Misplaced Pages

:Removing warnings poll - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KrakatoaKatie (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 20 August 2006 (→Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong: agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:57, 20 August 2006 by KrakatoaKatie (talk | contribs) (→Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong: agree)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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()

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.


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.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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.

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)
  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 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 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting valid vandalism warnings related to ongoing disputes is wrong

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.
  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.

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

Deleting valid vandalism warnings is acceptable after reading said warning

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.

Deleting other valid warnings is always wrong

Deleting valid, recently given warnings for other behavior is wrong

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 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Deleting warnings is always acceptable

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.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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! 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  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)
  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 Misplaced Pages to collapse. My experience fighting vandalism is that restoring warnings just makes things worse. JYolkowski // talk 16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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

  2. This vote is for VANDALISM only. It is NOT For DISRUPTION or other warnings. Blue Tie 18:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)
  4. Per John254. Viridae 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. 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 18:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Agree per Ginkgo100. Lauren 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. 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! 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

  2. This vote is for any warnings that do NOT apply to VANDALISM.Blue Tie 18:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Repeatedly removing warnings should be ignored

  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)

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.

The recipient may always remove it themselves

  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. 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)

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

The recipient should ask a third party to remove it

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 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! 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Disputed warnings should not be removed

Use of templates

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 Misplaced Pages community and should be warned with specific, personal messages whenever possible. --Ginkgo100 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)

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)

m:Polls are evil or Misplaced Pages:Voting is not evil?

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)

Polls have magically become a good idea

Polls are a useful means by which to determine consensus

  1. John254 04:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. SB_Johnny | 12:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (Voting only gets worse when it's overly complicated)