Wikipedia talk:Don't restore removed comments

project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

"Readd" sounds ugly to my (non-American English) ears.

Unless someone objects (and provides sound reasons), I would like to change the essay to read as follows on or after

I agree with this. When I read the headline, I suspected it was a mis-spelled "read" and was temporarily confused why one should not "read removed comments". --NotSarenne 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, "Readd" is incorrect even in AmEng. "Re-add" would be the correct spelling of such a construction, though in this case "restore" works just fine. --King ♣ Talk 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should be

I came across this exchange between two editors about whether or not one should restore vandalism and block warnings that have been placed on someone's Talk page. Is this guideline saying that one shouldn't? And if so, doesn't that reduce editors' ability to track and stop vandalism?

You raise an excellent point for further discussion - these are still only proposed guidelines and not yet adopted.

Alice.S

22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing a previous quote from my talk page, it seems very counter to

WP:3RR, not a violation against the person replacing the warnings. ++Arx Fortis 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Are there a lot of instances where vandalism warnings are applied without justification? I mean, how big a problem is that -- compared to vandalism which we know is a problem?

Shawn in Montreal 00:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In numerical terms, rather small I would guess. But I think I read somewhere that although millions of accounts and IP's have edited our encyclopedia, there is a hard core of less than 5000 users that are responsible for most of the good articles. Applying warnings as a form of harassment can be very relevant when the

Alice.S

15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, though some valid points have been brought up.

1. The exception we are discussing should apply only to current vandals (i.e. repeating, in-progress or very recent vandalism), similar to the way

WP:AIV

works. In fact, it becomes rather time-consuming to provide appropriate documentation for WP:AIV if vandalism warnings have been removed from his or her talk page. It goes from a simple 'User talk:' reference to multiple 'diff' references (once you've found them all, provided you're even aware of them).

2. The exception is not intended to apply to a vandalism warning posted in the heat of a legitimate edit dispute over content provided both parties are working in

good faith

.

3. Lastly, the exception does not mean warnings have to remain on a user's talk page indefinitely. People who stumble across Wikipedia may vandalize without really understanding the impact of what they are doing. Thus, they may get a warning template or two. When a user demonstrates constructive contributions, they should feel free to remove warnings from their talk page. ++Arx Fortis 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My proposals would be

1. to continue the immunity from being blocked automatically for
   WP:AN/3RR
   notice board, but remind the whitewashing talk page owner that, if there is no justification for continual deletions of good faith warnings, comments and questions, he may still find himself blocked judiciously for edit warring and/or incivility.
2. to remove that immunity from being blocked automatically for
   WP:3RR
   to the talk page owner where he successively removes warnings that have been restored by an administrator specifically stating that he is restoring comments/warnings while acting as an administrator and extend that immunity to any ordinary user who restores (successively or not) these type of administrator sanctioned warnings/comments
3. develop an appeal template (similar to a block appeal template) to appeal for permission to remove the latter class of warning where it is disputed or the talk page owner believes it is time-expired or has served its purpose.

If these proposals are accepted, there would need to be appropriate amendments made to

Alice.S

20:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're both vastly better informed than I am. I've struck my suggestion. Yours should be the basis upon which further discussion takes place. Thanks,

So nothing ever happened with this?

I admit it is not exactly an every day problem, but I would say maybe once a month or so I encounter someone who evades a block for much longer than they ought, creating a lot of other work for people in the process, because they remove the warnings from their page and other editors coming along to add more warnings/assess the possibility of a block simply do not bother to check the page history.

My proposal would have been that you can't delete a good faith warning for 24 hours or something like that. (Obviously bad faith warnings would be considered vandalism and wouldn't count) That way, nobody is stuck with a warning, but at least we can see a little bit of short-term history about who has tangled with the offending editor/vandal. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation of

WP:AIV report. Blocking is quick and easy when you see a progression of four recent warnings like this in the edit summaries. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I use Twinkle, so Twinkle does what Twinkle does.

I guess the problem is not so much with admins not checking history after a

WP:AIV

, but with vandal patrollers not checking history when they give a warning (including myself). It's an extra step, and with the amount of vandalism going on, it's an extra step I'm not likely to start doing any time soon.

If there were some pressing reason to let people immediately remove good faith warnings from their talk pages, then I think the extra step would be justified. But I see no legitimate reason to immediately remove a good faith warning. None at all. I mean, there are plenty of illegitimate reasons, like you find it embarrassing that you got caught, or you want people to fail to realize you have already been warned, etc. But I don't see any legitimate reasons for immediate removal of a warning.

If the person reforms and becomes a good Wikipedian, they can remove the warning then. I don't think anybody has a problem with someone removing stale warnings...

