Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove warnings

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Dont remove warnings

[edit]

This template is not backed by policy. Discussion on the talk page already indicated that there is some consensus to get rid of the template. --Slomox (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We even have admins that do not provide links to their talk archives. I once asked abf to put in a link, but also that message is now gone somewhere. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I answered and it was correctly archived. Regards. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of no such consensus, and I think the message of the template is (in principle) a good one. If the template needs to be edited then let's do that - I don't think deleting it is a solution to any problem we're actually having.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Abigor talk 09:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Dont remove warnings - discussion 2

[edit]

This template is being used to enforce non-existent policies. Per COM:TALK, "Others delete comments after they have responded to them (but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred)." Clearly this leaves it at the editorial discretion of the user. Moreover, this guideline, and especially the use of this template, is completely inconsistent with the practices of our sister project, Wikipedia. - MrX 22:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why not make that clear in both the title and body of the template? As it is, it's being used punitively and broadly to enforce a non-existent policy. I would also note, that there are probably better ways to deal with copy-violating users than warning them to keep a generic template on their user pages. - MrX 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This search shows uses of the template on user talk pages - it may be instructive to browse to see how the template is used, and whether it can be improved or even abolished. Right now I'm going to bed though... Rd232 (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and instead update Commons:Talk page guidelines to make it consistent with itself. Its section on archiving, Commons:Talk page guidelines#Archiving - when there is too much text clearly mandates archiving rather than deleting in bold letters with no exceptions mentioned. I've yet to see any valid argument as to why user talk pages should not be subject to the same archiving practices as all other talk pages. By contrast, there are plenty of argument as to why talk page blanking is problematic:
  • Administrators and others use user talk pages (or their archives) as one part of the process of evaluating the credibility of source and authorship information when reviewing uploads. (Authorship claims from users with lots of warnings for copyright violations naturally need a more critical evaluation than those from a user with a spotless history.)
  • Our deletion policy encourages administrators to check whether the uploader was notified of the deletion discussion, but it is unrealistic to expect them to dig through history diffs.
  • The what links here? feature only works with current versions of pages (including archives but not historical diffs), so finding all old discussions relating to a file or other page becomes difficult if users blank discussions instead of archiving them.
  • Hiding the talk page history may also mean that one receives messages or questions about the same issue several times, which can annoying for both the sender and the recipient. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep but improve further, and beef up the documentation too. I've checked through several uses of the template and some seemed perfectly sensible, so there is a need for the template. However some did not seem so sensible (because the removed posts were dated or not even warnings), so it's sometimes misused too. In these cases it would probably have been better replaced with a notice simply saying that archiving is preferred/required, and explaining how to do that. Perhaps we should develop a template for this. I'd also support changing Commons:Talk page guidelines to require archival of user talk pages instead of blanking (with exceptions for vandalism and personal attacks). Alternatively we could develop a list of warnings that should not be removed from user talk pages, as enwiki has at w:WP:BLANKING. Such a list could be useful anyway as part of the documentation for this template. --Avenue (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could get on board with improving the template and the help documentation so that the template is used to benefit the project (for legitimate copyright vios), and not to harangue users. I can't accept the premise that removing templates is the same as hiding history. As we all know, history is like an Akashic record; it's always a click away.
Consider, also, the case of user page vandalism, including the nonsense that I endured yesterday: Are we expecting vandalism and harassment to remain as well? The user talk page practices at Wikipedia work really well as far as I can tell, and they should serve as a template for how things are done here. As far as admins checking talk pages to see if a user was warned of a deletion discussion, I would submit that it's just as easy to do a (CTRL+F browser) search of history, assuming that deletion notifications result in an edit summary. - MrX 20:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - unless change along the lines of this edit stands and is made to policy so there's no conflict between what policy says is OK and what the template says is OK. Deceptive templates are not acceptable. Period. Deceiving our own editors intentionally is certainly not the best way to proceed.--Elvey (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep very usefull template in Commons with new users --Motopark (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Deprecate This template did not get approval as a Commons policy. And it is unnecessary and counterproductive. It is easy to go to the history of a talk page and look for warnings mentioned in the edit summaries. A lot easier than wading through page after page of archives. If this template is kept active it will only drive away editors. Good editors making honest mistakes. This template will confuse and piss off editors on the Commons because it is against Wikipedia policy. I have seen too much harassment of editors already on Wikipedia and the Commons. See en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. See en:WP:TALK. Users can remove anything from their talk pages on English Wikipedia, and they can do it without archiving it. Previous discussion on the template talk page already agreed that this template was not valid. The creator of the template, Lar, wrote: "No one, not even the creator of it, (moi for those not paying attention! :) ) seems to like it any more." Elvey solved the problem of how to deal with this invalid template by deprecating it. See this December 16, 2012 diff. Elvey added this tag: {{Deprecated}}. One can easily look at 500 edits in the history of a user's talk page. Here are the last 500 edits on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The more I look at the template, the less I like it. But some people clearly feel there does seem to be some need for a multi-lingual "please don't remove warnings (unless you've addressed the problem in question), archive them instead, like this" message. So maybe we should try to construct a new template that focusses on doing that, in a much nicer tone, and not mixing in "don't vandalise messages" issues, which can easily come across as pretty unpleasant to the recipient I think. It could be {{Please don't remove warnings}}. Or maybe {{Please respond to warnings and dont just remove them}}, which would focus more on doing something in response to the warnings, rather than leaving them in place or archiving. Rd232 (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I agree that this template should be reworded. I would strongly suggest to remove the double threat of blocking from the warning, i.e. may result in you being blocked from editing and If you continue to remove or vandalize such warnings on your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. This does not fit into our approach to be welcoming to Wikimedians from other projects. In some of other WMF projects it is quite common to remove messages after having read it without archiving them. I would like to suggest following alternate wording:
