User talk:Acalamari/Warning Removals

This is the talk page. If you plan on doing any major changes to the actual proposal itself, please discuss them here first. Small corrections, such as a mistake I might have made, don't need to be discussed. Acalamari 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion

I personally treat a user removing a warning as an acknowledgement that the user has seen it, and thus cannot claim ignorance. It might be because the user wants to hide the warning (no problem, since it's quite visible in the page history and in the user's contributions), or simply because the user wants to keep his user talk page tidy and organized, or even because the user thinks they should be deleted as would be done to read email on the user's inbox. Since warning removals are not always malicious, and they usefully acknowledge the user has seen the warnings, treating such removals as vandalism is counterproductive (however, they are still frowned upon). --cesarb 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from; but unfortunately, the users I've seen remove warnings don't remove them to show that they've acknowledged them; they remove them, and keep vandalizing. Users who leave the messages alone are more likely to stop vandalizing that users who remove the messages. Of course, this is based on my experience; other users may differ. Acalamari 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing them to not remove the warning is not going to change their other behaviour though, and their maybe some who genuinely remove them as read. If the user falls into your category of someone who merely continues, then report them to WP:AIV and they'll get blocked for the vandalism. No need to create a new offence when the old is sufficient --pgk 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that; and the administrator who blocked them restored the content. Other users, however, have stopped blanking their talk pages when I've typed a notice. In fact, some have gone as far as to stop vandalizing altogether. Of course, as I said, others kept vandalizing until I reported them to AIV. Acalamari 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What problem are you fixing here? In your examples those who continued get blocked for their continuing vandalism. The disruption we are try to prevent (vandalism) was further prevented. If we are creating a new offence, then yes we may block some vandals early with less disruption to the main article space, but you seem to say we blocked them soon enough anyway. On the other hand experience has shown other problems with this proposal, being used as a black mark, to harass editors and indeed causing edit wars between RC Patrollers over a warning they know little or nothing about the background to. i.e. the downside has outweighed the upside. --pgk 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Acalamari here. In the beginnings of this discussion over on AN, I noticed a cognitive disconnect between those of us who do RC Patrol with tools like VandalProof (VP), vs those who seem to only revert vandalism when they occasionally find it on their watchlists. When I find vandalism on an article I have watchlisted, it is a slower process and involves more investigation. However, CVU patrol during times of high vandalism is a completely different animal. For instance, when you open the diff in VP, the program tells you whether the vandal has been warned before, and if so, how many times and how severe the vandalism has been. This tells you which level warning to use. The whole concept of ascending levels of warnings leading to an AIV report and block is based upon knowing whether the vandal has been previously warned. If vandals remove the warnings, VP doesn't know they've been previously warned and they get to run rampant for longer.

True, a policy won't stop people who just want to vandalize until blocked, and who remove warnings no matter what, but it will help stop vandals who have some knowledge of policy. We all (or, those of us who patrol during high defcon levels) know, some vandals are quite aware of policy, and vandalize just up to the limit, then return in a few days (or under a new IP or account) to repeat the process. They are the ones who will be dealt with more effectively by a clear policy.

