Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings poll

On "Vandalism"

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)

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)

Simplify?

Is it possible to simplify this by removing the distinction between vandalism and other warnings? Why do we care about the difference? William M. Connolley 20:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree it makes things more complicated, but some people seem to believe that you have to preserve vandalism warnings at all cost, but perserving other kinds of warnings may be less important. Dragons flight 20:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there should be a distinction but it seems plausible enough that we should have a distinction on the poll. JoshuaZ 21:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yah I agree we should vote as if their could be a distinction. anyway it is way better than my attempt at Wikipedia_talk:Removing_warnings. If somebody could clean up my mess that would be great. Their was also something I was going to suggest we vote on but I forgot already.--E-Bod 21:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a distinction between templated warnings, and written comments that include a warning? As the latter are often better explained, it gives any reader a clearer understanding than a generalised template, so removing them would be harder to justify under the "I didn't see what I did to deserve that" Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it inconceivable that a poll with so many choices could result in a consensus decision. Even a towering plurality of one choice is unlikely to approach a supermajority of the whole. Worse yet, all the interrelated questions being listed separately means that we could end up with an irrational whole (for instance, removing vandalism warnings being allowed, but not non-vandalism warnings, unless they're valid, in which case you may remove them, right away but not as part of archival, or some such).

If the hope is to actually "settle the issue once and for all" rather than simply create Sturm und Drang, may I suggest a winnowing-down approach? Start with "can the removal of any warnings from one's own talk page ever be considered actionably wrong, whether or not it is discouraged?" If the answer is no, then we're done, and status quo remains. Also ask if vandalism warnings should be treated differently from other warnings. Once these two questions are answered, then ask (separately for vandalism and other warnings, if the prior answer was yes) about the circumstances in which removal is not allowed. --TreyHarris 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing is to make sure we include the stuff form Wikipedia_talk:Removing_warnings#Proposed_options

Another thing is I Like having the choices is because it looks more like a spectrum of people. (Not a list of unrelated Options) With ABCD these choices aren't competing with each other I would find consensus by seeing if A wins if not ad A&B and go with B. If still not ad A&B&C and go with C if still not then add ABC&D to get D. Or if you do it in reverse it should give the same result. But remember we aren’t actually voting to take a tally so we don’t need a voting system. We just need to get the fell of what we as a community want. We are voting to get an idea of the wishes of the community. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I think It doesn’t matter if the polls are set up right because we aren't actually voting for a tally we are voting to get a sense of what we want. Their is only a vote because So many people are involved that it would take forever to. I didn’t actually set up Wikipedia_talk:Removing_warnings to vote but rather to sign under the statement that you most agree with and provide evidence to support it. Voting is like everyone knows what they wand and we just need to find out what to go with. Consensus is explain your points until we can get a policy that many people won't object to. (that’s why you can say Support under multiple places or Ok with or really don't like. yeah you could tactically vote but we are assuming good faith hear. Somebody could vote for removing vandalism warnings is OK and removing non vandalism warnings is bad but why would somebody vote just to mess us up. If they did that we would all discredit the vote.)

The reason we are having this pole in the first place so that people don’t remove waning and when you tell them to stop they point to the policy and say we cant agree whether to call it vandalism or not so it’s not really a rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yskyflyer (talk • contribs) .E-Bod--E-Bod 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia not being a democracy was precisely my point. If we had a very few options, it would become clear what the consensus was without tallying. With so many, it is unlikely that the sort of supermajority that makes consensus obvious to all comers will arise. So instead, someone (you?) will have to do the equivalent of "closing the debate", making a judgment call on the consensus—and then we fall into a dispute on whether the debate was properly closed.

I've seen and participated in a lot of polls in the past few years, and the more options and the finer-grained the distinctions between them, the longer the debate takes, the more likely it is to fall into intractable disputes, and the less likely it is to arrive at a clear consensus. --TreyHarris 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point makes sence It's just more fun to espress yourslef with more options and not become fustrated by the lack of choices(sorry about forgeting to sign)--E-Bod 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think the process of elimination might work? In that list of 11 proposed options I purposely included many options that I thought were absolutely terrible just because they are technically possibilities. It seems like it should be easy to reach a consensus about which things aren't even worth considering, as preparation for laying out the actual options. –Tifego^(t) _{05:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)}

Or how about a sequence of votes, something like this:

First poll:

1. Deleting warnings given by someone else should be allowed in some circumstances.
2. Deleting warnings given by someone else should be allowed in ALL circumstances unless blocked or arbcom-restricted.
3. Only the warning-giver [or someone with higher priveleges] should be allowed to remove warnings.

