Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For more recent discussion on this issue, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

Users are often issued warning messages when someone feels they are engaging in conduct which is outside the bounds of policy or good behavior. Such messages can take the form of both warning templates (such as {{test3}}, {{civil1}}, {{npa}}) as well as personalized complaints. User page sockpuppet notices can also qualify as warnings, for the purposes of this poll.

In January, a user added

Removing warnings: Removing vandalism warnings from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

to WP:VAND. This statement and ones like it have subsequently been added, removed, and modified many times in the last several months to both WP:VAND and WP:TALK. This topic has also served as a persistent topic of discussion in several places([1][2][3][4][5][6][7])

This poll aims to provide a definitive resolution to the issue of how warning messages should be treated by surveying community feeling as broadly as possible.

Contents 1 Vandalism warnings 1.1 Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong 1.2 Deleting valid, recently given vandalism warnings is wrong 1.3 Deleting valid vandalism warnings related to ongoing disputes is wrong 1.4 Deleting valid vandalism warnings is discouraged but should be tolerated 1.5 Deleting valid vandalism warnings is acceptable if (and only if) the user stops vandalising 1.6 Deleting valid vandalism warnings is acceptable after reading said warning 2 Non-vandalism warnings 2.1 Deleting other valid warnings is always wrong 2.2 Deleting valid, recently given warnings for other behavior is wrong 2.3 Deleting other valid warnings related to ongoing disputes is wrong 2.4 Deleting other valid warnings is discouraged but should be tolerated 2.5 Deleting warnings is acceptable if the user stops behaving in the manner that led to the warning being given 2.6 Deleting warnings is always acceptable 3 Immediate response to the inappropriate deletion of warnings 3.1 The warning should always be restored and an additional warning about removing warnings added 3.2 Restore the warning only if the user is engaged in other disruptive behavior 3.3 Restore the warning only if the user is continuing the same behavior that got them warned initially 3.4 A warning about removing warnings should be given but the original need not be restored 3.5 Issue additional warnings when and if appropriate, but do not try to restore warnings that a user has deleted 4 Response to repeatedly removing warnings 4.1 Repeatedly removing warnings should lead to blocks and/or talk page protection, even in the absence of other ongoing disputes 4.2 Repeatedly removing warnings is a negative factor that may affect the issuing of other blocks, but is not in itself justification for blocking 4.3 Repeatedly removing warnings should be addressed through the dispute resolution process 4.4 Repeatedly removing warnings should be ignored 5 Inappropriate warnings 5.1 The recipient may always remove it themselves 5.2 The recipient may remove it themselves provided they explain why in the edit summary or other discussion 5.3 The recipient should ask a third party to remove it 5.4 The recipient should ask the warning giver to remove it 5.5 The recipient should ask an admin to remove it, unless the warning is blatantly frivolous, in which case the recipient may remove it on sight 5.6 The recipient should ask an admin to remove it 5.7 Disputed warnings should not be removed 6 Use of templates 6.1 Warning templates should not be used on established editors 6.2 Appropriate use of warning templates is prefered over personalized messages 6.3 As long as the warning is unambiguous and civil, who cares? 7 We should not rely on user warnings as a reference 8 Talk, don't remove 9 m:Polls are evil or Wikipedia:Voting is not evil? 9.1 Polls are still evil and a bad way to determine consensus 9.2 Polls have magically become a good idea 9.3 Polls are a useful means by which to determine consensus 9.4 Has anyone seen my chad? It was hanging around here somewhere 9.5 What on earth is a chad? 10 Discussion

[edit] Vandalism warnings

This section deals with users removing vandalism warnings placed on their talk page. It is assumed below that creating a proper archive is not a form of deletion.

Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.