I am concerned that some who oppose this policy seem to think that CVU members want to "edit war". I find this disturbing, and totally contrary to the actions and established records of the people I've seen work so hard to fight vandalism on the 'pedia. While the occasional user does abuse vandalism templates in cases of content disputes, I think these can be removed by admins or established users who know the policies. The burden is on the user placing the template to provide evidence. But removing legitimate templates is just as serious as applying unwarranted ones. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The future usefulness of vandalism tools depends on a policy that considers warning removal vandalism. Also, I think that the edit war argument doesn't hold water. If a policy considers warning removal vandalism, the edit war will simply be the series of warnings leading to a block. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the tools require that removing warnings be considered vandalism, then you need a new set of tools. --Carnildo 08:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you assume too much thinking all those who don't think this is a good idea have no idea about vandalism reversion etc. Also it's not about those doing RC Patrol wanting to edit war, it is experience of what has happened in the past, a user does what could be vandalism or could be an error or test and before long it's escalated into a battle of wills about if a minor warning can stay. A certain amount of "vandalism" reversion are actually content disputes, someone believe the edits of one editor is so far from (their accepted) truth that it amounts to vandalism and reverts, places warnings etc. As elsewhere when you revert vandalism using whatever tool you want to use, you'll be checking the users other contributions anyway to make sure there isn't any undetected vandalism remaining, it'll be quite apparent to you then if they've been messing around with their own talk page. You can always mention removed warnings when listing the person on WP:AIV? --pgk 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to you Kathryn and to other CVU members and the anti-vandalism work you do, I find the idea that we should develop policies or guidelines to accommodate particular tools absurd. If there is a problem in that area, then it would seem to me to be more appropriate and more sensible to ask the developer(s) of that tool to base the warnings check on the edit history rather than what is visible on the active page. I accept what you say about VP's recognition of prior warnings as a valid problem and hopefully it can be resolved appropriately, but I don't recognise it as a valid reason to introduce a policy or guideline that will be ineffective against vandals and feel like biting to new people.

This proposal is bureaucratic and impractical. Most people who receive warnings are either new people who are simply confused and need some help and understanding or they are trolls or vandals. New people do not understand the difference between level one and level two warnings! They won't have a clue which warning they can and cannot remove until they get slapped with a vandalism warning for the warning(s) they've just removed and trolls and vandals simply won't care at all. I don't agree with this proposal and I will not enforce anything that is just another implement for biting new people and wacking them over the head. I wish people would remember that we were all new once and start looking for ways to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Well, I guess at least we seem to have moved on from WP:RFCN. Sarah 01:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want this proposal to be turned into a device to bully new users. Please understand that I did not write the proposal with the intention of scaring off or bullying users. I do not like the assumption that everything I do here on Wikipedia is just to attack new users. Also, this proposal isn't even my original idea. As for warnings; Level 1 warnings should be altered to contain more links to appropriate help pages to prevent new users from making mistakes that could be interpreted as vandalism. I do agree that this proposal should be edited to make sure that it isn't used in the wrong way. Acalamari 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time factor

While I know what this proposal is aimed at and I agree strongly in principle, should there be a time limit on keeping the warnings visible? I know that the people this is directed at rarely accumulate enough talk page discussion to archive their talk pages but what if they do? One month? More? Again, I know these are not the typical cases this proposal is designed for but it needs to be considered I think. --Pig^man_dialogue 20:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...a time limit should be considered, definitely; but I'd have to find a way to incorporate it into the proposal without making the entire thing self-contradictory. Acalamari 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that unless the template is deemed unwarranted (through the intervention of experienced Wikipedians or admins) the template should stay until the talkpage is archived. Most vandals don't stick around long enough to learn how to archive a talk page. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True; that would be a sufficient time limit. If a user gets a chance to archive their talk page, it means they've been around for some time, and might have become a "reformed vandal," as I believe it's called. It's unlikely a registered vandal would ever get to archive their talk page; unless they found a way to survive that long, but most vandals are blocked well before they reach a 20th warning. No user is going to have fifty messages worth of vandalism warnings. Acalamari 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the vandal accounts won't last and so the only people you're realistically proposing we force to maintain unwanted warnings that they probably became very embarrassed about once they started to learn more about Wikipedia, are well-meaning but ignorant or confused new people. And just to really welcome them, we're going to force them to keep these unwanted warnings untill they have a legitimate reason to archive their whole talk page. And who decides when that will be? Can someone archive their talk page after 10 messages? 20 messages? Who's going to make up the rule for when we're going to allow them to archive? And will it only apply to new people or will it also apply to established editors, like, for example, Daniel Bryant who has been known to archive at least once a day? Let's not forget that new people often don't get a lot of messages and some go for many months without needing to archive their talk page. I know you're acting in good faith, but this is bureaucratic, arbitrary and iniquitous and I personally will not be party to enforcing it or anything like it. Please try to remember that we were all ignorant newbies once and some of us got warnings and others even got blocked for making stupid newbie mistakes. Sarah 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah makes a good point here; there is no time limit on when to archive talk pages, and even I archived my 3RR violation a few weeks ago after spending over three months here; and since not all new users are as active as I was, they won't get as many messages. I can see why this policy failed to get enforced in the past. Acalamari 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A time limit is good. I think that vandalism warnings should not be able to be archived off of the main talk page for the time limit either. The goal is to make them easy to see if they are applicable. Shall we start the bidding at one month? -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll counter-bid at thirty seconds: it's about how long it takes to read and try to understand the typical warning message. --Carnildo 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions

Can you confirm for me (by naming/linking to them) that you've seen the old discussions from the last year or so on this topic? I don't want to rehash arguments you've seen, if you're unlikely to find them persuasive. -- nae'blis 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not seen them. In fact, I welcome bringing up old discussions here. That way, I can respond to them myself. Acalamari 21:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo boy. Okay, the big ones are at:

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings (huge talk page, very comprehensive)
Wikipedia:Removing warnings and Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll (older)
Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism/Archive_4 (about halfway down the page, related to above)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive60#Templates (also related to above)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive143#Block_for_removing_warnings (a block conducted according to this idea, and overturned)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive61#Removing_warnings_templates and following sections

That's a start... I believe the weight of arguments has been against this as a policy/guideline (several incarnations are rejected/inactive), but I welcome any new input you have, of course. -- nae'blis 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have ready links to the discussions, but the major points brought up against this are:

Talk pages are for communication, not a wall of shame.
Edit warring to keep warnings on a talk page can easily make a minor situation much worse.
Enforcing such a rule amounts to biting newbies, since newbies are the ones most likely to get warnings.
Vandal-fighters can always check for earlier warnings by looking at the talkpage history.
Warnings are often misused as weapons in a content dispute.

--Carnildo 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This discussion: Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll seems to me to show a clear consensus that legitimate warnings should not be removed. Later discussions that happened (such as this TfD don't seem to me to have involved anywhere near as much community participation. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The centralized discussion, linked above, came after the poll and also had broad participation but did not form a consensus for treating such removals as vandalism. Note also that there can be a distinction between saying the removal is bad and saying the removal is vandalism and should be reverted. Discouraging behavior can be different from attempting to enforce a specific standard of behavior. Dragons flight 23:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm a fan of the DRV that decided to bury the warning removal templates. Dragons flight 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction

One problem is that a significant minority of talk page warnings are frivolous. This happens during edit disputes where at least one editor either misunderstands policy, has a moment of hotheadedness, or attempts to intimidate another editor. This is a proposal that can be gamed. I'd like to close the loophole somehow but I don't know a good solution. Durova^Charge! 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More correctly, this is a proposal that has been gamed. Repeatedly. Everytime the community tries to go down this road, the POV pushers discover that they can use marginally valid warnings to intimidate and attack their opponents AND that there is no shortage of vandal fighters willing to leap to the POV pusher's aid should the victim dare to try and remove a questionable warning. Inexperienced users that get attacked in this way will often lash back in a way that quickly leads to an escalating cycle of incivility and disruption. And more often than not the POV pusher will skirt the rules well enough and work the system to such a degree they get little more than a warning while their novice victim gets blocked. Dragons flight 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal states that if false warnings are places on a user's talk page, the recipient can remove them if they prove that they did not vandalize. Users should not be given false vandalism tags. If a user, however, tries to contest their warning tags by using personal attacks; they should be blocked for incivility and not for removing tags. Acalamari 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define false, any warning I disagree with is obviously "false". Not to mention that it is eminently gamable. Content disputes can easily garner "vandalism" warnings, and simple disagreement lead to civility warnings. By the time a neutral party really tries to figure out what is going on, it is often already out of control (not to mention that many novice users wouldn't even know how to go about soliciting the input of a neutral party). Dragons flight 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"False" could mean anything from giving someone a warning tag for changing a British-spelled word to an American-spelled word (and vice versa) to giving someone a warning because you disagree with their edit (I had this happen to me once; if you want me to prove it, I'll dig it out of my talk page. An administrator removed the message, but I can find it in the history). Acalamari 23:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you remove the warning you perceive as false. They revert and add another warning about removing warnings. You revert again saying this is nonsense. Now some third party jumps on your for your reversion (without really bothering to understand the original dispute), and suddenly we are off to the races with a dispute about removing warnings about a warning that may have been false. Seriously, the removing warnings is vandalism policy led to some of the most ridiculous and pointless edit wars I have ever seen on Wikipedia. To say nothing of the edit wars over removing warnings about disputes that had already been resolved. I've seen good faith editors make a mistake, get a warning for it, calmly resolve the conflict and then go to clean up their talk page only to be jumped on by third parties who insisted that the warning (for a good faith mistake that had already been resolved) had to be preserved indefinitely. Policies that endorse that sort of behavior create wholly unnecessary conflicts. Dragons flight 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best to do then would be to calmly go to the third-party's talk page, and explain why you removed the warnings. I'm going to edit the proposal to cover that. Acalamari 23:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is legitimate dispute over whether or not the warning is valid, a third opinion can be sought. Part of this proposal should be a rewriting of most initial level warnings to include links to places like the help desk or village pump where they can ask for assistance and clarification of the warning, and if they want a third opinion on whether or not they think the warning is valid. A burden should also be placed on the editor leaving the template which asks for a diff for those initial level warnings. If the person leaving the warning cannot provide a diff, or doesn't provide one in a reasonable time frame, the warning should be considered invalid. --Crossmr 00:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can always create some new templates to cover warning removals and talk page blankings. I do have some ideas. Sure, this message is slightly off-topic, but I think some new templates might be in order. Acalamari 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just those, but all good faith warnings should include this information as part of the warning. I.e. {{uw-test1}} should include this info at the end of the warning. This way as soon as a user is warned they have all information available to them to deal with receiving a warning. This can be left off subsequent levels, i..e it wouldn't be included on test2, 3, etc--Crossmr 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; that should be done; but I think we could do with some new templates as well. Acalamari 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the idea here is to swamp WP:HD or WP:VPA with people complaining about (possibly) frivolous warnings? That's going to be a really streamlined and easy to manage process. I don't see this working. In practice it would just be another way for seasoned edit warriors to beat up hapless neophytes, just like PAIN was. The system is too easy to game as is without making it any easier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that at all. Users can discuss it on their own talk page/on the talk pages of the user(s) that gave them the unnecessary warning. Some users will go to HD or VPA; I won't deny that, but I don't think they'll swamp it. Acalamari 02:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we keep HD and VPA a secret from new users having trouble? The idea is to remind them that they have an outlet if they are involved in a situation they are having trouble with. The initial warning messages could also mention that if they feel the warning is a result of confusion they should speak with the individual who signed the warning message and ask them for clarification.--Crossmr 03:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<deindented> Not at all, but why should the Helpdesk and the Village Pump be turned into Wikipedia:Requests for warning removal? The only reason we give warnings is to get the recipient's attention. Having done that, what happens to the boilerplate afterwards is of no importance. Edit warring over talk page templates is a waste of time at best, and malicious at worst. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with various others above I remain opposed to mis-use of user talk pages as 'rap sheets' / Scarlet letter collections, attempts to legitimize edit warring, and the rest of this proposal. It is virtually identical to previously rejected attempts of this nature. The same 'invalid warnings can be removed' exception tried with previous incarnations is just as meaningless now as it was then - because there is invariably an argument between the two parties over whether the warning is 'valid' or not. As has been said at least a hundred times, if you want to be able to easily track past warnings develop standardized EDIT SUMMARIES... "/////// NPA - 2 \\\\\\\\" or the like on a history page would be more easily spotted than a warning template buried in amongst many other notes. --CBD 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a user stops vandalizing; then the warnings will ultimately get archived. One thing that could avoid false warnings would be if more users left edit summaries in their edits; there are still many users who don't use edit summaries; and, as a result, they're at risk of being accused of vandalism. Acalamari 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user is welcome to put any explanation by a warning if they think it is petty or unfair, diffs, context, explanation, apology. If it is outright false, then they can appeal to a neutral party to remove it, or remove it themselves if they have proof. How do we tell if something is false? Consensus, simple, just like anything else we do. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place where warning removal complaints used to go was WP:RFI. It was good that they went there because serious investigation usually was the only way to settle whether the situation was good faith misunderstanding, confusion about policies, temporary hotheadedness, or gaming the system. The problem that brought RFI down was that not enough serious sleuths populated the board to take care of the inflow of requests. While I was active there I would remove warnings or explain them, depending on whether I deemed the notice appropriate. If someone removed valid warnings I would monitor the situation. Almost every time, that person would do something shortly afterward that merited a user block. Aggressive removal of valid warnings is one factor I weigh in deciding how long a block should be. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons why this is wrong