Please do not remove legitimate warnings regarding your uploads from your talk page without archiving them. At Commons, we prefer per our talk page guidelines to archive messages instead of deleting them. To archive your talk page messages simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for more details). Thank you for your understanding.
Once the template has been reworded, I suggest to keep it. Multilingual templates are helpful in our environment where we cannot be sure that English is understood. A kind explanation would be helpful if a remove of a warning message gets reverted. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that insists people keep anything on their talk page is a new policy. This message (and thus this template) is still claiming a new policy: "At Commons, we prefer per our talk page guidelines to archive messages instead of deleting them." No we don't. You do. I don't prefer it. I find a large percentage of warnings I have received on the Commons and Wikipedia to be purely harassment. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My suggested rewording refers to the guideline which tells:
Others delete comments after they have responded to them (but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred). To easily and quickly set up automatic archiving there are standard setups available (see above).
Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in dispute resolution.
I think that it is legitimate to have an internationalized template that points to a guideline and which can be used to help a user to familiarize with our practice at Commons. In my reworded proposal is nothing that insist on anything nor a new policy, it refers just to an established guideline which we have already for years. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At Commons:Talk page guidelines, from 2005 until November 2, 2011 there was no requirement, or even a recommendation, to archive warnings. As LX noted at Commons talk:Talk page guidelines on January 4, 2011: "Under the current guidelines, it's fine to respond 'ok, noted' to a deletion notice and then blank it." That is what I have done at various times on both Wikipedia and the Commons if I feel no further discussion is necessary on my talk page. Without getting consensus, on November 2, 2011 (see diff) Rd232 added this to the guideline: "but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred". Even that addition is not a requirement, and in any case we are talking about a guideline and not a policy. I find this template more and more offensive. It basically requires editors to grovel sufficiently before removing messages. Then they are required to keep offensive personal messages in an archive. The offensiveness of this whole thing is why many Wikipedias do not require anything to be kept on user talk pages, or their archives. A user's space should be respected, and people should not be allowed to intrude into it permanently. The act of removing a message shows that it has been noticed. That is enough. You can not force people to reply, or to do anything. Some editors are doubly offensive and put the removed message back on a user's talk page, while putting this threatening template along with it. "Please do not remove legitimate warnings" is still threatening. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that I think you're using the boldfaced quote of mine out of context. I was pointing out a problem with a possible interpretation of the current guidelines in response to a claim that the guidelines at the time did not allow for a particular problematic behaviour. My comment should not be taken to mean that I think it's fine to blank deletion notices. It should, however, be fine to blank truly offensive comments, but I hardly find our standard deletion templates something to be offended by. If you are offended, perhaps it helps to remember that offensive messages usually reflect more on the sender than on the recipient. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no disagreement in that discussion section (Commons talk:Talk page guidelines#delete comments after they have responded) that deletion was not allowed. As the original poster, Sreejith K, noted in that discussion section on 22 December 2010: "Although English wiki does not disallow deleting the contents either (Wikipedia:User_talk_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings), there at least it is said that archiving is preferred. I think we should give preference to archiving here as well." And a preference is not a requirement. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be standard for you, but not for others. Many Wikipedias, including English Wikipedia do not require users to keep anything on their talk page, or in user talk page archives. Many people on the Commons do not archive their talk pages. So this would be a new policy. Keeping this template does not create a new policy. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to object to the suggestion that talk page archiving is some recently introduced invention. As I pointed out above, the archiving section of our guidelines does not (and never did) exempt any talk namespaces from the archiving recommendation. That said, it is a problem that the guidelines are not internally consistent, and obviously we disagree on how that inconsistency should be resolved. To me, it's quite clear that "standard practice" in Cirt's comment refers to standard practice on Commons. What other projects do is up to them. The vast majority of established Commons users do archive their user talk pages. There is a very small minority of established users who don't, and who instead blank their talk pages regularly, which, for reasons I've stated above, makes it very difficult to find old discussions (among other disadvantages). I disagree with your claim that it is easier to find messages in talk page histories by looking for edit summaries than to find them in archives. For starters, edit summaries are often incomplete, and Mediawiki's search function does not work on page histories. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, however, there's a world of difference between a recommendation and a requirement. The current talk page guideline recommends archiving, but does not mandate it. Nor does it prohibit deletion, it merely states that deletion "is no longer recommended". When a user exercises their option to delete comments from their user talk page, they have ignored a recommendation, but that hardly merits the threat of a block that this template makes! cmadler (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is easier to find copyright violation notices, deletion notices, and other warning notices in the history page for user talk. If the problem is that some people do not leave adequate edit summaries, then we need to put that requirement in the documentation for the notice templates. See the history of the last 500 edits on my talk page. Use your browser search (edit menu, find) to find, for example, the occurrences of "deletion". --Timeshifter (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Per Timeshifter. This is certainly not part of any "standard" policy -- here or on any other WMF project -- of which I'm aware. Everything is archived in the page history, so there's not a significant need to require an archive page. If users think such a policy is needed, fine, let's have that discussion, but until that policy is established, this template is simply wrong. cmadler (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Useful. Yann (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template reworded