I really don't understand what possesses the Wikipedia community to think this is a good idea, but hey, I don't write the checks, so whatever.. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this essay specify registered users? I have no problem with a registered user deleting warnings from their talk page; that counts as tacit acknowledgment of them in my book. Anonymous users - IP address accounts - present another issue. Because there's no continuity of users, removing the comments leave an impartial record to the reader. How can they understand why they were blocked with only a block message on the page, because a previous anonymous user on that IP deleted the warnings? Likewise, it makes it harder for persons patrolling vandalism to assess how much has been coming from the IP.

I have no problem with old warnings being taken off IP address pages, but I think fresh ones (last 30 days) should stay - and I think this essay should address that. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Excellent point, Fred!

Alice.S

23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my experience (prior to when I used an account) that users are not supposed (or allowed?) to remove messages from anonymous talk pages (IP talk pages), regardless of if the messages are warnings or discussion....and it is recommended that users create an account in order to maintain their own talk page. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there are plenty of anonymous IP users - self included - who have no particular interest in establishing a registered account, and yet maintain USER and/or TALK pages. I am unaware of any policy or guideline or even essay which suggests we are somehow second-class citizens here, with fewer rights. I acknowledge that the price of my anonymity is that if my IP is randomly assigned to some schmuck who vandalizes and gets the IP banned, them's the breaks. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some very interesting points were brought up above. Keep it up! HaereMai (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my talkpage, there has been a very short discussion of the way the first sentence reads. How about: If an editor removes a comment (legitimate or not) from their talk page, do not add the comment back.

or (legitimate or otherwise) ?

I broke sentences up in this essay because I felt they were long and bulky. Perhaps a recast of that sentence will retain pertinent info without sounding stuffy/stilted or hastily-written? MKoltnow 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording, a good faith attempt to address this issue, is worse IMHO. Add back the comment is not proper in American English and sounds very wrong to my ears. To me it is just like : "throw the baby down the stairs her blanket." I like the proposal made above by MKoltnow, so I'll put that in for now and see if anyone objects. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case I ever need to say it, how exactly would I voice the command to "throw the blanket down the stairs to reach the owner (a baby) who is situate at the foot of the stairs" in American English (grin)?

Seriously, I do think that your version reads much better than mine. Well done! Alice^✉ 11:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Throw a blanket downstairs to the baby". JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to have to file an Rfc about American Cultural Imperialism - surely "Throw her blanket downstairs to the baby" ? (huge grin). Alice^✉ 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, I was leaving out the possibly important data that the baby was female, and somehow owned the blanket. But at least the baby survived my version. :) JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on it a bit more, your last version is still a bit ambiguous. In your version it is possible that the baby is a boy and/or does not own the blanket, but some other unspecified female owns the blanket. "I see Jane left her stuff up there again; throw her blanket downstairs to the baby, because he wants it." There may not be a short way to make this absolutely clear without other sentences around it to provide context. All the more reason to avoid regional variations of english which make a particular incorrect interpretation more likely to some editors. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If an editor removes such a warning shortly after being told not to, then this should be reported to

That is exactly this debate/discussion that is going on, Neil. No consensus has been reached. There are some very valid points in the sections above about certain instances where a user should not revert warnings. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, all Wikipedians would agree that the purpose of User Talk pages is to assist communication between editors.

Perhaps the $64,000 dollar question is whether that communication is intended to be purely, solely and exclusively a "hub and spoke" conversation between the user whose talk page the conversation is taking place on and other editors OR whether there are occasions when it would be useful (to the project in general) to quickly and clearly see important communications (without having to wade through what may be a very long edit history in the case of consistently problematic users who instantly and repeatedly delete unfavourable comments and warnings).

A compromise needs to be drawn here between the desire to protect reformed users from having a "wall of shame" and the need for problematic patterns of behaviour to be quickly and easily tracked and action taken. A balance needs to be struck between the wishes of the individual (miscreant?) editor and our project as a whole. When Wikipedia was a very small community we could err on the side of courtesy and tolerance but now that we have grown larger perhaps the balance needs to be re-drawn a smidgeon... Alice^✉ 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Alice. When vandal-fighters revert and warn, they often look at the existing page to see what level of warning to give out. Having to read the history to know whether existing warnings have been erased makes that task more challenging. While it's clear that users don't need a wall of shame on their talk pages, most editors separate vandal warnings by month and year. Perhaps it's reasonable to allow removal after some time--particularly one in which the editor continued to edit without warnings being issued. And let's face it, the typical editor who immediately removes a warning from his page after it's been issued is one who is likely to cause more problems. MKoltnow 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are certainly examples of the sort of thing I had in mind, MKoltnow. I would like to expand on your fixed expiry period idea so as to avoid revert warring on User Talk pages (which is, of course, the fundamental rationale for making an exception to the general prohibition on removing another editor's comments from a talk page) and seek to agree a specific period for warnings (Templated or hand-crafted) to remain visible: One calendar month.

