --Nigel  (Talk) 18:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam-induced vandalism? how to deal with it? 

message: This page lists "infamous examples" of vandals such as Willy on Wheels, Pelican shit etc. They should be removed per WP:DENY. If somebody moves pages to nonsense names it should be obvious and we don't need to glorify their names. That just encourages other vandals to become "infamous". Considering that many vandal pages have been deleted, this should be the next step. 195.188.152.12 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "infamous examples" 

message: I have come to the conclusion that only registered users should be able to edit Wikipedia, I'm sure this will help to reduce this irritating problem as most vandals are unregistered users.  Does anyone agree? --Dovea 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, that is absolutely not going to happen. Also, IPs do make substantial contributions to articles, and vandals can and do create accounts, which are more problematic than the easily identified and easily reverted IP vandalism that is mostly "I rule, gay" pranks. —Centrx→talk • 23:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That has been proposed many times, however, like Centrx says, its much easier to deal with vandals that are unregistered. Fresheneesz 00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Most edits made by unregistered users are good edits; some even revert vandalism.  I estimate that only around 20% of anonymous edits are vandalism, and those are easy enough to correct that there's no need to shut out the other 80%. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compulsory registration proposal 

message: I'd like to add Template:policylist to this page. I played with it, and it goes best if it is put in place of the vandalism template, and if that template is moved to right above the first header. Comments? Fresheneesz 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I have a problem with it, but why does it need to go here at all? --Blue Tie 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't go here or on any of the pages you are adding it to, except where there is a specific reason explained for certain few pages. —Centrx→talk • 00:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't it? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users come here to find out what vandalism is and what to do about it. Verifiability and the other policies listed in the Article standards section of that template are useless for that purpose. The civility ones on first thought could be helpful, but on second thought they may actually make it appear that civility violations, or even POV pushing and the others in the content policies, is the same thing as vandalism and warrants dealing in the same way. Regardless, the proper place to inform users about how to distinguish vandalism is how it is currently done: In the text of this page with specific application to its distinction from vandalism. Users looking up policy do not need to be uselessly redirected everywhere else. We could put the dispute resolution template on  here on WP:VAND, on WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and on all the other pages currently in , but it just complicates it for no purpose. If you look at where  is used, it is mostly used in user pages, for them to have a quick navigation to refer to important policies. It is also useful on Wikipedia:Requests for comment for example, where the content and civility policies are highly relevant to the users going there. It is not useful to have here on Wikipedia:Vandalism or on every policy page. —Centrx→talk • 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  The policy list template should, ideally, be a good way of navigating all policy. I had absolutely no idea that there were anywhere near 42 different policies on wikipedia - and i've been editing for a year and a half. Policy and guideline organization have been a problem, as it is difficult for newer users to find the list of all the policies. Fresheneesz 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be interested in the proposal: Wikipedia:Policy council. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Users don't need to find all the policies. They need to edit encyclopedia articles. If they rub against policies, they will be told about them. If they want to find the policies, they are easy to find. If there are too many policies to navigate easily, it means they need to be reduced and merged; creating an indiscriminate, convoluted map for them does not actually help navigation at all. —Centrx→talk • 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[Template:policylist]] 

message: Hi, I think I'm smarter than most people but got left out of this wikipeida meme.
Is it still vandalisim if you're just an idiot when you edit a page and can't spell or format things or figure out what to put in an article.
I think all of this is very confusing. 
:No, mistakes aren't vandalism.  In fact, they're the best way to learn. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if you're a moron. 

message: How do you go about getting a page locked due to persistant vandalism? Sam Hayes 23:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --- Deville (Talk) 18:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting pages locked 

message: Why the hell does WP:DWV Redirect here? And furthermore, what's with the WP:-( ?--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DWV probably stands for "Dealing with vandalism".  No comment on the sadface... -GTBacchus(talk) 00:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. I guess that explains why Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism also redirects here.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 00:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:-( is a sad Wikipedia. Just as WP:-) is a happy one. Personally, I like 'em. Luna Santin 19:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: Someone in Deffective By Design suggested a "wikipedia-bombing" on October 3rd, to change all occurrences from "Digital rights Management" to "Digital RESTRICTIONS Management". Although I am completely against DRM, and think that DbD has some interesting ideas, this one in particular would cause more harm than good. I think the DRM article should be watched to avoid edit wars and vandalism.
here is the link to the Deffective By Design site.
00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia-bombing suggested 

message: What is the reason for having 4 different warning levels? Why is it not sufficient to have  to advise them about experimenting, and then if they continue, in most cases to go to the "if you continue, you will be blocked"? Simply, there is no reason to waste time and effort tolerating bogus edits. Any fool can recognize that their vandalism is disruptive and wrong, a string of warnings like "don't do it again", "don't do it again, again", "don't do it again or we might block you", "watch out we are going to block you soon"... is ridiculous. —Centrx→talk • 19:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then half the time they just come back on a different IP and get that same 4 warnings! —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning levels 

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 22:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is too unnecessarily detailed, just need to use common sense. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I have with this practice is that it is just not realistic. The theory is that it will only get used to stop people from doing deliberate harm to the encyclopedia by making it easy to see that they have done so... fine concept, but that's just not how the world works. In actuality it gets used all the time to harass users just because someone disagrees with them. A user recently cited this practice as grounds to replace warnings related to this reversion. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that edit. No 'vandalism' warning should ever have been issued for it and it certainly shouldn't have been edit warred to enforce display of such a warning. And we can say the practice only applies to "valid" warnings until we are blue in the face, but in reality that clearly isn't going to happen. People are going to convince themselves that warnings they hand out are valid... and sometimes we'll notice and they'll be told to knock it off, but sometimes we won't and perfectly innocent users will get harassed. Yet in either of those cases this practice will sit there churning away as a self-automated conflict generator. This is why 'compromise on the wording' strikes me as not very useful... it will always come down to a subjective evaluation of 'valid' or 'factors', and appeals to 'common sense' assume that all people have such and agree on what it is... which just isn't the case. We need to talk about ways to eliminate or at least minimize the damage done by this. Wording changes which have no impact on that aren't 'compromise' because they do nothing to address the actual concern. I've never seen a strong explanation why past warnings can't be tracked just as easily through the talk page history by standardizing edit-summaries the same way the templates standardized warning text. Or why the practice can't be restricted only to minimally subjective things like clear cases of true vandalism... and draconian penalties for misuse on things which aren't really vandalism. Right now we have people edit warring to enforce display of 'NPOV' warnings, when as often as not they aren't using neutral wording. It's too subjective and far too easy to abuse... and thus it is abused on a regular basis. Compromise means finding some way to maintain the 'easy to see past warnings' benefit while removing the avenue for harassment... and no wording about subjective standards of evaluation is going to accomplish that. --CBD 19:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, while I may not agree with your answer to the problem, I agree with your analysis of the problem.   Incidentally, could you please go review the RfP page and help out with Homosexuality in Ancient Greece.  Thanks--Blue Tie 19:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation there seems to be resolved, but I'll just say that the best course in such circumstances is to yell "Danny!" very loudly and let Wikimedia handle it. --CBD 11:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning removal language: A possible compromise

message: Changes have been made to this policy without concensus and perhaps contrary to the supermajority view.  I wonder, then, what concensus really means here?  I have asked this before and no one has been able to tell me. --Blue Tie 04:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparently Concensus means some people get ignored