[edit] Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong

1. Users participating in RC patrol often rely on the existence of prior vandalism warnings on the current version of the vandal's talk page to indicate whether and how the vandal should be warned again, or whether the vandal should be listed on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Allowing vandals to hide the warnings in the history of their talk page frustrates countervandalism efforts. From my personal experience in countervandalism efforts, I am able to state that RC patrol is a highly time-pressured activity. Every minute that must be spent on combing through a vandal's talk page history is a minute during which a vandalism warning or a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism must be delayed, an additional minute during which the vandal will remain unblocked and may commit further acts of vandalism. Furthermore, while I identify the placement of vandalism warnings in my edit summaries, some users who place vandalism warnings do not supply such edit summaries. Thus, identifying such "no-summary" warnings in a talk page history would involve viewing every diff between edits, a particularly time consuming process. As a practical matter, the time-critical nature of countervandalism efforts demands that the integrity of talk pages as an quick reference to legitimate vandalism warnings be maintained. John254 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Totally agree with the above. Viridae^Talk 03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   I would also like to add that I do not mind if warnings are archived after a suitible time (a month or more), as long as they remain linked to on the talk page in a prominently displayed archive. Also to further John's comments above, aministrators dealing with reports to WP:AIV will always look for a {{test3}} {{test4}} or {{bv}} template before blocking a user. Removal of warnings forces them (like RC patrollers) to go back through the talk pages history to see wether the User has been suitibly warned. Viridae^Talk 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Agree with John254 and Viridae, especially Viridae's comment. It's hard enough to fight vandalism without helping the vandals hide their work. Archiving old warning, yes - deleting recent warnings, no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballBaby (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 August 2006 [8]
4. I completely agree with John254 on this. --Wildnox 06:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Always wrong, end of story. --Alabamaboy 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Deleting valid warnings is wrong. I am fine with them being archived per John254. Reading back through (often exceptionally convoluted) page histories to find warnings isn't a practical alternative in many cases. Gwernol 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
7. I agree with all of the above. Assuming the user has progressed and left behind his/her vandalism ways, they can always archive the User page with the warnings. Agne 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree per all the above. Accurizer 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree with John254 totally. --Scienceman123 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree. Maybe add something like (if you believe the warning is incorrect or put in bad faith let somebody else to remove them. Putting vandalism warnings in bad faith is vandalism, so you may want to contact an administrator or WP:AIV abakharev 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
11. I agree with the above.--1568 00:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Of course, it would be like burning a rap sheet and hoping to kill more people. Bibliomaniac15 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree. There's no reason someone should ever need to delete a valid vandalism warning. The warning should stand as a record of the incident. Kaldari 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Agree. Warnings are useless hidden somewhere in the page history. Leuko 12:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
15. A user talk page is for the community about a user. Naturally, old warnings can be archived normally with other discussion. -Samulili 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree. The CVU doesn't have time to go digging through archives finding out if a vandal deserves a warning or a penalty. It's impractical. If the warning is inaccurate or incorrect, then one can contact an administrator, who can decide whether or not it should be removed. Ellie041505 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Always wrong. Being slightly merciful is begging for trouble - the vandals will argue from day to night for their warnings to be removed. The Wikipedia community will then have to spend unneccessary time to deal with these warning problems. Why bother to remove if they deserved it? Aran|heru|nar 13:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Totally agree with the proposer. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  20:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oh yes. Once you earn it, you deserve to carry it, and it is important information to all users who deal with you--not just vandal-fighters.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 12:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Agree.Inge 15:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Agree. --Kbh3^rdtalk 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Zsinj^Talk 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Agree. Although archiving does not count. Cedars 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Agreed -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Agreed, this is critical for anti-vandalism measures to work consistently across users and efficiently for anti-vandal patrols, RC patrols and AIV. GRBerry 13:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Agree. This sounds fair and goes with the people shouldn't remove comments from any pages witout explanation, discussion, consensus or plain logic. Lincher 03:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting valid, recently given vandalism warnings is wrong

I agree. Users shouldn't have to display their warnings forever, but removing them right away in an attempt to disguise the fact that they've received warnings shouldn't be allowed.--70.253.195.61 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

1. People should be allowed to remove single warnings after a suitable period of time (I think 2 or 3 months is enough) and with good edits occurring in the meantime. If a person received multiple warnings, I think these should be removeable after a longer time or with the concurrance of an administrator. I think ANY warning can be removed at ANY time by an administrator. I am definitely opposed to warnings being permanent. Blue Tie 17:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   comment Exactly when is it allowed to be removed, and what are counted as good edits? Users who want their warnings removed will always argue they made good edits, even when they did not. Then we'll have to spend all the time checking their edits and seeing if they're "good", and if they're not, argue with the user further more. This is a serious loophole. Aran|heru|nar 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Agree with Blue Tie. MER-C 03:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree here. °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 03:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree with Blue Tie. —dima ^{• talk • sb •} 04:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree becuse new users, who start out with vandalism experiments, sometimes (albeit rarely) become constructive contributors. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree with blue tie -- Selmo 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree. I believe a set period of time should be established after which warnings should be removable, as long as the user/IP does not recieve any other warnings before that period ends.. Hopefully that period would be several months in length. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree. A week of good behavior should be rewarded with permission to remove warnings. Shushruth 05:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry but some vandals don't edit for months on end then come back and vandalise. And thats all they do. Take it from RC patrol, a week just isn't long enough. Several months would be more appropriate. Viridae^Talk 10:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

   True, but when people don't edit for months and then start editing again, we start from the bottom ({{test}}) when warning them. So, the extra warnings don't really help in these cases. JYolkowski // talk 02:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

   My point was that good behaviour means nothing in a lot of cases - they aren't actually here to be good.

10. Agree. Should institute weeks-to-months waiting period, per reasons stated above. CastleCraver walk the dog 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Agree. I believe in a period of 6 months. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Agree. I don't think it should stay there forever, but it should stay there long enough that it can be referred to in a reasonable amount of time. A month would be fine, however, that doesn't mean it can be deleted, it must be archived with a link.--Crossmr 00:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Agree. For some value of recent (in my view it would expire after a couple of weeks of active and unambiguously respectable editing). Just zis Guy you know? 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Agree--Arktos ^talk 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
16. People can reform. --Cyde Weys 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Agree Addhoc 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
18. There's no hard and fast rule. If they cleaned up their act, if sufficient time has passed, if the warning is no longer valid, et al, then yes. Agree. David Fuchs 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Agree with Blue Tie. People should be allowed to delete the warnings after some time and not have to keep them forever. Zephyr2k 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
20. I aggree Lucasbfr 20:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Personal pet peeve here. Out of date warnings are one thing, but other warnings should remain. We can't count on those warning to put the template name into the edit summary in the correct format. That leaves users like VandalProof with little to go on. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting valid vandalism warnings related to ongoing disputes is wrong

1. Absolutely. This is, in fact, the crucial one, and the one which is most disruptive. Just zis Guy you know? 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree - Arktos ^talk 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting valid vandalism warnings is discouraged but should be tolerated

1. AnnH ♫ 21:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Syrthiss 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
3. CBD 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Like all discouraged behaviour (incivility, edit warring, et cetera) it may become an issue, but is not automatically revertible or subject to block.

   Incivility and edit warring do warrant blocks. —Mets501 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

4. JYolkowski // talk 16:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Whether a warning is "valid" is often up to an individual's opinion, so it's usually better to ignore isolated instances than to MeatBall:ExpandScope of the dispute.