One calendar month is easy to calculate for humans - will robots be able to calculate that too?

I would also suggest a specific provision for any admin (except an admin removing warnings from his own talk page) to remove warnings earlier if, in his sole discretion, the warning is not needed (either because the warning is/was unjustified or has become redundant.

Finally, I would suggest that an exception be made to both of these provisions in the case of warnings left by users who have not registered and/or logged on - these IP comments should still be able to be removed at the whim of the owner of the User Talk page. Alice^✉ 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that last bit, we already have in there the thing about unless obviously left in bad faith... a good faith warning from an anon is no less valid than the same warning from a registered user.JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The devil is in the detail, as ever. There is a greater percentage of trolling and vandalism that comes from IP's and we want this rule to be as simple as possible to administer. Of course being an IP editor does not preclude placing a valid warning - but under my proposal they would be no more disadvantaged than at present. Essentially there are three broad classes of IP's who may be placing warnings:

1. those who have forgotten to log on - they can simply log on and replace the deleted warning placed as an IP with one that will endure for one month under their normal user account
2. those who refuse to log on for a variety of reasons, some acceptable, some not - they should forfeit their right to place an enduring warning since they can always ask another editor to do this
3. those who have not yet created an account - this will be one more reason to register. Alice^✉ 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the removal of recent warnings, I firmly believe that 30 days is a reasonable period of time to allow for project purposes described above to be met, while not creating a permanent wall of shame. If the users just keep immediately removing warnings, then they would likely get a test-1 warning from multiple editors doing their best to assume good faith, while allowing clearly-inappropriate behavior to perpetuate into unnecessary disruption by the problematic editor. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Does anyone think that 30 days is too long? Alice^✉ 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 30 minutes is too long. The usual response to complaints posted on ANI that read "User:X removed my warning so I reverted him and then he removed it again" is (paraphrasing) "Quit being a douche and let him remove the warning. It's in the history, so this accomplishes nothing". Remeber, the purpose of warning templates is not to mark out problem users for future reference. The purpose is to inform the user that their conduct is unhelpful and if continued may lead to a block. If they remove the template, then they have clearly read it, and the purpose has been achieved. Nobody is going to block users for removing warning templates from their own talk page. They may block "vandal fighters" edit warring to keep them on there, though.

☎ 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The purpose for the warnings remaining is not to assist administrators to see what has occurred, it is to assist editors on patrol to correctly determine the proper level to use for multi-level warning templates. Without the warnings, editors will normally continue to leave numerous consecutive test-1's when escalation is the appropriate action. Obviously an admin processing a AN/I or AIV will do thorough research and look at contributions, deleted contributions, etc, but anti-vandal patrollers will not do this, and should not be expected to. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? An anti-vandal patroller should be looking at the user's contributions before issuing a warning template - this would show if any warnings had been removed by the user.

☎ 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That's preposterous! This level of investigation is certainly not done by patrollers reverting vandalism and leaving warning templates. They should and do put that much effort in prior to submitting to ANI or AIV, but not when just warning about a revert. We must be practical. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a flaw in the logic here - so if the patroller isn't checking to see if warnings have been removed, then how would you know to enforce this rule that "warnings should not be removed"?

☎ 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Somebody will probably catch the removal while reviewing a special wikipedia page called "recent changes". But somebody who sees a vandalism edit and reverts it will not likely look over the editor's talk page history to decide what level of template to give. If the page is empty they will just give test-1. So the vandal would just get test-1 over and over and over and over again. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[deindent] I do not concede that the only utility to leaving a warning template is to inform the user, Neill. However, even if that were conceded, is it not better that the errant user is informed by an appropriately escalating series of templated warnings rather than inevitably concluding (hopefully wrongly) that these warnings are toothless and can safely be ignored?

I do take your point, Neill, about it being possibly vague, subjective and arbitrary for the user themselves to decide when a warning has been left in bad faith. Normally I do not think that standard templated warnings would be given precedence over a hand-crafted, customised, original warnings but, in this case, I make an exception. The standard template warnings (unless recently vandalised) are unlikely to be offensive and so I have edited the wording of the essay just now to remove some of your objections, I hope. As currently worded, it is only these standard templated warnings where there is a prohibition on removal within one calendar month.