The following are three reasons why this proposal, and indeed any proposal, for policies preventing removing warnings are wrong:

Completely unnecessary: The major argument in favour of prohibiting the removal of warnings is to allow warnings to be visible for other users; but this can be completely countered by favouring instead a system whereby users leaving warnings note the name of the warning template used in their edit summary, probably in capitals. An edit summary like "warning with TEST2, for vandalism" or "UW-DELETE3, for blanking pages" tells other users everything they need to know. Such summaries could even be automatically generated by certain software tools.; Arguments that certain software tools look for templates on the user talk pages of users being investigated can similarly be completely rebutted, since the software can simply be adjusted to use the history page instead.

Wrongly used: To borrow the words of Eugène van der Pijll, "warnings are meant as an attempt to communicate, not as a record of past behaviour". If a user sees a warning on their user talk page and removes it, then the objective of placing the warning in the first place - attempting to communicate - has been met. The idea that they should be restored to the page and kept there is predicated on the false idea that a user's talk page is there to be a permanent record of past misconduct.

Disruptive: Warnings are mostly used correctly but are sometimes used illegitimately for harassment of other users, or as strategic tools in content disputes. Yet somehow the vast majority of disputes about removing and replacing warnings involve these cases of harassment, and not cases of legitimate warnings. Proposals like this would only serve to facilitate such stupid disputes. Bitter conflicts about what is and what is not a valid warning, and whether it is or is not valid to remove a warning, are utterly pointless.; The (now-deleted) templates designed for warning users about removing warnings have a long history of misuse. Anyone who wants illustration of this point should look at the discussions around those templates. The amount of disruption caused to the community by these disputes is just not worth it, particularly when there is a superior alternative in tracking through the history page.