[edit]
  • I have reworded the english version, please leave some comments on this. Removes the block threat and does not insist on keeping the warnings once the issues have been adressed. --Denniss (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposed rewording is still overly broad and an invitation for abuse. Since this template is supposed to be used for copyright violators who removed copyvio warnings without taking corrective action, I would propose instead:
"Please do not remove legitimate copyright warnings from your talk page without adressing the issues for which you received these warnings. Please read and understand Commons:Licensing, or ask for help. Note that removing warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history."
I would also add that editors who place these tags on user talk pages should keep the talk pages on their watch list for a short period of time (48 hours ?) and be willing to answer questions from new users. - MrX 05:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template is still harassment. There is absolutely no need for this template. It is against the policies of other Wikipedia Projects, and there IS NO POLICY FOR THIS ON THE COMMONS. If someone continues to do actions against Commons policy, then block them. But do not harass them. Stay the f**k out of their personal space. Did you not get a reaction when I SHOUTED and used the coded F bomb? Then you now know how people feel when you harass them repeatedly in their user space. The standard procedure on English Wikipedia is to give escalating warnings as illegal actions are done by a user. The user can delete each warning. It does not matter. The fact that they deleted it indicates that they saw the warning. That is the point of the warning; to get their attention. Not to harass them. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep away from this discussion if you don't want to participate in constructive work. --Denniss (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Timeshifter, the template in question does not shout and does not use vulgar language. There is no reason for users who are encouraged to archive talk pages rather than blanking them to feel harassed or exposed to the kind of uncivil behavior that you just displayed. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's understandable that Timeshifter may be frustrated by the heavy handed way this has been handled from the begining. Let's make this a debate, not a series of edicts. - MrX 16:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Denniss and LX. You both missed my point. I did not direct uncivil behavior at either of you. Reread my comment. The template comes off as shouting and vulgar language because it is repetitively and annoyingly applied by admins and others. And it is applied for all alleged violations of Commons policies and guidelines, not just copyvios. So admins, and any wannabe admin, can keep adding warning messages, and then pile on further with this template when the annoyed user notes and deletes the warning messages just like he/she does on almost any other Wikipedia project. Further insult is added to injury when the user discovers that there is no basis in Commons policy or guidelines for this new requirement that they keep annoying warning messages on their user pages. Many people stop editing on the Commons and on Wikipedia because of stuff like this. See: en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors and en:User:Timeshifter/Unchecked admin misconduct. I have brought up this topic of admin misconduct, and perceived harassment by both admins and others, in several Village Pump discussions and many people agree with me. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So if this template is deleted, I am going to block users after they removed and ignored warning messages they received by me about copyright issues immediately because admins who deal with further issues will certainly not check each revision history? (If you process copyvios, you don't like to check the talk page history each time).
I suggest to: Change our guideline to highly endorse archiving over blanking and approve it as a policy and re-word the template as suggested by AFBorchert. -- Rillke(q?) 15:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The principle on Wikipedia is that if a user removes a template warning, they are tacitly acknowledging that they have read it. So, I think it's reasonable that someone who repeats the same serious transgression after being warned once is worthy of being blocked until they convince the community that it will not happen again. I am not convinced that we need to pile warning on people, when one should be sufficient. If we do keep this template, it should be narrowly focused on copyvios in wording and application. - MrX 16:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rillke. Yes, block them, if they continue to upload copyvios. Admins can check the block log if they don't want to check the talk page history. There is no need for keeping the warning messages, or keeping an archive of shaming and harassment. Blocking gets results. So blocking is enough. It works on Wikipedia, and blocking works fine on the Commons, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings and warning reminders