One other point to consider would be robot-placed template warnings. I think these should be in the same class as IP template warnings and removable at whim. What do others feel? Alice^✉ 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil is right. This isn't going to happen. Admins are not going to be willing to block users over something as (to put it quite honestly) dumb as removing a warning template, especially since users frequently issue them in error (or deliberately issue them wrongly). Admins and vandal patrollers alike simply need to look through the history of the user's talk page and the user's contribs to determine what level is appropriate. I also find it rather odd that warning templates would be privileged over other comments to be unassailable in this way. Warning templates are nothing more than a shortcut so you don't have to repeatedly type the same message. They do not have any status above some other type of comment. (Note that I never use templates when notifying users they have been blocked for edit warring. Does this mean that my notices can be removed, while someone who uses a block template will have their message remain for 30 days?) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there would be no change under the proposal as presently formulated. Your handcrafted block warning could be removed at present and it could in future under this proposal. The rationale for this is that your handcrafted individual block notice might (in your illustrious case, unwittingly) have been unnecessarily offensive, whereas the templated block notice has had the benefit of calm and sober reflection (and discussion) by more than one editor. This seeming anomaly is intended to address Neil's point about who gets to decide if a warning is an offensive one or not. The point about who decides if it is in bad faith or not would be addressed by an administrator - so presumably you could tell the blocked user that he technically can (but is advised not to) remove the hand-crafted part but not the template part until the expiry of one calendar month. If this advice is ignored you would have no more and no less grounds to take further action than you do now. I don't propose

spelling out in the essay that the calendar month prohibition on removal is toothless, though. Alice^✉

08:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't see anyone above suggesting that users be blocked for removing templates within 30 days. Sometimes guidance alone is quite effective without sanctions. Especially as the text removed (see section below) specifically included the rejoinder: "Do not
   edit war
   over warnings."
2. You say "pester" but in the example you gave there would have been absolutely nothing prohibiting you from explaining, directly underneath the bad faith warning, your explanation of exactly why you thought it unjustified (as an alternative to pestering an administrator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 January 2008 UTC

Err, did I say anything about blocking? And how is "wall of shame with explanation" a good solution? Anomie⚔ 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not, however, edit other people's comments to change what they wrote (even if you think you're helping)."

Although I have no contention with this statement, it seems completely unrelated to the lead paragraph, and possiblt unrelated to the point of this essay. Discuss... JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you excised was my re-phrasing of another editor's addition, and I thought it less dangerous for the first paragraph to read:

"If an editor removes a comment from their own

talk page

, (legitimate or not), it should remain removed. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it. The comment is still in the page history, so it is not important to keep it visible, just to prove that they were told about it. Do not, however, edit other people's comments to change what they wrote (even if you think you're helping)."

so as to avoid a naive (or wikilawyering) editor suggesting that he could just remove at will those portions of criticism that he objected to. We're talking "normal" comments here, not the warnings that we propose should endure for 30 days, so I think that this restatement of existing

WP:TALK guidelines is helpful and appropriate at that point. On balance, I think it should be restored and if you don't disagree, I'd be grateful if you would. Alice^✉

07:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what it was referring-to, now. I have put in a new second paragraph that states this in detail, and offers some common-sense exceptions. I also moved the bit about 3RR to the end. Let me know what you think. As before, change it if it needs improvement. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though this is just an essay, the following section has been removed because it directs editors to violate official Wikipedia policy:

Both the official policy on

That's the exact same point I made - glad to see I'm not alone on this.

☎ 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Awotter (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I largely disagree with this essay. The user talk page does not exist only for the user in question (unlike, say a user's personal email address). It is designed to help the wiki function smoothly. When users remove comments prematurely, or without archiving, that makes it difficult (though of course, not impossible) for others to see warnings and concerns the user has heard in the past. Thus, I tend to revert such blanking when the page contains warnings; I always add a note recommending the user archive instead. I have done so recently, which is indirectly what brought me here.

If you or any other editor places a warning on a talk page the history remains. Any user has the right to delete them. To say otherwise or propose another layer of bureaucratic gobbledygook just seems unnecessarily intrusive. Good editors can be offended and even driven away (seen it already) and the bad ones don't care.Awotter (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the history remains. But it's a hassle to make editors dig through it just because users don't want anyone to see negative feedback at first glance. I don't see this as complex gobbledygook. How complex is, "Don't blank your talk page."?