• If #1: Go directly to next poll, do not pass go.
• If #2 or #3: Make policy already.

Next poll, to determine the meaning of "some circumstances":

(The following polls are done separately, and because they are not mutually exclusive, their effects can simply be added together.)

1. -->
   1. User can delete warnings after 2 weeks after they were given, regardless of validity, unless warned user is blocked.
   2. The passage of time should not be sufficient reason for warning deletion -OR- 2 weeks is not a long enough time.
2. -->
   1. An edit summary or replacement comment is sufficient for deleting a warning.
   2. An edit summary or replacement comment is necessary but not sufficient for deleting a warning.
   3. An edit summary or replacement comment is neither necessary nor sufficient for deleting a warning.
3. -->
   1. etc. (to be finished later if this is making sense so far)

–Tifego^(t) _{08:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)}

Who removes the warnings

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)

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)

"Valid"?

"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)}

Really? I don't think too many vandals vandalize by accident. SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

My Additions

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)

How about a "tiered" system?

What I am thinking is to have tiered policy depending on the type of warning.

• The removal of copyright-related warnings such as {{nothanks}}, {{nothanks-drm}} or {{nothanks-sd}} 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)

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)

Check the page history, duh :-) Kim Bruning 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll pre-empted

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)

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)

For a bit of history, I created this some months ago, and before it got off the ground I had to go traveling for work for a month. Nothing really happened while I was away and when I got back I decided I had too many other things to worry about than working on what had become a dormant proposal. Dragons flight 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It had fallen dormant, and John254's reversion of Kim Bruning's closure strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps the {{historical}} tag would be a better fit, although I suppose John254 would dispute that, as well. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So where's the consensus that these are the right poll options? Have the concrns above been addressed? John, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I fear you're setting yourself up for failure by calling for this poll in this format to be the decision maker.. -- nae'blis 16:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Viridae^Talk 22:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The right idea, I hope you mean? :-/ Kim Bruning 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all warnings are the same

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)

Archiving

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)

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)

My idea

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)

That makes sense. Viridae^Talk 22:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

3RR

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. Viridae^Talk 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think you know why that one falls down :P Viridae^Talk 12:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Valid" warnings?

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)

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. Viridae^Talk 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. Viridae^Talk 23:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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. Viridae^Talk 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"removing valid vandalism warnings" idea

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)

Misc thoughts

(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 {{test}} warning, removes it, no action should be taken at that point, but if they vandalise again, a {{test3}} 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)

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)

Clean-up of IP talk pages

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 {{test}} warning once or twice, and there probably needs to be a header in between.

Examples:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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: [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Here we go again

People aren't even reading what came before?

Once again. For years now, we've just looked at the talk page history. Hello? Is that too complicated? Why would you stop using talk page history?

Kim Bruning 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think there are faster better ways. Viridae^Talk 12:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could propose them, that would be great :-) Kim Bruning 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

After reverting vandalism, one of the first things that any good RC patroller will do is to check the vandal's other contributions, to see whether there's any other vandalism that needs to be reverted there. If they've been removing warnings from their talk page, it should be pretty obvious from there. Alternately, checking talk page history only takes a few seconds. These few seconds are not going to cause Wikipedia to collapse.

I really don't see what benefits a policy on removing warnings has other than to create problems where none exist. Sure, occasionally people will remove warnings from their talk page and, because no-one notices, they get warned with a {{test}} instead of a {{test3}}. This is okay, it's not a problem. RC patrolling is not about getting people blocked as soon as possible; it's also about being a friendly representative of the community for newbies who may not really understand that vandalism is wrong, and if they vandalize for one or two more edits than they might have otherwise, then that's a small price to pay compared with people perceiving our community as unfriendly. JYolkowski // talk 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

True, making this policy will not speed up RC patrol. If an RC patroller sees a vandal edit, and goes to the talkpage, and sees it's blank; they have two options, not look at the history, and give a level one warning, or look at the history and give a higher level warning depending if there were any previous warnings removed. This will remain the case whether removing warnings is against policy or not. The only time it will speed things up is if you are dealing with a person who ignores policy when it comes to vandalism, but obeys policy when it comes to not removing warnings, and I think that subset is vanishingly small. I know when I'm on Rc patrol and see vandalism, the first thing I do is check the persons contribution history to see what other articles they have edited in case other bad edits were missed. I would imagine any good RC patroller does the same. RC patrol is not a game, where the object is to spot vandalism, and warn with a strike 1/strike 2/they're blocked. The sole object of rc patrol is to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism, warnings and blockings are a means to that, but are not required. if a simple revert is enough, then great. If someone stops after getting a test1 warning (or warnings) then good. However, by saying that removing warnings is vandalism, you have then created a new offence, and thereby increased the level of "vandalism", which reduces the amount of time that can be spent on vandalism that really matters (i.e. main space) by creating an edit war over a vandal's user talk page. Regards, MartinRe 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Time-sensitivity