[edit] Deleting valid vandalism warnings is acceptable if (and only if) the user stops vandalising

[edit] Deleting valid vandalism warnings is acceptable after reading said warning

1. Isn't there a log of these warnings somewhere that other editors could check? It seems to me the main function of a vandalism warning is to alert the vandal that his behavior is being observed and must stop. Once that has been done, it doesn't matter if the warning continues to appear. It is especially pointless if it works, and the editor stops vandalizing. What about assuming good faith? Rbraunwa 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-vandalism warnings

This section deals with users removing warnings for behaviors others than vandalism (i.e. violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, etc). It is assumed below that creating a proper archive is not a form of deletion.

Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.

[edit] Deleting other valid warnings is always wrong

1. Agree. Although archiving is okay. Cedars 00:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting valid, recently given warnings for other behavior is wrong

[edit] Deleting other valid warnings related to ongoing disputes is wrong

1. As long as the dispute in around, it should be listed. But then as soon as the dispute is over (or this person leaves the dispute) they should be able to remove the warning. If there is no disruption and no dispute, I think that the warning should be immediately removeable. Blue Tie 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Syrthiss 22:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
3. This came up recently with another user, who was having a dispute with a second user. The first user removed an NPOV warning from the second user, for which I (an outside observer) warned him; later the dispute was resolved, and I believe removing the warning was appropriate at that point. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
4. While my preference is to never delete anything on user page (only archive), I can see it being more difficult to toe a hard line with non-vandalism warnings. I think this would be the most appropriate compromise. Agne 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
5. I believe we should promote a policy full disclosure during POV disputes. Being able to see who's being issued NPOV warnings by who at all times allows a 3rd party to easily tell who holds what biases in a revert war. If relevant non-vandalism warnings can be arbitarily removed, then it's hell for a new mediator to deal with user histories. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree abakharev 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree though we need to clean up the language here. Are we saying delete as in erase from the talk page and leave it to history, or are we saying archived?--Crossmr 00:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree. Kaldari 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Absolutely. This is the root cause of most of the disruption related to this issue. Just zis Guy you know? 13:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree. While the dispute is in progress, the warnings should remain, so that administrators can take quick and decisive action if that is needed, but afterwards, they should be deleted from the talk page and left in the history. Ellie041505 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Agree--Arktos ^talk 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Agree.Inge 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree Addhoc 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Zsinj^Talk 22:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
15. As long as the dispute is not current and the user's actions have improved -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree. If you've been warned, you ought to remember it and so as a precaution there is a need to leave the template/warning in position to make sure these wrongdoings aren't repeated (even if it is by another user). Lincher 03:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
17. How are we supposed to know if the user is ignoring the issue or responding in good faith? If they reply on the poster's talk page, that helps. But only that user sees the reply. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting other valid warnings is discouraged but should be tolerated

1. It may be slightly uncivil to remove such warnings, but it's simply harassment to keep annoying people who do it. They are not violating policy. AnnH ♫ 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Per the above. Blanking warnings is not good... reverting to restore them is much worse. --CBD 00:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. As above. JYolkowski // talk 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
4. As above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting warnings is acceptable if the user stops behaving in the manner that led to the warning being given

1. If a user genuinely stops acting negatively, the warning should be able to be removed about 1 month after cessation of said undesirable activity. --Scienceman123 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Up to a point. Once a period has passed during which the user has actively edited without problems, the warning has served its purpose and is no longer really relevant. If the user has done nothing significant since the last warning, then it should be viewed as a continuation of problem beaviour and not removed. Just zis Guy you know? 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting warnings is always acceptable

[edit] Immediate response to the inappropriate deletion of warnings

This section deals with how one should immediately respond when you see someone inappropriately removing warnings from their talk page. It is presumed that the responder has verified that the warning was reasonable.

Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.

[edit] The warning should always be restored and an additional warning about removing warnings added

1. This vote is for VANDALISM and DISRUPTION warningsBlue Tie 17:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Users participating in RC patrol often rely on the existence of prior vandalism warnings on the current version of the vandal's talk page to indicate whether and how the vandal should be warned again, or whether the vandal should be listed on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Allowing vandals to hide the warnings in the history of their talk page frustrates countervandalism efforts. From my personal experience in countervandalism efforts, I am able to state that RC patrol is a highly time-pressured activity. Every minute that must be spent on combing through a vandal's talk page history is a minute during which a vandalism warning or a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism must be delayed, an additional minute during which the vandal will remain unblocked and may commit further acts of vandalism. Furthermore, while I identify the placement of vandalism warnings in my edit summaries, some users who place vandalism warnings do not supply such edit summaries. Thus, identifying such "no-summary" warnings in a talk page history would involve viewing every diff between edits, a particularly time consuming process. As a practical matter, the time-critical nature of countervandalism efforts demands that the integrity of talk pages as an quick reference to legitimate vandalism warnings be maintained. John254 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Per John254. Viridae^Talk 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Agree, assuming the warning was not removed in accordance with whatever policy is in place; in other words, assuming it was inappropriate for the warned user to remove the warning. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree per John254. Lauren 18:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree per John254. Also, content is content, whether it's main space, talk space, user space, or user talk space. We say that removing content is vandalism and persistent vandals will be blocked. Why should we tolerate this particular type of vandalism? The user didn't write all of the content on his/her talk page - it was written by other editors, whether a template was used or not. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree per John254 Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree. John254 puts it across for all us RC patrollers. Shushruth 05:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree with John254. --Wildnox 06:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Agree °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 10:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Agree Gwernol 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Fully agree with John254. Postdlf 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Strongly agree per John254. Agne 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Agree in cases of vandalism, disagree otherwise unless said behaivoir continues, see above. --Scienceman123 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree, and this includes archiving, not just deletion. Immediate archiving of warning templates (which I've seen done) is also inappropriate as its an obvious attempt to hide behaviour.--Crossmr 00:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Agree Obviously, if the original warning was undeserved (e.g. vandalism warning for non-vandalism) the warning should not be restored abakharev 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Agree. Kaldari 05:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Agree. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Agree. Leuko 12:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Of course. But the keyword here is inappropriately; see elsewhere for my views on what might constitue appropriate. Just zis Guy you know? 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Agree. This represents a pattern of behavior that started with the initial vandalism and must be dealt with in much the same manner. Ellie041505 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Agree -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Agree--Arktos ^talk 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
25. 100% agree.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 12:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Agree.Inge 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Zsinj^Talk 22:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Agree. Cedars 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Agree. This is normally already taken care of by the WP:DR stating that people should engage in a dispute and the first thing that removing a template does is that. It should be taken with the utmost strictness and small bans could accompany warning removals especially if the vandalism mentioned in the warning was libellious, hurtful or infringed severely WP's 5 pillars. Lincher 03:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
30. to be honest that's what I am doing at the moment. Lucasbfr 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
31. My vote applies to all but the most mild (good faith) warnings. By the time you reach template level 1 under the new scheme, I think a warning should be added. What I count as good faith warnings are the old Level 0 and Welcome warnings (other than simply "Welcome"). Will (Talk - contribs) 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restore the warning only if the user is engaged in other disruptive behavior