Talk 07:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's usually not the initial action that's gobbledygook, it's the follow-up that can be a nightmare. As I'm sure you are aware now it's sometimes easy to misunderstand a policy, guideline or procedure, especially when that involves correcting a mistake or resolving a dispute. Template warnings are fine and save time, but if the situation requires patience, then direct communication would seem to me much better and that is a better respect of good faith actions. Other editors have addressed the fact that it may be a pain in the butt to review a users contribution history, but the time it saves in preventing misunderstandings is worth it.Awotter (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say we had a policy that warnings can't be removed, then what would happen? If someone's prepared to break policy by, say, vandalising articles, then why wouldn't they be prepared to break policy by blanking warnings? It would be a completely useless policy. Put that together with the reality that the practice of restoring warnings in the past resulted in harassment and other such ills on more than a few occasions, and the only reasonable conclusion is that this essay is on the ball on that count.

Some recommended reading:

talk) 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me rephrase that argument, but for something different Wikipedia does ban (last time I checked). Let's say we had a policy against personal attacks. If someone's prepared to break policy by, say, vandalising articles, then why wouldn't they be prepared to break policy by attacking other editors? It would be a completely useless policy. Put that together with the reality that the practice of banning personal attacks in the past resulted in harassment and other such ills on more than a few occasions, and the only reasonable conclusion is that this essay is on the ball on that count.

Neither your argument nor the essay does much to explain why we should allow blanking. No one seems to dispute that it makes it more difficult for other editors, and the talk page clearly is meant to serve the wiki not just the editor (it isn't private email like

Talk 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

From your links, I see, "The main use of these is when a user is on a vandalism spree and is removing warnings as fast as they're getting them; otherwise it would be possible for a user to get nothing but test1s and not be blocked. Some vandalfighters don't check talkpage history when warning a user (probably to speed up their vandalfighting).", by ais523. I strongly agree with this. The reply was, "Every vandal-fighter who is worth his salt always checks the user's contributions link and so sees that warnings have been removed.", by Kusma. Great, so now vandalism patrol is more than twice as slow an automatic tools like TW don't work. And why is this again? Besides the idea that people

Talk 13:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I also disagree with this. A talk page is not a user's ownership --

Ч) 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I delete everything from my user talk page. Jecowa (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is your right as a registered user per the

WP:USER policies. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I just became aware of this absurd vandal protection "policy." This is beyond idiotic. I wonder what vandal came up with it? We can't re-add warnings/blocks of active/persistent vandals? This is genius! Why don't we give them barnstars for vandalizing instead! Red Harvest (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing warring with a user on their own talk page is the height of futility. And to answer your question, this "policy" was not written by a vandal, it was derived from preexisting rules. Specifically, the official policy on

User page guideline was updated [3] 589 days ago to explicitly state that users may remove content at will from their own talk pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not edit warring with them, it is a signpost for other non-vandal editors. It also serves as a quick reminder that others know what the perp is up to. If they want to continue vandalizing after that, then they have no excuses and should be treated accordingly. I'm continously amazed at the high regard some wikipedians, and very unfortunatley influential ones, have for vandals. Red Harvest (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point that should be made is that as the user is accumulating warnings I can see NO VALID REASON that a full listing of prior ones should not be included. There is a reason that the vandalism and 3RR's are coming up on their talk page. The final paragraph of the essay that I object to is all about making such information difficult for other editors to find.

Are there exceptions? Sure. If someone has not been vandalizing recently then reposting their warnings is not particularly friendly. And having a true edit war on their page reposting one over and over again (with no new additions) would be different. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm pointing to the problem of the full list of warnings not being available when someone is actively undermining the system. Why make it easy for vandals and hard on good faith editors and administrators? At wiki no good deed shall go unpunished. Red Harvest (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not edit warring? Of course it is! What is an edit war, if not the repeated reverting of another user's edits? What are warnings for? Do you seriously think their primary purpose is to serve as scarlet letters? Or are they intended to notify a user that their behavior is potentially disruptive and/or a violation of current policy? A page's history is best revealed by... you guessed it, the page's history tab. Relying on current page display offers nothing but a false sense of security, with the added bonus of poisoning the well against reform and endorsing systemic harassment of users who set a toe out of line. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into things a bit, it looks like you came to this page after getting into an argument with

