Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings poll

message: In constructing this poll, I explicitly chose not to ask whether or not removing warnings is "vandalism".  I would prefer to focus on how the removal of warnings should be treated rather than getting caught up in semantic arguments about what it should be called.  Dragons flight 19:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree.  Although on the Vandalism page people were removing the line because they felt removing is not Vandalism.  However the line wasn't in other places so that by removing it from the Vandalism page it was not longer ageist a Policy.  If it is not Vandalism Then it will need it's own Policy Page.--E-Bod 20:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On "Vandalism"

message: We may also want to poll whether who is removing the warnings should matter. For example, if I remove a warning on my own page, thats plausibly different if an uninvolved admin removes a warning on my page.  JoshuaZ 21:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  While a user may remove warning from their own page to hid a bad past a third party wouldn't have this reasons to remove the warning.  If somebody doesn’t trust third parties to remove warnings because they could be sock puppets or users with bad historis could make deals with other users of bad histories then one could want to vote for only admins to remove warnings.  Other policies state your user page is not yours so for that reason a user should not have the right to remove comment’s from their page to disproportionately make their page praise them.--E-Bod 02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who removes the warnings 

message: :"Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong"
Who defines what is valid? A vandal would simply say the warning was invalid. This is sort-of clarified in a later poll, but I think it should be described unambiguously up-front. –Tifego(t) 05:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I don't think too many vandals vandalize by accident. SB_Johnny | talk 10:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that in a lot of cases whether something is vandalism can be interpreted differently between the warner and the warnee.  Certainly people can make accidental changes that people characterise as vandalism, or bad but non-vandalism edits that people characterise as vandalism.  At any rate, I think the use of the word "valid" is very dangerous.  JYolkowski // talk 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Valid"? 

message: Call me a Devil's Advocate if you will. I know it's not popular among the poll-makers but in the interest of balance there needs to be options for people to vote "it's my talk page and I'll do what I want to it". After all, the purpose of a warning is primarily to warn the person whose talk page it is, so some voters may feel that, once the warning is read and acknowledged, the warning may be deleted at will. Of course this defeats the secondary purpose, warning others that this person is a rulebreaker, but we have to be fair. Kuronue 20:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Additions 

message: What I am thinking is to have tiered policy depending on the type of warning.
* The removal of copyright-related warnings such as ,  or  should be prohibited.  Are there any people more knowledgeable about legal topics who might wish to comment?
* For warnings not related to legal compliance:  i would suggest that, generally, early warnings should be allowed to be removed as soon as they are read by the user.  Later warnings should only be allowed to be removed if the user stops violating the concerned policy.  "Final" warnings should only be able to be removed by administrators; if a "repeat" offender were to remove it himself that would be a violation of policy.
68.50.203.109 04:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would editors wishing to post a warning know that the editor in question had been warned before? If editors can remove early warning as soon as they read them, they may well continue to receive multiple early warnings, and not suffer any consequences for their behavior. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the page history, duh :-) Kim Bruning 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a "tiered" system? 

message: I'm a consensus-o-crat. :-) I don't think that having a poll on this topic would be very useful, see my comments on this at the removing warnings talk page. 
Next to it being kind of a silly topic in the first place, polls themselves are also not entirely helpful. I was away at wikimania so I couldn't contribute to this discussion earlier, sorry about that.
Kim Bruning 07:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... actually this discussion started in April and has been largely dormant for months. There are still some people acting as if this were already policy, but the proposal to make it so hasn't been going anywhere lately. --CBD 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not claim that the outcome of this poll should necessarily "be the decision maker".  The purpose of the poll is merely to generate evidence on whether there is a consensus to prohibit the removal of legitimate warnings.  Obviously, other evidence as to whether such a consensus exists should also be considered.  Since this poll has been in existence in its current configuration for some time, there appears to be some consensus, at least, "that these are the right poll options." John254 17:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this poll is based on a misunderstanding. If an issue is contentious (with almost equal strength at both sides), and then goes dormant for several months (see talk page), you're not solving anything with a vote --Francis Schonken 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't very visible. It should be of interest to all dedicated RC patrollers. Given the recent activity however, I think closing it was possibly a bad idea. ViridaeTalk 22:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The right idea, I hope you mean? :-/ Kim Bruning 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll pre-empted 