[edit] Restore the warning only if the user is continuing the same behavior that got them warned initially

[edit] A warning about removing warnings should be given but the original need not be restored

[edit] Issue additional warnings when and if appropriate, but do not try to restore warnings that a user has deleted

Even if we decide it is "against policy" to remove warnings (will probably not vote on that), a new user, who feels his edit was valid, may naturally react by repeating the edit and removing the warning. And, the new user may even be right: even perfectly valid edits are sometimes mistaken for vandalism, never mind good-faith edits which are partly, but not entirely, invalid. Maybe this is because, as John suggests above, some RC patrollers feel they are under some sort of time pressure. So, restoring the warning may simply provoke the user to re-remove it, or even to commit real vandalism in annoyance. This turns the initial warning, which might not even have been valid, into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a recently placed warning for vandalism was removed without explanation and you feel you must do something about it, then drop a note (or make a template) something to the effect that: such-and-such a warning was removed (place link), and does the user feel it was in error. This:

1. • Invites the user to state his case and allows for the correction of a possible mistake,
   • Still leaves the necessary info easily visible for other RC patrollers, and, most importantly,
   • Gives a good impression of Wikipedia to new users rather than provoking hostility.

For other cases of warning removal, just forget it. Any action would be pointless. -Dan 192.75.48.150 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. This vote is for NON VANDALISM and NON DISRUPTION warnings Blue Tie 17:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. If you delete it, it means you've seen it. It remains in the history (in case a diff is required for an RfC or RfAr). Warnings are meant simply to warn someone who may not be aware of policy. They are not meant to be used as black marks that a naughty person is obliged to display on his talk page as a punishment for his naughtiness. AnnH ♫ 20:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   Consider this: a vandal is reported to WP:AIV. An admin looks at the Talk page and sees no warnings. The admin issues a warning and moves on. Repeat until somoene under less time pressure spots that the history contains 28 deleted warnings... Just zis Guy you know? 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   The admin didn't look at his contribution log? Isn't that step 1 of AIV? Is this a hypothetical, or has this actually happened? 192.75.48.150 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   I doubt this happens a lot. I can't imagine that people would continue to give warning after warning without ever looking at the user's contribution or the page history. Maybe they might get to vandalise two or three times more than they might otherwise, but never anywhere near 28. JYolkowski // talk 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Removed warnings should never be restored. If need be a comment can be added telling the user that they remain in the history. If a user has a history of removing warnings and continuing the same behaviour comments to that effect can go in the edit summary. We should not be trying to enforce the display of a 'scarlet letter' on the user's talk page. --CBD 00:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Vandalism is not such a huge problem that an extra five seconds checking page history is going to cause Wikipedia to collapse. My experience fighting vandalism is that restoring warnings just makes things worse. JYolkowski // talk 16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
5. I agree with JYolkowski that restoring warnings often makes things worse, I have seen that myself multiple times. RC Patrol is not so time-critical that removing warnings makes much difference as the users contribution history will show recent talk page edits which would make warning removal obvious. A minute spent quickly looking at the page history is well worth it, while this may allow a few more bad edits at times, it is better to take a minute and make the right decision rather than rush, and sometimes make the wrong one due to over hastiness. Regards, MartinRe 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Assuming we could ever agree on "if and when appropriate", this is the most logical codification of current practice. -- nae'blis 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Agreed -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 16:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to repeatedly removing warnings

This section deals with how one should response to a user that repeatedly removes warnings in a way that is inappropriate.

Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.