To put these all together: warnings are an effort to inform people about what sort of behaviour is blockable and how to behave correctly. How people choose to respond to these attempts at communication is irrelevant to whether or not they get blocked - they get blocked for engaging in blockable behaviour, end of story. In the cases where it's important to know whether attempts have been made to inform users of policy, then the history page and edit summaries can be used - there's no better way to track the delivery of warnings. --bainer (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading my proposal carefully; you will see that it covers improper warnings in the sub-section called Legitimate removal. Also, as I've said before; most users who remove warnings are not doing it to acknowledge the warnings; they're removing them out of spite. Acalamari 16:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they aren't removing the warnings to acknowledge them, by removing them they are acknowledging them. --cesarb 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, they're acknowledging them in the wrong way. I've seen it where they've replaced the warnings with: "This is my talk page: fuck you." To properly acknowledge them, they would stop vandalizing, not leave swearing messages on their talk page. Acalamari 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Acalamari. Ronbo76 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this, and as I pointed out on AN, users do not own their talk page, and we have guidelines against editing other people's comments. So blanking a warning a leave you violates both of those. One of the last people I dealt with who removed warnings from his talk page went on a 2 month harassment and stalking spree.--Crossmr 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you think forcing him to keep the warnings would have improved the situation? In my experience it just serves to piss people off even earlier. Much better to try and work with someone constructively rather than fight with them over warning messages. Dragons flight 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it was simply a comment on observed behaviour in relation to this behaviour of removing warnings. The fact remains there is no good reason to immediately blank warnings and not let them be archived. RC patrollers benefit greatly from having the warnings readily available, and on established user talk pages it can be a nightmare to dig through a talk page to past warnings. Even with labeling them in edit summaries. Do we assume that everyone remembered to label the warnings? We probably can't do that. Do you want to wade through the hundreds of edits that can be on a talk page? or do you quickly want to skim an archive? As it was also pointed out, most people who blank warnings (again only in my experience) are often uncivil about it. Replacing it with profanity, actively trying to own their page by using edit summaries like "Don't edit my talk page", etc--Crossmr 18:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Dragons flight: If users didn't vandalize, they wouldn't get warnings. Who is doing more damage? The vandals, or the users who revert the vandalism and give the vandal a warning? Anyway, I have tried to stop vandals with discussion; there was a vandal who I gave a message (not a warning) to, telling why it would be better to edit constructively as opposed to vandalize; and as a response, they vandalized my user page. To Crossmr: indeed; it would be much easier to go through the warnings in an archive and on the talk page than dig through histories. Acalamari 20:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people who don't vandalize get warning messages. Vandalism requires an intent to cause harm. Some people make mistakes that cause harm and get warned, some people get warned in the course of what is really a content dispute, and some people get warning message simply because trolls like giving them out. Fighting over whether a warning is "valid" is both dumb and harmful. And to answer your question, in my opinion people who edit war over warning messages have caused more harm than many simple vandals because they drive off good faith contributors who simply make mistakes. Dragons flight 21:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I want the proposal to cover: removing legitimate warnings is vandalism, but it's okay to remove false warnings, as long as the user can prove they didn't vandalize. In fact, instead of users edit warring over warnings, Wikipedia could do with creating a new noticeboard to handle false warnings. That way, if a user thinks they've been given a false warning, they could go to the new noticeboard, and others users can review the situation. I'd be willing to help out in something like that. However, this discussion is not about a new noticeboard, and I don't want this discussion to go off-topic by talking about that. Anyway, by my own experience, I've never a found a "simple vandal" who removed messages; as I said above, every user I've encountered who cleared their talk page of warnings just kept vandalizing, and weren't blocked because no one bothered to check the history of their talk page. The vandal kept getting "test2" warnings, removed them, and vandalized a totally unrelated article to what they vandalized before to avoid getting caught by the same user who reverted their vandalism. Acalamari 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please define, for every case, the difference between legitimate and illegitimate warnings. --bainer (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support the comments above by Bainer.