message: I do not agree that all warnings should be protected.  I think that ONLY warnings about vandalism should be protected.  I do not think other warnings, including Sockpuppets, should be included.  In particular, the sockpuppet policy lists good reasons for people using sockpuppets and the placing of such warnings without the ability to remove them would violate those good reasons.  --Blue Tie 17:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not all warnings are the same

message: I know the poll is already a bit convoluted but I think it would benefit from making clear up front whether and when archiving warnings is considered "removal," if ever, and I think the issue of archiving warnings should to be dealt with in conjunction with "pure" removal.
If a user quickly archives warnings it has essentially the same effect as if they were removed. But unlike removal, there has to be some time limit, or at least time limit coupled with in between edits after which archiving is allowed. After all, an active user has to be able to archive a talk page eventually. Conversely, a user should not be able to archive warnings as a loophole response to a policy against removal.
I would propose (and choosing a bit arbitrarily but can't see any standard to appeal to for guidance) that archiving of warnings be allowed after one month, coupled with at least 50 edits after the last valid vandalism warning was given. Any thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit 18:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, what does deleting include? I suppose archiving is not deleting. I oppose deleting anything but vandalism but, of course, archiving older messages (months, not days old) should always be possible. In my opinion, user talk pages are for the community about a user. -Samulili 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages, but they may be blocked for doing so.  The block, of course, is subject to review by other admins.  This allows for administrator discretion in dealing with this issue without having to go into any great detail spelling out the rules, which just leaves it open to Wikilawyering anyway.  There's too many variables to try and spell out: what constitutes a warning, what constitutes a valid warning (because sometimes warnings are mistakenly or mischeviously given), which warnings matter more than others (image copyvio matters more than "I think you're being incivil"), whether rapid archiving counts as blanking, etc.  There's way too many factors, so just leave it up to an administrator's discretion; if he thinks the person is blanking the warnings to game the system or somesuch, he can be blocked.  Or have the talk page protected of course.  --Cyde Weys 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. ViridaeTalk 22:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It certainly makes sense, but isn't that the current status quo anyways? --Conti|✉ 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My idea 

message: I think 3RR should be treated the same way as vandalism tags. The purpose of the 3RR warning is to make sure the user knows about the policy - if they know and still violate it they can be blocked for it. Therefore 3RR should be kept to show that they have been warned in the past and therfore any violation of 3RR in the future will be one done with the knowledge of the policy. ViridaeTalk 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, this makes it quite possible to break the three revert rule while enforcing "don't remove warnings". :-P  Kim Bruning 12:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you know why that one falls down :P ViridaeTalk 12:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR

message: I see the use of the word "valid" in this poll as nothing more than potential troll-fodder: people will wikilawyer over it endlessly -- just to cause more disruption. As a result, I don't see any point in voting in this poll -- whether or not voting is evil.
However, having a poll on whether warnings -- valid or invalid -- could be removed after a fixed period of time (say 24 hours) might work: it would at least force the troublemakers to leave the warning on their talk pages for 24 hours, while allowing people who argue successfully that they don't deserve a warning the right to remove the tag in a reasonably short amount of time. 
FWIW, another Admin left a warning on my Talk page a couple of weeks ago -- which I feel I successfully argued I did not deserve. I left it on the page (& will probably archive it) since those who will trust that I'm making constructive edits will read the discussion that followed, & those who doubt I'm a good editor won't listen to whatever explanation I could offer. -- llywrch 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They vandalise, the warning is valid. Simple. They continue to remove warnings that were shown to be given rightfully they are blocked. Any admin doing blocking like that will make sure that the original warning was correct. ViridaeTalk 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be simple if the word "vandalise" wasn't thrown about so freely & often inaccurately in the project. I encountered this misuse in a presentation at Wikimania -- although the presenter demonstrated that she is informed & thoughtful about the project -- & admitted that "vandalism" wasn't the best word for what she wanted to discuss. If informed & responsible Wikipedians disagree over the precise meaning of this word, then how can it be "simple" to know when it is obviously being misused? Either we extend the trust of WP:IAR to all, or we create a rule requiring the warning to remain -- either for a period of time or permanently -- without regard to its validity. -- llywrch 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism: insertion of obviously incorrect material, blanking pages or sections, insertion of utterly irrelevent messages like "LOL im editing wikipedia" or "hi Beth" - obvious bad faith edits. ViridaeTalk 23:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blanking of pages/sections can also be done by accident, c/f the google toolbar bug. If an excellent editor was given a vandalism warning due to a software bug like this, they would rightly feel agrieved if he was penalised by more vandalism warnings by removing it. And I have no doubt that would happen, even if the original warning wasn't valid, all it takes is one over-zealous rc patroller who thinks it is to start an edit war over it (and I have seen some do exactly that) Regards, MartinRe 00:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *The guideline should recommend discussion of the warning with the giver before removing it - if they agree it was "invalidly" given, I am sure they will have no problem removing it.  Even a third party removing it after discussion would be a sign of good faith if the receiver choses not to discuss with the giver of the warning.  Validity is definitely a fraught question and most examples are not black and white.--Arktos talk 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Personally I think there are enough disputes on wikipedia without creating possibilities for more. Edit warring and going through the dispute resolution process over an edit on a user's talk page seem pointless to me, but I have seen both happen since WP:VAND was updated to say "removing warnings is also vandalism". That's why I believe that it would be a lot better to have "Removing warnings is discouraged, but is not vandalism. However, responses to further misbehaviour may take the warning removal into account. If you feel a warning was unjustified, it is recommended to ask the giver to remove it, or you may wish to add a response/explaination/clarification after the warning on the user page." Regards, MartinRe 00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is being addressed in the poll - discuss it with the person who gave it to you. If you think it was given in error I am sure they will be happy to remove it. If they aren't - take it to WP:ANI. ViridaeTalk 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Valid" warnings? 