Moved from main page as discussion should go here...MartinRe 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the hurry? -Dan 192.75.48.150 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The sheer amount of vandalism that hits wikipedia every day. We do not want it there longer than is necessary. Viridae^Talk 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. Viridae^Talk 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Viridae^Talk 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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. Viridae^Talk 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to look through a talk page history before issuing a warning or blocking, that's fine, don't. Warning removal will also show up in the contribution log. If you don't want to look at the contribution log either before issuing a warning, that's fine, don't. Just look at the talk page to decide what warning to give. (Of course you must look at the contribution log before blocking!)

You seem to be worried that if that talk page is not fully intact, you might miss a previously given warning, and thereby issue a {{test1}} when the target really deserves a {{test3}}. Yes, you're right. You might. But someone eventually will notice. There may be extra vandalism in the meantime, but removal of recent vandalism warnings seems to be rare enough that this will hardly make any difference.

Remember, there is a much, much more common case. Many people will revert vandalism without issuing a warning at all! If you didn't look at the contribution log, you might miss previous recent vandalism anyway, and just issue a {{test1}} when maybe something higher was warranted. So non-uniformity in dealing with vandals is unavoidable. An extra case of non-uniformity here and there because of warning removal is a non-issue. You can try to make it policy that anyone reverting vandalism MUST issue a warning, but I seriously doubt that will fly. 192.75.48.150 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 {{test1}} 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. Viridae^Talk 23:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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 {{subst:test}} 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)

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)

Contradictory guidelines/policies

Thus far 28 people support the idea of forcibly re-adding removed warnings to user talk pages. IMO this is a direct contradiction of Wikipedia policies on edit warring and harassment - and the primary problem I have with this proposal. In the past ArbCom has banned users for repeatedly re-inserting messages that someone didn't want on their page... because it is an obvious form of harassment. Further, warnings are entirely too subjective - I saw one case where a user put a {{welcomenpov}} template on a talk page which already HAD a welcome template... and then when the user removed it that was reverted and a 'do not remove warnings' template added. What possible harm could the removal of that template have done? NPOV is often in the eyes of the beholder... likewise content disputes frequently get mislabeled as 'vandalism' and I've seen people edit war over such false 'vandalism' tags several times too. I think it is a horrible idea to sanction edit warring and repeated harassment of users to force them to display a 'Wikipedia scarlet letter' on their talk page because one person thinks they violated NPOV, or vandalism, or any other policy. We can say that such tags can be removed if they are 'not valid', but the line between 'improper removal of warnings which can get you blocked for 'hiding' things' and 'improper re-insertion of warnings which can get you blocked for harassment and edit warring' is then just a matter of personal interpretation of whether the warning was 'proper' or not. That's WAY too much room for inconsistency and abuse IMO. Harassing users by repeatedly inserting a message they clearly find insulting is just dead wrong. It serves no good purpose (and no, the extra second saved by not having to click 'History' is not a good purpose) and does tremendous harm in aggravating users needlessly... whether they be vandals or valued contributors. --CBD 11:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I do not know how to take only one second to review a history. It can take much much longer. I think that this is a very important matter. So do most other editors. I agree that edit warring is a bad idea, but avoiding conflicts at all costs allows bullies to win more often than not -- and that is the essence of the problem with your proposal. Both proposals have problems but clearly editors believe that the problems you have mentioned are LESS than the problems of vandals and disruptive users. (Many feel that there is a crying need for greater discipline on wikipedia) So its a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. However, the policy might be improved by some compromises such as:

1. Expedited review by admins if the warning is disputed.

2. Provision that edit warring by an editor who wrongly places warnings could result in warnings and actions against him or her.