Also, Acalamari writes: Even so, they're acknowledging them in the wrong way. As long as we have a record of them acknowledging receiving the warning, who cares if they're doing it in the wrong way? Again, this is just bureaucratic. Sarah 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its a civility issue for one. If I you leave me a warning and I reply on your talk page with a string of profanity that included the words "I read it". I'd get a civil warning and probably an npa warning as well. I acknowledged the message so that should just be the end of it shouldn't it? That's an extreme example, but I've seen worse in response to a warning. --Crossmr 02:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a civility issue, one can address that without restoring the warning. Dragons flight 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr, you're conflating two separate issues, which is the whole problem with proposals like this. The bad behaviour in your example is the use of profanity, not ignoring the warning. Do you understand how these are separate? --bainer (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree with Bainer. Removing a warning template and violating NPA or Civil are two completely different issues. And many people remove messages, including warning templates, from their talk page without any drama or hysterics or civility or NPA issues. Sarah 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Since I didn't give them permission to blank my comment, and existing guidelines state that they should not edit my words, its uncivil even in the removal unless its an invalid warning. Also They do not own their talk page. So whether I acknowledge that I read it by blanking the warning (violating a policy and a guideline) or whether I acknowledge it by leaving a rude message on your talk page (violating a policy) in essence both actions are wrong. The fact is we have editors who attempt to hide their behaviour (vandalism, personal attacks, sources, etc) by blanking their page and trying to own it, whether every single person who blanks warnings from their talk page is trying to do that, I have no idea and we'd never know. But the high percentage of people who blank it and usually accompany it with vulgarity and other behaviour would indicate to me that its very few if any. Through all this, I've yet to hear a single argument as to what good reason there could be for blanking warnings. Though I've repeatedly heard many good reasons for not blanking warnings. I've also pushed for a bit of a reform to the warning system, including updating some warnings with additional beneficial information for the individual warned, perhaps I should outline those in full detail. I'm not exactly saying we should force the existing warnings on people with the way they work right now.--Crossmr 05:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary: It is necessary because removing warnings makes it difficult to find them.
Wrongly used: Warnings are used to communicate to the user, but also to future editors dealing with the user.
Disruptive: Misusing warnings is disruptive, but misusing any tool is disruptive. We work on common sense and if a warning is given incorrectly we can see that and respond.

I hope I have addressed your concerns. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a level above simply misusing warnings. This implicitly authorises edit warring to ensure that instances of misuse of warnings are not corrected, and even extends to punishing those who attempt to correct instances of misuse. --bainer (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah's Case.

This may sound like cowardice, but I want to drop this proposal: Sarah has provided answers and question that make this policy impossible. If no one minds, I would like to end this discussion now...peacefully. Acalamari 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hasten to add that Sarah's point about newbie-biting really bothers me. After some serious thought, I have come to the conclusion that this proposal would be difficult to enforce, and even if it was, it would generate nothing but more problems. I hope people can accept my withdrawal of this proposal. Acalamari 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feel you should close discussion of this because of my opinion. Obviously I don't agree with the idea of forcing people to keep warnings and I know that I personally wouldn't enforce it as a guideline or policy, but that doesn't mean that you have to stop discussing it. It's something that comes up on a fairly regular basis and so it's good to discuss it and hear what different people think.

I must confess that I'm a bit sensitive to the idea of inadvertent newbie biting because just before I came back from my break, I thought it would be nice to edit just as a regular editor. So on two different days I tried to edit as an anon and on both days I was slapped with spurious vandal warnings. It wasn't a very nice experience. This has made me feel for anons and new people who get slapped with these warnings and then have other people try to force them to keep the warnings on their talk pages. But I know you, Acalamari, and the others are suggesting this idea with the best of intentions and I'm sorry if it seemed earlier that I thought otherwise. Sarah 04:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw the proposal yourself if you like; I believe the template you're looking for is {{historical}} or {{no-consensus}} (in place of {{proposed}}, or as a more extreme measure you could ask for the page to be deleted, since it is largely your own creation. I applaud your willingness to change your mind, and hope this doesn't put you off the concept of proposing changes that you believe will help Wikipedia. :) -- nae'blis 06:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Sarah: no, no; don't apologize! :) Your arguments have made me come up with a better proposal. I have a new way to deal with warnings that would avoid newbie-biting. To Nae'blis, unless people wish to discuss this further here, I will change the "proposal" tag to a "historical" signl I'd like to keep this page. I'm not giving up; I just have a better idea. Sarah's points have caused me to think. As I said, if people wish to discuss this further here, go ahead; I'll still give my input, but if not; I'll close this discussion down. Acalamari 16:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]