message: Even though I agree with "Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong" I think its too easy to get around it. Who actually goes around looking at what every single user changed on his talk page. Is there any way to change the code so that other users can flag a user with a specific visible warning which can not be changed? (also users can upgrade the warning obviously) And do you think it be a good idea to do this?  - Tutmosis 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "removing valid vandalism warnings" idea 

message: :(This is a combination of my previous comments when the subject was previously discussed)
If removing warnings is regarded as vandalism or against policy, then good editors who receive an unjustified warning (either by accident or in bad faith) are put in an impossible position, leave the warning on their page, taging them as a vandal, or remove the warning, tagging them as a vandal/policy breaker in another way. I don't think vandals removing warnings is a major issue, if I spot someone vandalising an article, the first thing I do is check their contributions to see what other articles they might have attacked, so any edits to their own talk page would become apparent, so their removal of warnings becomes irrelevent. That said, I think it should be discouraged to simply remove warnings, as even good editors should check with the warning giver as to the reasoning. The other editor may agree and retract the warning, or may not (either because of disagreement/unavailablity or bad faith). In those cases, I would not object to the person adding a explaination comment to the warning, leaving for a short while, and then deleting the warning and comment in the same edit. Thus, there are a wide amount of reasons for removing warnings, some of which may be reasonable, some not, that I don't think it would be a good idea to label all removal or warnings as "vandalism" or "against policy", but simply state that it is discouraged. 
Also, classing "removing warnings" as vandalism, and a blockable offence, we could end up in the situation where a user gets blocked for removing a warning about removing a warning about a minor mistake/misunderstanding. The user on the receiving end may have realised their initial mistake, and want to contribute, but forcing them to wear a "dunce's cap" of vandalism warnings is not likely to improve matters and is making it less likely for them to do so.
However, I do think that removal of valid warnings (especially without explaination) may be taken into account for subsequent warnings and/or blocking actions for continuining vandalism. Thus, if a vandal gets a  warning, removes it, no action should be taken at that point, but if they vandalise again, a  would be acceptable.
The main problem I have with treating removing warnings is vandalism is that it, like many other rules, gets overly enforced by many well meaning, but over-zealous RC patrolers. I've seen too many edit wars over user pages based on removing and re-inserting warnings, creating a revert war over what started as one mistake. Applying a policy of "removing any warnings is vandalism" has the common outcome of increasing tension, not reducing it. If we are to assume good faith, we should be welcoming at the same time as correcting any initial mistakes, not confrontational. 
In short, though, treating warning removal as an offence mainly disourages well meaning editors who have made mistakes. Vandals/disruptive editors are likely to be blocked for their non-talkpage behaviour regardless of whether they remove warnings or not, and are proable lost causes as far as being productive editors, wheras those that are affected by this are those that have behaved well enough elsewhere, and are more likely to become productive editors if their nose isn't rubbed into their mistakes. Regards, MartinRe 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I largely agree (using weasel words here because it is a lot to digest all at once). Basically, I would say that the act of removing a warning by itself should never be the basis for action. The context of the removal should always be reviewed and considered. If the removal of a warning is part of a pattern of disruptive behavior, then the reaction should be proportionate to the seriousness of the disruption. It's hard (probably impossible) to write rules to cover such situations, so I think we need to trust other Wikipedians and the admins, as a group, to take appropriate actions. I think it is appropriate, if an editor has removed a warning without explanation or discussion, to discuss it with them, and to explain why such a removal is viewed by many Wikipedians as a problem. Speak softly, and keep that big stick behind your back until you really need to use it. :-) -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't all IP talk pages used to get auto-cleaned entirely? I seem to remember that they did. However I may be on drugs. 192.75.48.150 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Antique IP talk pages are speedy deletion candidates.  Whenever I run into one with only old warnings when I'm about to warn someone, I delete it before adding a new warning.  I understand that not everyone who does RC patrol has admin powers, but I don't see the problem with anyone blanking the page before adding new warnings (or even without adding new warnings).  JYolkowski // talk 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, exactly. I thought so too. But I couldn't see it on WP:CSD, even though I would have sworn it was there. Hence drugs. 192.75.48.150 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc thoughts