User:Ctjf83 over some talk page warnings you were restoring; you seem concerned that repeated disruptive behavior from some user is being swept under the rug, I think referring to User:Emir34. I notice that user is currently blocked (for 72 hours), and will probably be reblocked in the event disruptive behavior continues after this block expires. I'd be happy to look into that, if you have repeated problems with them. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It appears that Emir34‎ (talk · contribs · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for continued incivility by Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Kralizec! (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This essay is entirely inadequate with regards to vandals and serves as a vandal protection policy. Others have noted it above me. That final paragraph needs amendment because as has been pointed out here it is regularly misapplied by well meaning wikipedians (see Ctjf83's comments to me.) It seems that the primary effort of the wiki controlling interests is preventing the broader community of editors from getting into action sooner. It is entirely dysfunctional. The final paragraph of this essay is a reflection of that dysfunction. As such the final paragraph must go or be properly amended. Red Harvest (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing above others have noted how impractical the current essay is and how misapplied it is to warnings. (One of them has left wiki.) Until this dispute can be resolved satisfactorily the paragraph should be stricken. It is time to put some burden on those who are attempting to foist the present unhelpful bit on the rest of us to come up with a solution. As written the essay handicaps efforts to combat vandalism by the average wikipedian and has a chilling effect on those it should instead be enlisting. Most will never notice the previous warnings if they have been wiped, that I have noticed many times. If an editor finds active vandalism and chooses to repost old warnings/blocks there is no harm in that, and quite a bit of good as it can provide an excellent, up-to-date summary. The user can still delete it from the talk page (essentially acknowledging the reminder.) By putting such information on a page during active vandalism, useless low level warnings may be dispensed with and editors will be more likely to elevate the matter properly. Red Harvest (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't some random, arbitrary thought: it's been debated back and forth for years now, by far more than a tiny handful of people on this one talk page -- you're not the first to suddenly think they've outsmarted the rest of us, and you probably won't be the last.

You say there's "no harm" in restoring old warnings. I say there is almost always a better solution. If some newcomer is repeatedly vandalizing, which will achieve a block faster: reverting {{

WP:AN/I archives and the like can be. With so many superior alternatives, why worry about a template message on a talk page? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I realize that several of you are erroneously trying to apply this to a single event, you could not be more mistaken. There is a continued pattern of this and it doesn't take statistics to recognize it. When I identify such systematic problems, I attempt to find solutions rather than just whine about them or blow them off. I wish more editors would take the trouble, but in discussions like these it is apparent why they do not. Red Harvest (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given it was clearly your dispute with that user that brought you here -- in the immediate sense, I mean, not trying to discount your other concerns -- I wanted to see to it that your issues with that user were addressed. That they were apparently addressed without changing philosophy regarding warnings is, I think, worthy of note. Do you have any other examples of problems? There is almost always another solution, and frequently it's a better one. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it many times when investigating vandals. I used to post the appropriate warning level myself, but quickly concluded it was a waste of time in looking at various IP vandals. From what I've seen most vandals are reverted without warning. (When I realized this I quit bothering with warnings.) Fewer still are warned at the appropriate level each time. Really, including "rvv" in the edit summary should be enough to bring up a box asking if the editor wants to submit an automated vandalization warning...and it should also be listing recent warnings and automatically suggested the appropriate level based on guidelines. With this presently consisting of manual putzing around and searches, it isn't worth most editor's time. Seeing lists of warnings wiped off the page, and that being actively encouraged here, makes it appear even more futile. If wiki wants to improve the quality and quantity of useful edits, then it needs to figure out how to engage editors in combatting vandals...rather than doing as it does now with essays like this, actively discouraging conscientious editors. Red Harvest (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be strongly opposed to this policy, but have since changed my mind somewhat. The bottom line is that forbidding people from removing warnings would stimulate edit warring, and it's a tough call on which is more costly: The edit warring, or the vandals/bad accounts who manage to stay around for longer due to delete unnoticed warnings.

I definitely think that accounts need to be allowed to remove warnings at will. I have seen way too many edit wars that were easily defused by pointing to

I would potentially support some very limited restrictions on IP removal of warnings, e.g. cannot remove a warning for 24 hours. But I don't feel strongly about it anymore. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much like Jaysweet, I also used to strongly disagree with this policy. However when the issue was extensively re-examined at

consensus was again quite clear that all editors (including IPs) may remove comments at will from their own talk page. As a result, I had to adjust my thinking on the issue. C'est la vie. In retrospect, I was lucky I never got blocked for violating 3RR! However as penance for my earlier "mistreatment" of editors -especially anonymous users- I now try to help other editors avoid making the same mistakes I did. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And you still miss the point. I don't care whether they are allowed to remove the warnings. I do however see it as important that others are allowed to repost them as a reminder when active vandalization is occurring. (That doesn't mean violating other rules as the current essay wrongly suggests.) Unfortunately, the current essay is counter to that, and therefore wrong. It is misapplied by other editors, and that is how I ended up here. As it is an essay with redundant and misleading statements, I will continue to ignore the final paragraph. Red Harvest (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand that this is just an

official policies

into one cohesive document. As an example, this essay encapsulates and summarizes the following:

• from
  WP:VAN
  - removing warning from your talk page is explicitly not vandalism
• from
  WP:USER
  - editors are permitted to remove messages at will from their own talk pages
• from
  WP:3RR
  - restoring warnings is not an exception to the 3RR policy
• from
  WP:HARASS
  - restoring warnings is considered to be userspace harassment
• from
  WP:EW
  - users who repeatedly revert each other may be blocked
• from
  WP:BLOCK
  - editors may be blocked in order to deter disruptive behavior and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms

In short, editors who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the problem is that others are also misled by this essay and believe it is policy? That's what brought me here, another who was attempting to warn me away from doing something that was legitimate. Like it or not, many even on this page refer to it as "policy" or treat it as a guideline rather than as an essay. Ignoring the problem doesn't fix it. The final paragraph is being interpreted in a prejudicial manner that protects vandals. I don't expect to make any headway, but I will shoot down the strawman arguments that keep getting thrown about. Red Harvest (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what ways do you feel that the final paragraph is misleading users? To the best of my understanding, it is fully supported by the six policies and guidelines listed in my reply above. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posting a list of previously received warnings during a spate of uncivil or vandalistic behaviour is not harassing or engaging in 3RR. Yet the paragraph unnecessarily says an editor can be blocked for this. If there was some exclusion about such reminders/summaries of warnings, with a caution to not let that become an edit war or 3RR or such then it would be another matter. Therefore, I object to the unnecessarily prejudicial language which in my experience has been misinterpreted by other editors. Red Harvest (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official policies and guidelines would appear to indicate that the exact opposite is true. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Red Harvest (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this argument a lot of people tend to focus on the new user. Yes its very easy to view the page history of a new user and examine any blanked warnings. What about an established editor with a busy talk page? These editors make it much more difficult to check page histories for warnings. If you have hundreds of edits to your talk page or even thousands, just how easy is it to go back through that and check what you've been warned for? Easy for edits in the last few days, but outside of that no. I really haven't seen anyone in all this time make a genuine case for what is wrong with requiring all editors archive their talk page (including warnings) in a manner that makes it easy for any editor to go back through and check what discussions have taken place there. Talk pages are supposed to be a record of communication with that editor and frankly if they get over a couple dozen edits they can be a nightmare to read if they're constantly being blanked. We have automatic bots, it takes 5 minutes to throw the code up on your talk page and you're done. I just can't think of a single good reason as to why anyone would want to blank their talk page other then just "want to" and frankly just wanting to doesn't benefit the project. Its much easier for other editors to read your archives rather than try to paste together 300 diffs and figure out exactly whats been put on your talk page.--

I brought this up over a year ago, and no one has managed to answer it. I still object to this essay because we've had several cases where it has been a chore to piece together someone's continually blanked talk page to figure out what they've been warned for and the flow of conversation. More than once an established editor was confused into thinking a user hadn't been warned for something.--

Crossmr (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you feel strongly about the issue, propose a policy change at

WP:AIV on a daily basis, I am not slowed down at all by an IP who thinks he or she can "hide" by deleting messages. This is due to the fact that the talk page history is a much more useful tool to me, and the date/time of warnings is what I look at, rather than the content of those messages. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

IP talk page histories are usually small. These are rarely difficult to navigate. It is the long term editors who continually blank, or selectively blank parts of their talk page that cause issues. An editor who selectively blanks certain warnings and lets the rest remain/be archived is quite likely trying to hide past deeds. Otherwise why blank them unless they're vandalism? Anyone who sees an editors talk page with an archive section would be assuming good faith and assume every non-vandalism/personal attack piece of talk that occurred on that users page is probably archived and would probably never think to check the talk page history. They might only catch this if the user has blanked a very recent warning and then think to check the rest of the several hundred edits to the talk page and then discover some issue has been going on for months or years, but no one pieced it together because of blanking instead of archiving. Through all of this consensus that has apparently been made, I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why the community should allow blanking in the first place. Other than the claim that it is the users talk page, but that isn't binding. We lock people's talk pages if they abuse them, so they are not theirs to do whatever they so choose with. A talk page is a record of communication and if that record is messed with in such a way that it becomes difficult to piece together the communication then it is an issue for the community. To me, any user's right to "their" page stops at the point where it interferes with the normal flow of everything on wikipedia. If someone is causing an issue on wikipedia and they've mangled their talk page to such a degree that it would take 30 minutes to an hour to try and piece it back together, I feel that is disruptive.--

Crossmr (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Registered editors have enjoyed the right to remove messages at will from their own talk page for a very long time: it was explicitly added to the official

Vandalism policy nearly four years ago [4]. The chances of changing that now are probably not very high. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That doesn't make it any less disruptive. When that was written that may not have been a foreseen issue.--

Crossmr (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

-Axmann8 (Talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this page is not a policy, but is instead an