[edit] Repeatedly removing warnings should lead to blocks and/or talk page protection, even in the absence of other ongoing disputes

1. This vote is for VANDALISM only. It is NOT For DISRUPTION or other warnings. Blue Tie 18:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Users participating in RC patrol often rely on the existence of prior vandalism warnings on the current version of the vandal's talk page to indicate whether and how the vandal should be warned again, or whether the vandal should be listed on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Allowing vandals to hide the warnings in the history of their talk page frustrates countervandalism efforts. From my personal experience in countervandalism efforts, I am able to state that RC patrol is a highly time-pressured activity. Every minute that must be spent on combing through a vandal's talk page history is a minute during which a vandalism warning or a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism must be delayed, an additional minute during which the vandal will remain unblocked and may commit further acts of vandalism. Furthermore, while I identify the placement of vandalism warnings in my edit summaries, some users who place vandalism warnings do not supply such edit summaries. Thus, identifying such "no-summary" warnings in a talk page history would involve viewing every diff between edits, a particularly time consuming process. As a practical matter, the time-critical nature of countervandalism efforts demands that the integrity of talk pages as an quick reference to legitimate vandalism warnings be maintained. John254 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Per John254. Viridae^Talk 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Agree because warnings are important for anti-vandalism patrollers to track previous activity (per John254's argument); therefore they can be considered a kind of vandalism. Even if vandalism stops, it could start again at any time. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree per Ginkgo100. Lauren 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Absolutely agree with John254. Vandals remove the warnings in hopes that subsequent vandalism will only draw the 1st or 2nd stage warning. We shouldn't help them deceive RC patrollers. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
8. RC patrollers rely on warnings to keep up with vandals. Agree Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 00:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
9. In cases of vandalism warnings --Wildnox 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Vandalism, and NPOV warnings only. °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 10:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Agree for Vandalism warning only per John254. Agne 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Agree with John254 in cases of vandalism. Scienceman123 22:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree on all warning templates. Repeatedly removing or attempting to quick archive them is an attempt to hide behaviour. There are more issues than vandalism and npov that needs history. What about uncivil behaviour and personal attacks? Histories for these are also important.--Crossmr 00:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Agree, obviously if a newbee is not aware of the policy, he should be warned first abakharev 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Agree. In the end if the user is not prepared to have their actions scrutinised and criticised then they are a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree. See my comment above on the pattern of behavior on the "response to removing warnings" vote. Ellie041505 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Agree -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Agree--Arktos ^talk 22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Agree, we've been doing this quite often, and it works well.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 12:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Zsinj^Talk 22:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Agree for vandal warnings. Lincher 03:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
22. I have to vote for this as long as the warnings are valid and not themselves personal attacks or vandalism. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    And how would you know whether a particular warning was valid or appropriate without taking time to read the history and checking out the user's edits? And if you take the time to do that, why does it matter whether or not the warning stays on the talk page? -- Donald Albury 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a lot of work to check, but worth it. I only needed to do so once, but it helped. Yeah, it takes a while (especially with my dial-up connection), but I would rather put up with it than judge someone without evidence. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeatedly removing warnings is a negative factor that may affect the issuing of other blocks, but is not in itself justification for blocking

Only if it was for recent vandalism, and the user was invited to explain why it was being removed (as per my comment above), and it is repeatedly removed without explanation. -Dan 192.75.48.150 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. This vote is for any warnings that do NOT apply to VANDALISM.Blue Tie 18:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Same as above. --Wildnox 06:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree for non-vandalism warnings. Agne 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree for non-vandalism warnings about ongoing disputes. Ellie041505 14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
5. If a user expresses regret for his/hers actions and understands why he/she has been given a warning he/she should not be blocked for removing them, but if a user removes the warnings while indicating unwillingness to comply a block is in orderInge 15:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree. I feel the purpose of warnings is to detail a user history of disputes. Restoring the warning is therefore enough. Cedars 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- If "Repeatedly removing warnings... is not in itself justification for blocking", then "Restoring the warning" may be followed by the removal of the warning, ad infinitum -- thereby hiding "a user history of disputes". John254 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If it did continue "ad infinitum" it would be pretty obvious in the talk page's history. Cedars 05:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeatedly removing warnings should be addressed through the dispute resolution process

1. Assuming that the user is continuing whatever behaviour is causing the warnings and not responding to the warnings. If they stop their behaviour, or if they otherwise respond to the warnings, ignore their removal. JYolkowski // talk 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeatedly removing warnings should be ignored

If it was not recent vandalism, or removed with explanation, it should be left alone. Assuming the vandalism in question has stopped. -Dan 192.75.48.150 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't harass people. If they remove it, it means they've seen it. Exceptions would be in the case of warnings for real vandalism, where administrators might wish to see the warnings during a block, for example. Unfortunately there are people who send vandalism warning templates to established editors who remove a paragraph from an article because of POV concerns, or to administrators who roll back attempts to spam for votes. AnnH ♫ 20:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. At most they should be informed that the warnings remain in the history and/or edit summaries noting the warnings used. If a user is really that regularly disruptive they'll be blocked for that regardless of the warnings. No need to harass / aggravate them. --CBD 00:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Warnings are there for the benifit of ignorant users. Once the user has been informed, then the behaviour should stop. True Vandals dont care. Warnings ONLY exist to help normal people become good citerzens. Perhaps they also serve as a bit of intimidation for borderline miscreants. Relying on the 'good will' of vandals to leave their warnings there, and punishing people who simply didn't know any better both seem like daft alternatives. User pages are for USER MESSAGES and should not be used for tracking vandals. --Mig77 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   They are not only there for that reason as indicated by John several times on this page. They are also there to help RC patrollers decide what level of warning the person deserves for their vandalisation and wether they should be reported to WP:AIV or not. Furthermore, admins rely on {{test3}}, {{test4}} or {{bv}} - if these warnings haven't been issued, the vandal will not be blocked. Viridae^Talk 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   Certainly warnings are used for "other reasons". However relying on user pages for those reasons are inappropriate. Using spam, spam2, spam3 in the edit summary would be recored in the history and make tracking easy. --Mig77 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   RC patrol is very fast. Having to have a look at the edit summaries really really slows you down. It just doesn't happen - if the vandal has a recen pre-exisiting warning, you give them an appropriate higher one. If not, no worries - {{test1}} and be done with it. Viridae^Talk 12:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   So slow down then. RC patrol is not just about getting vandals blocked as fast as possible. RC patrollers are the first contact with our community for a lot of people, and editwarring with those people about their talk page contents is probably the worst way of getting them interested in making positive contributions. JYolkowski // talk 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

   I am not saying it is about getting them blocked as fast as possible, it is repeat offenders that get blocked - most vandals do not get reported and blocked. It is about getting the vandalism cleaned up as quickly as possible. Blocking is a preventative measure not a punative one. Viridae^Talk 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate warnings

This deals with how a user should respond when they believe they have recieved an inappropriate warning.

Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.

[edit] The recipient may always remove it themselves

The best behaviour is to drop notes both under the warning and on the giver's talk page as described by Viridae below. But this should not be required. More to the point, it should not be held against anyone if they simply remove it, as this is a natural thing to do, as I discuss above. -Dan 192.75.48.150 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Sometimes warnings are used as harrassment. If the user has a reasonably long history of good edits and no substantial prior warnings by OTHER users or admins, they should be able to remove harrassing and inappropriate warnings. An edit summary is recommended but not required.Blue Tie 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Especially if it's a template rather than a personal complaint. But unless it's a sockpuppet tag, placed by an administrator, or a valid vandalism warning to be left in place during a block, users should be free to remove it. If it's real harassment or trolling, they're completely within their rights, and if it's not, well writing an encyclopaedia is more important than ensuring that people are forced to keep unwanted messages on their talk pages. AnnH ♫ 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Yes, users should be able to remove invalid warnings. In the rare cases where some sort of message needs to be retained/displayed (e.g. sockpuppet tag) an admin is invariably involved and thus could protect the page if need be. More general warnings should be clearable at any time. --CBD 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Users should be able to remove warnings themselves. With regard to some of the options in this poll suggesting that users ask an admin to remove it, admins have no special status with regards to dispute resolution and are in no better position to decide whether to remove the warning than anyone else is. Furthermore, I have enough other things to do without having to decide whether to remove warnings from users' talk pages or not, and I think most other admins would agree. JYolkowski // talk 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The recipient may remove it themselves provided they explain why in the edit summary or other discussion

1. The recipient should inform the warner why they removed it, and then remove it themselves. Scienceman123 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
2. There is a huge problem with any other choice, in that what constitutes frivolous is a subjective judgment. I remove trolling. I used to archive everything but these days there are more and more vociferous trolls. Just zis Guy you know? 13:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree - but with discussion, eg as per Scienceman123 and only if obviously frivolous, I think it comes under refactoring talk pages --Arktos ^talk 22:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree - the user should reply on his or her talk page, if after a few days there is no justification, then self-removal would be ok. Addhoc 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Zsinj^Talk 22:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree - sometimes the warnings are dated and are not applicable anymore, thats if one learns from his or her mistakes through experiences making a contribution to wikipedia. --Takamaxa 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. If people give you frivolous warnings, or warnings as a form of vandalism, their removal should be justified after the issue has been resolved. --tjstrf 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Having been the target of false warnings myself, I have to believe this is the correct position. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The recipient should ask a third party to remove it

1. The recipient should ask a third party to look into the case and if the warning is found without merit it should be removed by the third party. An explanation has to be given. Inge 15:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
2. This can be the final process if the recipient and the warning giver can't reach an agreement.--Takamaxa 06:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
3. This is appropriate so long as the third party wasn't involved in whatever led to the tag being issued. Third parties should investigate and explain their removal to both the warner and the target. (Asking the warner to remove is also always valid.) GRBerry 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The recipient should ask the warning giver to remove it

1. The recipient should discuss it with the warning giver - a simple mistake may have been made. In the meantime they may wish to note underneath it (for others reading their talk page) that they are unaware of the reason for giving this warning. If the user giving the warning fails to give a timely and reasonable response they may remove it. If it is replaced - they may ask a administrator to look into the matter to determine wether the warning was appropriate or not. Viridae^Talk 03:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree with Viridae. The warning giver needs to know why the recipient thinks the warning is inappropriate, so lessons can be learned from the mistake. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. This is the best proposal, except if an administrator decides to remove the warning him/her self.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 12:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
4. sounds like a good idea if both can come to an agreement that the mistakes are rectified and resolved for good. --Takamaxa 06:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
5. It is always acceptable to ask the warner to remove it. This has the opportunity to educate and/or build consensus. The warner has no obligation to do so, and the target may also ask an uninvolved third party to remove it. GRBerry 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The recipient should ask an admin to remove it, unless the warning is blatantly frivolous, in which case the recipient may remove it on sight

1. If the warning is merely of questionable legitimacy, an administrator should be consulted to remove the warning. Blatantly frivolous warnings, especially those placed on the talk pages of established users by new and unregistered users, should be reverted on sight. John254 04:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
2. I'm a little uncomfortable with the subjective nature of "blatantly frivolous," but on the other hand I would be pretty chagrined if I received such a warning and had to go to an admin. The advantages of asking an admin as opposed to a third party are (a) avoids sockpuppet and meatpuppet reversions of legitimate warnings, and (b) admins can gently (or not so gently, depending on the situation) notify the warner that the warning was inappropriate and take other action if necessary. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. In my opinion, admins should be the only ones to remove warnings. The exception to this are cases where the warnings are obviously used for harrassment, or any other form of personal attack, where having to go through the process of asking an admin to remove the warning would only add weight to the attack. --Wildnox 06:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. I agree with Wildnox on Admins removing warnings. As an added plus, if the inappropriate warning was given as part of of an ongoing dispute, it will also bring in a third party unbias set of eyes to look at the situation. Agne 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Agree. We have enough of admins to handle it. Bad faith vandalism warnings are vandalism themself, it is good to draw somebody's to attend it abakharev 00:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree. But a user might want to tell an admin about any "blatantly frivolous" warnings they might receive, so that action can be taken. Ellie041505 14:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree. As per Ellie041505's comment. Since we have to assume good faith, it is always better to refer to admins to figure out if some user added a misplaced or inappropriately added. Lincher 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree, or the warning giver if he feels there have been a mistake Lucasbfr 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The recipient should ask an admin to remove it