message: In discussing placing use of warnings on IP talk pages recently, I and another vandal fighter touched on a problem that has been irking me for some time - the state of some IP pages.  Given the IP can be used by more than one person and they may not have read the talk page, I feel at least one bright orange "You have new messages" banner while they are "testing", thus drawing attention to their talk page is a good idea. As a result, I think recent vandalising / testing behaviour should always be subject to a warning, even if there are plenty of other warnings on the page.
However, the talk pages of some IPs are a problem. I don't want to spend my time cleaning them up or archiving them, but messages down the bottom might not be seen by a newbie and the whole effect is lost amongst warnings dated many months ago. 
Maybe a bot could clean them for us, removing any warnings that are say more than 1 month old, making sure there are sensigbel headings to navifate warnings, and placing a header as to how to review old warnings (I'd prefer suggesting go to history than setting up an archive specially) and maybe indicating what warnings have gone before.  I imagine a different header for IPs that have been blocked before, to those who have merely received a mild  warning once or twice, and there probably needs to be a header in between.
Examples: 
#User talk:209.112.191.162 - old warnings dating from March are surely no longer relevant, header is already in place.  There should be the header and the August 2006 section - no more.
#User talk:202.6.138.34/Archive - I did create an archive here, but is there any point?  The talk page for the IP is too long again.  Any message directed at the IP will be lost.  Note the IP is used by many individuals and so messages dating from a while ago are irrelevant.
#User talk:220.233.169.181 and User talk:203.222.139.106 - here are two random IP pages.  If you added a warning for either of these IPs, how would you make sure it was visible - what do you do about the old warnings?  On one occasion I cleaned up such a talk page:    Was this OK?  I note the present page though (User talk:203.33.181.52) is not too bad but warnings from June and July are probably not useful.
My recommendation - we commission a bot to clean up IP pages, remove old warnings of > one month old, place an appropriate header depending on the number and level of warnings and existence of a previous header (ie existing header would be replaced each time, not accumulate).  We do not archive, but in the header refer interested readers to the history.  I think my proposal is within the existing guidelines at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages - readability is improved and meaning is preserved through the use of the header. User:Werdnabot could be used but I think my proposal is more than archiving and so a bot would need to operate differently for IP talk pages with warnings.--Arktos talk 23:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't all IP talk pages used to get auto-cleaned entirely? I seem to remember that they did. However I may be on drugs. 192.75.48.150 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Antique IP talk pages are speedy deletion candidates.  Whenever I run into one with only old warnings when I'm about to warn someone, I delete it before adding a new warning.  I understand that not everyone who does RC patrol has admin powers, but I don't see the problem with anyone blanking the page before adding new warnings (or even without adding new warnings).  JYolkowski // talk 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, exactly. I thought so too. But I couldn't see it on WP:CSD, even though I would have sworn it was there. Hence drugs. 192.75.48.150 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up of IP talk pages 