WP:TALK guideline. However to answer your question, talk pages exist to facilitate communication between editors, and clear communication would be pretty difficult if people could edit each other's comments. In order to prevent any possible confusion as to who said what, as a social norm we generally prohibit people from changing others' messages. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This essay just explains and reinforces some of the reasons behind

community approval. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have been a wikipedia editor for roughly six years. Just became aware of this essay when I posted to the talk page of a possible tendentious editor and had it immediately reverted. Wikipedia relies on concensus. How are individual editors to know if a particular editor acts improperly as custom and practice, except by some sort of central mechanism for collecting complaints. The best place for this is personal talk pages. The talk pages exist for the good of wikipedia and should be treated as such. If not there, I suggest some sort of other wikipage. Admins?-- Sometimes admins are the worst offenders. All for privacy and free speach. But perhaps somoe editors use this essay to justify hiding systemic violations of the rules of wikipedia. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted "In the interest of a smoothly functioning wikipedia, users are strongly encouraged not to remove comments." while leaving the rest. This puts the onus against censorship, while still allowing it. Again, this is only an essay and not policy. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your edit was inappropriate. Can you give an example of where Wikipedia is not operating properly due to this essay? There is, by the way, quite a difference between the two. Jesanj (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you can still delete talk page posts, but that it is discouraged. Sets a particular tone.

In the past, this was wikipedia policy and in fact may still be, this essay notwithstanding. In my experience and that of others (see above), a few editors systematically violate wikipedia policy, even if only by incivility and POV pushing. Such editors are one of the major impediments to participating in wikipedia.

We are not talking of occasional slips, but of wholesale violations that give rise to multiple complaints. If you are not doing much wrong, this should be no problem. Just part of the process. There is also a certain deterrent effect when such offenses can be easily identified by reading talk pages. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking for a specific example. I'm unconvinced, but we can see what others say. In my mind, the tone you're trying to set is completely opposite from the intent of this essay. Perhaps the essay that strikes the tone you like has already been written, or you can write it. Jesanj (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a typically salty bully-min (admin bully/bullying willing minions and goons) 2A00:23EE:16E8:B931:2ED6:88C6:3F19:6E0B (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to spell nucleophilic 2A00:23EE:16E8:B931:2ED6:88C6:3F19:6E0B (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By looking at their talk page's history and seeing whether they deleted anything from it and, if so, what. Largoplazo (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if something like this happens? Is it even tolerated especially when you get into an edit conflict or argument with other users? And you're basically narrowing and modifying your posts so that further conflicts occur but are then again given mention by another user.119.224.27.62 (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This essay only covers the situation where a user removes a comment from their own talk page. It says nothing one way or the other about any other kind of page.

WP:TPOC covers those other types of pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I warned someone and they edited the warning I left, significantly changing the meaning, and then immediately archived the edited version. I'm not happy with the misrepresentation. Debating what to do. I expect to be reverted if I revert the edits to my post, but if I add a comment noting that it was edited, maybe that will be less likely to be reverted. Thoughts on what is supported by policy, anyone? There are conflicting ones - don't edit others comments, and don't edit archives… --Elvey (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While waiting for and answer to the above, I would suggest a polite request on the user's talk page explaining that the change was misleading and no longer reflects the views of the person who signed it, and asking him to correct the problem. If he corrects it, problem solved, and if he refuses, you will have evidence in case there us a future claim that the change was accidental. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This essay, Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments, states:

The relevant guideline,

Thus, this essay is inconsistent with the guideline. In fact, by using the word "only", the essay misrepresents the guideline's requirements. —sroc 💬 09:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This essay had always been misguided and misapplied. Many have noted it here in talk, but it has a few champions so it is very slow to change. At any rate, it's an essay, so best to just ignore it where common sense dictates that it is wrong. (It has no rating on the "impact scale" which suggests there is little interest in it.) This talk page, including your post, does a good job of pointing out the problems.

I look at this as a relic of the days when Wikipedia was far more tolerant of vandals and other defiantly disruptive editors. There were a number of editors (myself included) who gave up on editing for a time because of how futile it all seemed, partly as a result of the naivete behind this policy with regards to warnings, etc. The intentional distortions made against me by several of the defenders of this essay were enough for me to lose respect for Wikipedia and quit editing for years. I'll always remember it as the "vandal protection policy." Fortunately, in the interim Wikipedia has become much more responsive in dealing with persistent vandalism and the like--despite this essay. Red Harvest (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this policy should be revised in regard to warnings left on a talk page prior to a user's block. Users should not be allowed to remove warnings that lead up to a block prior to that block, because I personally feel that some problematic users are removing legitimate warning templates from their talk pages so that the warnings won't count against them and lead to higher-level warnings. After all, aren't warnings supposed to stack up with repeat offenses? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 13:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]