3. Revision of the software to have a third page - a warning page.

4. Warnings may only be placed by certain users OR certain users may not be permitted to put warnings out.

Bottom line: Wikipedia is self creating, self organizing and SELF POLICING. We can set up the rules in such a way that they can take care of the problems of vandalism and still avoid the evils of one annoying or vengeful user taking actions against another, or two users being in a fight. I consider your concerns very valid and I believe that there needs to be some leeway, but I do not agree with you that there needs to be free license.--Blue Tie 13:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If it takes time to do something right, then take that time. Edits wars are destructive, and edit warring over someone's talk page in order to force them to wear a dunces cap of a vandalism waring is creating a conflict where none existed. If you spot someone removing a warning, simply check if they have continued to vandalise. If they have stopped, then the warning worked, so the problem was solved - so why restart and escalate a conflict by commencing an edit war? If they have continued to vandalise, then warn them again - based on the vandalism they have done. We should remember that the primary object of issuing a warning is to stop vandalism. It is preventitive, not punitive, and if a person reads and removes a warning and gets the message by stopping, then that should be it. Regards, MartinRe 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think many people have said there is "free license". Most Wikipedians rc patrollers responses to the poll, if we're going by numbers, think it's a bad idea to remove vandalism warnings; where they disagree is what level of strenuousness to apply to the enforcement of that goal. Other policies, like Don't be a dick, come to mind as contradicting this proposal, and have a lot more established history. Deal with the behavior, don't get caught up in the minutiae of due process. -- nae'blis 20:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scenario

Current consensus among admins is to warn and then block the person placing the vandalism warnings. I state this based on actual admin actions ;-) I'm not sure how this poll addresses this state of affairs. You might want to look into it. Here's my current scenario on how this guideline interacts with other guidelines, if you choose to apply it right now (which in fact you may do, as per WP:BOLD) :

* Vandal vandalises

* Patroller reverts, places warning on vandal user page

* vandal reverts warning

* Patroller reverts vandal

* vandal reverts patroller

* Up to 3RR. Note that the vandals' reverts don't count because they're on their own user page.

* Patroller gets blocked by admin for 3RR violation.

* Patroller goes on AN/I complaining that admin broke Removing warnings guideline and is misbehaving

* Depending on the admins'current approval rating, things either move along to RFC or die down at this stage.

* If there is an RFC, the Patroller and the admin have it on, many feelings are hurt, and in the end both are adamant, and things go to arbitration.

* Arbitration will rule based on what is best for the wiki. When guidelines contradict, the more basic guideline will win out. (in this case -> "no edit warring".)

* Patroller gets sanctioned, admin gets told to be more polite in future.

The old method was to look in page history, warn the vandal 4 times, and then find an admin to block them. This has been known to work quite well up till now.

Which method is the most efficient? Please discuss.

Kim Bruning 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The three revert rule contains many exceptions, of which the reversion of vandalism is the most prominent. Thus, the restoration of legitimate vandalism warnings is exempted from the three revert rule by the plain language of the policy. Furthermore, even given a very narrow reading of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, this principle indicates that policies, such as the three revert rule, should not be applied in a manner that is actively disruptive to the proper functioning of Wikipedia. I highly doubt that a significant number of administrators would choose to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by repeatedly blocking RC patrollers instead of blocking the vandals, thereby crippling Wikipedia's defenses against vandalism, and allowing vandals to continue their destructive edits unimpeded. John254 17:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR rule is there because edit wars are disruptive. If a rc patroller repeatedly edit wars over a user talk page, then they proably deserve to get blocked, because there is no need for it. If the person who has been warned removes the message, and stops vandalising, then the warning worked, and the matter should be laid to rest. Starting an edit war to force the vandal wear a badge of shame is unhelpful and disruptive. However, if the vandal continues after removing the warning, then you are perfectly entitled to warn them again - but for the mainspace ("real") vandalism, but classing warning removal as vandalism just gives over zealous people another stick to beat people who may have acknowledged their error but don't want it staring them in the face all the time. By harrassing those that correct their behaviour after the first warning, you are driving potentially good editors away. Assume good faith should mean that we correct people's mistake, but not in a confrontational way. If a new editor makes a mistake/vandalises and is corrected, they may improve, but if the response they get is to be told that "your mistake will be held against you for all time as you can't remove that warning", they are very likely to acquire a negative view of wikipedia. Rc patrollers do see a lot of vandals, but they also see potentially useful editors who may vandalise because they don't know better at the beginning, and it is just as important to encourage the good ones as it is to discourage the bad ones. Regards, MartinRe 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think vandalism is currently the most over-used, and improperly-used, term in Wikipedia. (I just left a note on a user's page today for calling a BE to AE spelling change spelling vandalism.) I would advise everyone to slow down, check the circumstances, and think about what is the best response to each problem that you see. Most 'vandalism' to articles are 'one-offs', or maybe up to a half-dozen articles in a short time, over with before anyone can slap a warning on the user's talk page. Persistant vandals can be reported to admins for appropriate action. Edit warring with any user over warning templates solves nothing and pollutes the atmosphere in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In your analysis, I see that you have considered that in certain situations, the three revert rule and ignore all rules could be disruptive. That's a good start!

Similarly, under what conditions could the removing warnings guideline be considered disruptive? Under which conditions would it not be disruptive? Kim Bruning 00:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings

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)