message: :Moved from main page as discussion should go here...MartinRe 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sheer amount of vandalism that hits wikipedia every day. We do not want it there longer than is necessary. ViridaeTalk 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing vandalism is just a revert, and it seems to be well under control. The user talk page history only matters in deciding about warning templates and blocks, which, of course, is of a much lower priority than removing the vandalism. 192.75.48.150 14:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning a vandal about vandalism and blocking persitent vandals are as important as removing it in the first place. Warnings and blocks are designed to reduce the overall vandalism. ViridaeTalk 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. Maybe. But, it's not as important do to it fast, if only because there is much less of it to do. I think a lot of vandalism is reverted without issuing a warning, and most individual warnings do not result in blocks. And in fact an administrator will check user history before blocking. I also am sure that the number of vandals who actually bother to remove their own warnings is even lower still, and I actually suspect it is very low. 192.75.48.150 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Followup: This is the most recent example of someone removing a recently placed, valid warning for vandalism. I had to go back quite a ways: two hours. (In which time I also found one example of old warning removal, and one example of old warning archival). I am guessing 10-20 times a day, then? That's not exactly a deluge. 192.75.48.150 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely sure how you found that, but that is not the point. It staands at this: having to check back through page histories to find wether they have been warned for another offence is a waste of everyones time when you could make it policy that a vandal may not remove them or at least may not remove recent ones. ViridaeTalk 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making this policy would make no difference, if someone is vandalising against policy, they'll remove warnings even if it's against policy so the page history/contributions should be checked in any case, so the same amount of time is wasted. The only people that would care about removing warnings if it were against policy are those that care about policy to begin with, and we should not be creating another stick to beat away those sort of people. Making this policy would not deter dedicated vandals, but would discourage those in the middle ground from being productive, which is a lose-lose situation for the encyclopedia. Regards, MartinRe 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *It isn't only anon editors who remove warnings, it can be established editors too, who will invoke policy on other occasions to favour their position.  It is for those editors that the policy might be useful, or rather for other editors who are trying to deal with them.--Arktos talk 00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they will, which will give you grounds to report them (after they have been appropriately warned that removal of warnings is against polcy). However I have warned people about removal of warnings in the past - some stop doing it, other continue and get blocked. ViridaeTalk 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Geee I guess the solution to the dreaful and terrible problem of giving a "test1" when target deserves a "test3" (god forbids we fall into that mistake) is to block without warning We cannot even think and consider the (oh it scares me) chance of someone given a low warning when they don't deserve it. --  Drini 21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tha majority of vandalism is removed by RC patrollers and all of them will give warnings. The next RC patroller to come across a vandal who has recently vandalised will expect to see an appropriate warning. If there isn't one there we assume good faith, assuming that there has been no vandalisation from that IP and for the most parts we will be right - it is a waste of time to look back through the talk page history in 95% of cases. However in a few cases the person will continually remove any warnings that they are given and be repeatedly issued a  for their vandalism spree. If you are able to reinstate the original warnings and warn them not to remove them again they may well comply - it happens probobly half the time. Those that keep blanking the page in addition to vandalising will just get blocked for one or the other - no great loss. ViridaeTalk 23:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't do RC patrolling, and I revert a fair amount of vandalism/tests/questionable edits, often hours, days or even weeks after it was committed. I find the old vandalism by backtracking contributions whenever I revert a questionable edit. I often find that an editor has vandalized four or five articles in a short period, and that a couple of the vandalism edits have been reverted by other editors, who apparantly have not checked the contributions list, leaving some for me to take care of. I dutifully stick  templates on IP talk pages, adding them to my watch list. At least 95% of those never have any more activity. Quite frankly, I have recently been thinking that RC patrolling must have died off quite a bit, as I do not see RC patrollers catching most of the vandalism that occurs on articles already on my watch list. Criminalizing removal of warnings from a talk page is not going to make Wikipedia safer from vandalism, but it is going to lower the level of discourse and waste a lot of time that could be better used in adding to and maintaining Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Whenever I do RC patrol, one of the things I continually check is the contributions of the users whom I rollback (as suggested at WP:VAND.  Unless this is a rare thing to do, I don't think that anyone removing warnings would get all that far before people caught on.  Furthermore, I don't see this scenario as a big problem—anyone who goes on enough of a vandalism spree is probably going to be watched closely enough that anything they do is going to be reverted pretty quickly.  JYolkowski // talk 02:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time-sensitivity

message: Based on the attempt to use the results of this poll to add text to Wikipedia:Vandalism, and the disagreement over this, it appears that this issue needs discussion, not polling.  So, I've opened Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.  Please feel free to comment there.  JYolkowski // talk 21:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings]]