1. If the decision to remove a warning is left to the recipient, then legitimate warnings can be removed, too. AGF should not apply to vandal warnings. Lauren 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Giving people the power to remove warnings they deam as frivolous is the same as giving them the power to delete any warning they are given. Though it would be favorable to have the warning giver remove it, in a large number of cases the odds are that the warning giver won't even give a second thought to the matter and just ignore it. Admins provide a neutral and reputable party to solve the dispute. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 00:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- I endorsed allowing the recipient to remove blatantly frivolous warnings because if an unregistered user adds 200 uses of template:test4im to my talk page, I would rather remove the vandalism myself than seek administrative assistance. Requiring an administrator to remove everything that takes the form of a warning could allow the mass application of completely frivolous warnings to overwhelm administrative resources. Allowing the recipient to remove blatantly frivolous warnings doesn't "[give] people the power to remove warnings they deam as frivolous" because if a user removed a warning that was later found to be legitimate by an administrator, the removal would be treated as disruption, in the same way as any other inappropriate warning removal. Necessarily, users should exercise caution as to when they take it upon themselves to remove warnings from their own talk pages, as they must assume the risk that the warnings will later be found to be legitimate. If non-administrative users don't retain the ability to remove blatantly frivolous warnings, then vandals would be able disrupt Wikipedia by applying massive numbers of blatantly frivolous warnings to the talk pages of the users who revert their vandalism, knowing that administrative assistance would be required to clean up the mess. John254 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed warnings should not be removed

1. Agree. Respond to the warning (on the page where it is) and then archive it but don't remove it. Cedars 00:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of templates

[edit] Warning templates should not be used on established editors

1. These templates shouldn't be used on established editors in the first place. They are intended as a quick way of informing people who may not be aware of policy (for example, that personal attacks or excessive reverts can lead to a block). They are not intended as black marks that users are obliged to display, to let the whole community know how naughty they've been. If it's necessary, to warn an established editor, it shouldn't take too much effort to compose a personal note saying you have now reverted three times, or I found your remarks on the Abortion talk page rude, and I intend to report it at WP:PAIN if you continue. AnnH ♫ 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Warning templates are really for new editors who are behaving inappropriately from the beginning. Though we always assume good faith, the truth is that these editors are often operating in bad faith. Established editors, however, have made themselves part of the Wikipedia community and should be warned with specific, personal messages whenever possible. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. It's generally seen as insulting to use these templates on established users, and from what I see that that often seems to be the intent when doing so. As a bit of an aside, I find that we all tend to talk with each other using templates a lot more than we need to, and a bit of a personalized message is often a lot more useful than a template is. JYolkowski // talk 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
4. It is generally seen as insulting to use these templates on any user, but those who have made positive contributions in the past should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt and any problems discussed rather than simply assuming bad faith and slapping a warning template on it. --CBD 11:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. ×Meegs 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
6. I'm a bit torn between the two sentiments but I slightly lean more towards this one. I see a value in the template, namely the NPOV tone. However, I am a firm believer in discussion towards resolution. With an editor you presume is interested in the broad scope of this project (apart from whatever article is at the heart of the dispute), I am more hopeful that a personal note will lead to a dialogue that would produce some sort of amicable resolution. More so then what a generic template would do. Agne 19:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree with KYolkowski. Talk about it first. Scienceman123 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree that the personalized messages are better for the established editors. Still sometimes a formal template maybe an indication that an admin or a user sees the matter as a violation of a wikipolicy and intend to pursue formal procedures if the matter goes further abakharev 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Because nothing is more condescending than, as an experienced admin with over 15K edits, getting the boilerplate civility warning. --Cyde Weys 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate use of warning templates is prefered over personalized messages

1. Repeated vandals are generally given 3 or 4 warnings in a short period of time prior to being blocked. The warnings become increasing direct and blunt. Prior to blocking an administrator should ensure that the vandal was warned in accordance with policy. Using templates ensures consistant treatment of vandals and allows both editors and administrators to readily determine the appropriate level of warning or action. Ucanlookitup 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Established editor or not, if they've behaving inappropriately and someone spots it, they should be allowed to warn them in the manner they choose, be it a personal message or a template. Perhaps they spot the problem while doing something else time consuming like RC patrol. I've seen occasions where established editors are uncivil or have abusive edit summaries left against someone creating a new page. I'm not going to stop laying out templates in response to inappropriate behaviour just to coddle them because they have a few edits under their belt. They're the one who's behaved inappropriately, why should it inconvenience me?--Crossmr 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As long as the warning is unambiguous and civil, who cares?

