Wikipedia talk:Don't restore removed comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "Readd" is ugly

"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 5 November 2007 (and then perform the appropriate re-direction):

If an editor removes a comment from their talk page, whether the comment is legitimate or not, do not add the comment back again. Respect their wishes. It's counter-productive to force the issue.

Note that users who repeatedly restore comments to a user's talk page more than three times in a 24 hour period may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule.

Alice.S 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Confusing

I think the page should be moved to Wikipedia:Don't re-add removed comments (with a dash), because when I first saw this I thought it was a typo. Noahcs 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

I have now made the consensual edit timetabled above.

Since there seemed to be no voices or sentiments against, I also took the liberty of re-directing the essay to "Don't restore removed comments" (to avoid potential hyphenization arguments amongst various WP:ENGVAR users...)Alice.S 06:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Behavioural guideline

I have today reverted an IP edit that attempted to upgrade this essay to a "behavioural guideline". If I was in error, I would appreciate an indication here as to the promotion mechanism/decision. Alice.S 11:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even vandalism and blockings?

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? Shawn in Montreal 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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 common sense that a user would be allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page while they were in the very act of vandalism. I can understand such a guideline written in an spirit of good faith where a user removes content from their talk page that is related to a edit dispute, personally objectionable comments, or just plain vandalism. However, even under the most pedantic interpretation of WP:DRC (as it exists today), it could not intend to allow a means for a vandal to hide their warnings as they continue vandalizing, especially when it is evident that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell the vandal is going to stop. In my opinion, a persistent vandal, by his or her very actions, forfeits their right to remove warnings from their talk page. Consistently removing them should itself be a further violation of WP:3RR, not a violation against the person replacing the warnings. ++Arx Fortis 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur - the difficulty comes in deciding who shall judge the warnings to be justified and, thus, not removeable. I am at this very moment engaged in a non-dialogue with a problematic user who instantly removes any "blemish" on his talk page. Perhaps there should be a special admins board to adjudicate on whether warnings are frivolous or inappropriate? Alice.S 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 regulars are templated - either accidentally or deliberately. (see my talk pages "P section" for an inkling of the potential problem...)Alice.S 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Would I have the right to modify the project page to state that this guideline not apply to removed vandalism and blocking warnings -- as they are vital tools in identifying and stopping vandalism and disruptive behaviour -- and that Wikipedia should work to find another recourse for editors who feel that warnings have been placed on their Talk pages without good cause (along the lines of what Alice.S suggests above?). Shawn in Montreal 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm brand new here, but I've formed an impression that everything is supposed to work by the magical process of consensus. How's about proposing a form of words here for the addition and then we can comment on its merits or otherwise?
By the way, I've just changed the user talk reference you gave at the start of this section to one that won't change if Arx Fortis archives or changes his user talk page (which I thought appropriate given the project page we're discussing - girlish grin). Just revert me if you think you should! Alice.S 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively new, too. How about this proposed wording. What do people think:

  • It is recommended that this proposed guidline not apply to vandalism warnings and notifications that editors have been blocked for such behaviour, as they are a vital means for tracking and stopping vandalism.

How's that? (Minus the Canadian spelling, of course) Shawn in Montreal 16:32, 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)
My proposals would be
  1. to continue the immunity from being blocked automatically for WP:3RR to the talk page owner (but not the non-owner) on a reference to the 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 WP:3RR#Exceptions 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, Shawn in Montreal 20:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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)
The recommendation of WikiProject user warnings is to put the name of the warning template in your edit summary. As an example, when 208.27.127.62 (talk · contribs) made this vandalism edit, I placed [1] {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Charles Duke}} --~~~~ on their talk page with an edit summary of {{uw-vandalism3}}. Speaking as a blocking admin, I always check the talk page history first when investigating a 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)
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)

[edit] What about IP addresses?

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)

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

[edit] Intro sentence

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Complaining to ANI about removal of warning templates

"If an editor removes such a warning shortly after being told not to, then this should be reported to WP:ANI or WP:AIV for administrator attention." - I know this is an essay, but even so, that is not the case, and that sentence should probably be removed. Users have the right to remove any warning or message from their own talk page, whenever they like. Neıl ☎ 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Neıl ☎ 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. Neıl ☎ 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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"? Neıl ☎ 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
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)

[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)
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)

Oppose I'm coming here from WT:UTM, but I speak only for myself. I see no good in this proposal, and a very large potential for harassment. At any rate, this is only an essay and thus cannot mandate any such thing.

Here is an anecdote: Recently I observed an editor (who should have known better, having over 19000 edits) making a third revert to a wikiproject guideline page to restore their proposed changes despite several calls to bring the matter to the talk page for discussion. I reverted and gave the user a {{uw-3rr}} warning, although I incorrectly implied in my edit summary that the user had already passed 3rr rather than run right up to the edge of it. The user then tried to get me to discuss the issue on my talk page, to which I replied that discussion of the issue belonged on the guideline's talk page. The user proceeded several times to demand I discuss it in the wrong place, to which I replied by removing the demands with an edit summary pointing to the appropriate forum for the discussion. Then, ignoring the WP:3RR exception for a user's own user pages, they proceeded to place a bad-faith 3rr warning on my talk page and send an email threatening to report the situation (I wish they would have, really). Under your proposed changes to this page (were it enforceable), I would have to either pester an admin or keep that bad-faith warning on my talk page for a month, which would only contribute to that editor's attempt to harass me over that issue.

To make checking the history easy, WP:UTM recommends that the warning template and level be included in the edit summary so anyone interested need only glance down the history page to see record of recent warnings. IMO, this is sufficient. Anomie⚔ 03:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Two small points:
  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)

[edit] removed text from lead paragraph

"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)

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)

[edit] Section removed

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

“ As an exception to the above, user warning templates added within the last calendar month may not be removed by an editor from their own talk page (unless left anonymously or by users who have not registered and logged on). If an editor does remove a warning within one calendar month, then this should be reported to WP:ANI for administrator attention. If a user believes that a warning has been left in bad faith, then he should approach any administrator for the warning to be removed. Do not edit war over warnings. ”

Both the official policy on vandalism and the guideline on user pages are very clear that registered users may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While I personally agree with the thrust of this essay, the right to delete comments from your userspace talk page has been official Wikipedia policy for over two years, and telling editors otherwise is an invitation to disaster. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the exact same point I made - glad to see I'm not alone on this. Neıl ☎ 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary as was edited is not policy

Removal of comments, warnings WP:UP#CMT WP:BLANKING Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

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

[edit] Disagree

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. Superm401 - Talk 03:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
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."? Superm401 - Talk 07:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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: here and here. --bainer (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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 Special:Emailuser). Moreover, the essay doesn't even give your argument. It just says the editor has obviously read what they removed (true, but irrelevant). Superm401 - Talk 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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 OWN their talk page? Superm401 - Talk 13:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree with this. A talk page is not a user's ownership --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I delete everything from my user talk page. Jecowa (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As is your right as a registered user per the WP:VAN and WP:USER policies. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)