Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Magister Mathematicae (talk | contribs) at 20:23, 21 August 2006 (→‎Polls are still evil and a bad way to determine consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.


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 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)[reply]
  2. Totally agree with the above. ViridaeTalk 03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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. ViridaeTalk 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Always wrong, end of story. --Alabamaboy 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Deleting valid, recently given vandalism warnings is wrong

  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)[reply]
  2. Agree with Blue Tie. MER-C 03:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree here. °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 03:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. Agree with Blue Tie. —dima • talk • sb • 04:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
  8. Agree with blue tie -- Selmo 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 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)[reply]
  10. Agree. A week of good behavior should be rewarded with permission to remove warnings. Shushruth 05:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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. ViridaeTalk 10:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree. Should institute weeks-to-months waiting period, per reasons stated above. CastleCraver walk the dog 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. Syrthiss 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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.[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. Syrthiss 22:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. Per the above. Blanking warnings is not good... reverting to restore them is much worse. --CBD 00:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above. JYolkowski // talk 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Per John254. ViridaeTalk 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. Agree per John254. Lauren 18:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. Agree per John254 Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree. John254 puts it across for all us RC patrollers. Shushruth 05:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree with John254. --Wildnox 06:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 10:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree Gwernol 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Fully agree with John254. Postdlf 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strongly agree per John254. Agne 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. 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:
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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 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)[reply]
  4. Per John254. ViridaeTalk 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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 talk · e@ 18:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree per Ginkgo100. Lauren 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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! balls•strikes 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RC patrollers rely on warnings to keep up with vandals. Agree Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 00:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In cases of vandalism warnings --Wildnox 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Vandalism, and NPOV warnings only. °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 10:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree for Vandalism warning only per John254. Agne 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  3. Same as above. --Wildnox 06:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. Agree for non-vandalism warnings. Agne 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Agree Ucanlookitup 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. Agree °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]

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. ViridaeTalk 03:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Absolutely. ×Meegs 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

m:Polls are evil or Wikipedia:Voting is not evil?

Polls are still evil and a bad way to determine consensus

  1. Phil Sandifer 02:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. I vow to act in common sense and disregard above polls, whatever outcome is, when they conflict with my common sense -- Drini 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. ViridaeTalk 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Agne 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. This is way too complicated to be useful. --Conti|✉ 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mein brain ist sproingst. Powers T 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Removing_warnings_poll&oldid=71029740"