1. Does it matter? Either a template warning or a personalised one may be appropriate depending on the person warned, the article, the person warning, and the surrounding events. Just zis Guy you know? 13:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree. Sometimes people don't have time to write personalized messages, and sometimes they feel that they should because the editor is a frequent vandalizer. The choice of template or message should be entirely up to the user as long as it complies with Wikiquette. (Sorry, just wanted to use that term for once :) )Ellie041505 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Personalized messages are always better, but if the test of the warning template fits, who cares?--MrFish^{Go Fish} 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree.Inge 15:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Agree. Addhoc 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Zsinj^Talk 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree. Cedars 00:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Viridae^Talk 02:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree. GRBerry 13:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree. Civility needs to be respected everywhere. If it was vandalism by any user (whether new or old to WP) it should be taken care of in the same way as to treat everybody equally (which is what this project is all about, no hierarchy and democracy, work as a community). Lincher 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
11. I don't think experienced users with no vandalism history would start vandalizing. However, they might forget the basics and add in appropriate external links or POV. They might also revert more than 3 times as prohibited by WP:3RR. They might also lose their cool and become uncivil. So I have to provide a vote based on those comments. Essentially, I vote for this rule in terms of everything but vandalism. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We should not rely on user warnings as a reference

Even if we forbid it, the worst people will always remove them and just create more trouble. There are better ways to keep this information, such as:

• Rely on the edit summary. If we standardized the way editors write the summary then these could be searched for even automatically (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings#Removing warnings for a proposal.)
• Keep a subpage like the one Ben gratefully created: User talk:SebastianHelm/Warnings.
• Keep one page for all users together (e.g. Wikipedia:UserWarnings), and archive it every month. Archives will be protected. This has the advantage that there will be enough eyes watching it.

Details can be decided later.

1. — Sebastian 08:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk, don't remove

Don't ever "remove" anything from your talk page, unless it's too long and people are complaining. If someone warns you for doing something sensible, discuss it. Explain why what you were doing was sensible, below the warning, and drop a note on the talk page of the person who warned you asking them to respond. If someone removes a warning that you consider important for alterting other people, don't re-add the warning (they've obviously already been warned), but do add a short note saying something like: "This user was warned for whatever they were warned for, and removed the warning on this date." If they remove that, feel free to revert ad nausaum, and block or protect if necessary. Seems simple, and doesn't require anyone to do anything contrary to common sense. For the sake of the vandal-fighters, templates for the "message-removed messages" could certainly be made. They could even be called something like: {{test1-r}}, etc. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I think you mean {{wr0}} {{wr}} {{wr3}} {{wr4}}. They are found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace among other places. Viridae^Talk 03:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not find out about this protocol, it was only after I cleaned up my talk page, that I was told off by a editor. I strongly disagree with this. The reason being is, if you have been warned, normally the warning is heeded and the issues are resolved peacefully, then the warning should be taken off. It should not linger on as a constant threat even though they are not even repeat offenders. Its like treating everyone as a literary thug.

--Takamaxa 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] m:Polls are evil or Wikipedia:Voting is not evil?

[edit] Polls are still evil and a bad way to determine consensus

1. Phil Sandifer 02:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
2. JYolkowski // talk 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC), not to say that I didn't "vote" above. JYolkowski // talk 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
3. I vow to act with common sense and disregard above polls, whatever outcome is, when they conflict with common sense -- Drini 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Dumb, stupid, irrelevant poll. Ral315 (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Looks like I don't count. 192.75.48.150 13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   Followup: this poll is already being used to force the issue on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. 192.75.48.150 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Yup, polls are evil. And they don't determine consensus. But in this case this one poll might help to draft a revision to the guidelines on talk page usage which should achieve consensus, so it's not an evil evil poll. Just zis Guy you know? 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
7. I think this poll is evil because we're heading into guidelinecruft. It should be up to an administrator's discretion to determine if warnings were removed maliciously or not. Trying to spell it out explicitly in rules will leave loopholes and room for exploitation. --Cyde Weys 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Per Drini. -- nae'blis 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
9. And this poll is an example of instruction bull-dozing, trying to bury us down with rigid rules that will not help resolve anything. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polls have magically become a good idea

[edit] Polls are a useful means by which to determine consensus

This poll looks a real attempt to get opinions, rather than a way to close the issue and override dissenting views. -Dan 192.75.48.150 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. John254 04:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Viridae^Talk 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Agne 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. A poll is good to get opinions and to introduce people to alternate points of view. If they still disagree, good for them. They're thinking for themselves. Scienceman123 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
5. A poll is much less evil for measuring the community consensus than the edit warring abakharev 01:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Polls are the only good way to do this sort of thing. It's how administrators are chosen. Blue Tie 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Zsinj^Talk 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Polls normally come in handy for perennial propositions that stay in WP for so long you don't know if people are working on it anymore and you can't even figure out if consensus was reached. A second thing why polls are useful, ARCHIVAL, when people want to know what happened to this or that proposal or this or that idea, consensus is really tough to find in archives but polls are reallllllly and I mean really easy to find, for one, just type polls for X in the searchbox and you will find it. Lincher 04:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Has anyone seen my chad? It was hanging around here somewhere

1. SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (Voting only gets worse when it's overly complicated)
2. This is way too complicated to be useful. --Conti|✉ 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Mein brain ist sproingst. Powers ^T 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. CEREBELLUM'D. Danny Lilithborne 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Overcooked Addhoc 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Remarkably unusable. Can we get it down to two or three specific issues? Detruncate 01:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth is a chad?

1. Viridae^Talk 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• see wiktionary:chad. The joke is because in Florida, in the 2000 US presidential election, there was a good deal of controversy over whether chads still partially attached to the ballots should be counted. (Florida at that time used a ballot system whereby the voter punched a hole in the ballot to record their vote.--Grand Slam 7 14:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

moved to talk page as that's here discussion goes...MartinRe 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)