[edit]

Is there a category with warning templates for user talk pages? Also, is there a category just for user warning templates for copyright violations?

Maybe, instead of "Dont remove warnings" we can rename this to "Warning reminder" and remove any requirements that it remain posted. Word it so that it concerns copyright violations, or improperly-tagged, or improperly attributed file uploads, etc.. The documentation should encourage the posters of this template to link to one of the files in the edit summary, and to mention the problem with the file(s): "copyvio" and/or "attribution" and/or "OTRS", "verification", etc..

If after reminding the user, the problems are not resolved, then the files can be deleted as usual. If the user keeps removing the templates without resolving the problems, then delete the files. Making them keep the warning templates and reminders on their talk page serves no purpose for them. Everybody makes mistakes. I have made mistakes in uploading. I probably would have left the Commons long ago if I had been forced to keep warnings on my talk page, or forced to keep an archive. I am working for free, and this would have angered me mightily. I want to be appreciated, not stigmatized, for my efforts, both good and bad. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Definitely no clear consensus to delete at this time -FASTILY (TALK) 02:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Dont remove warnings 3

[edit]

There is no standing Commons rule (only a not confirmed guideline) that obliges people to not remove warnings. The Dutch language version of this template even refers to English Wikipedia rules!! This template is very controversial, as has been emphasized before. This template has been used as a means to frighten another and simulates as if this is a standing rule: which is absolutely not te case. When this is not a rule of which people are obliged to listen to, it should not be available as a tool for innocent. Ymnes (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per the previous two sections. I converted from a speedy deletion request, as no speedy deletion criterion was met.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete See also my motivation for the speedy deletion above. When it doesn't tell about a Commons rule, it should not be available for people that interpret guidelines as if they were rules. This template is misleading and a means to frighten another. Ymnes (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete we shouldn't have a warning template on this - it's not a policy. Elliot321 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete See my previous comments. The previous closing reason to keep it by Fastily was unjustified by policy. This template is a bad substitute for better record keeping by admins. Maybe create a specific diff link page for copyvios, for example. With user name, date of warning, and a diff of the talk page notice. Empty the page to an archive subpage as the diff links fill up. That way all the archive subpages can be searched by user name. The search results list would quickly show how many previous warnings the user has received. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I personally feel that recording copyvio warnings is a waste of time and resources. The page history is there, and each user has an upload log which includes deleted files, and that is a good indication whether someone has uploaded copyvios here before. Eti15TrSf (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete There is no such policy or guideline of not allowing the removal of warnings. We believed that the receiver has read it as they removed the warnings. BTW this warning seems to create more conflicts among users, particularly for the new comers. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Far too many admins have a nasty habit of turning user talk pages into halls of shame, in part by making up rules that don't exist. Let's stop enabling them to do this on Commons. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Firstly, neither the template claims the existence of such a rule nor does every template require a policy. Commons is not an exercise in legalese and wiki-lawyering. Let me quote from the template:
    This is a reminder for you that removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page without addressing the identified issues is discouraged according to our community guidelines. Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history, and doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community. You are encouraged instead to archive past discussions. You can have this done automatically for you - simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} or {{subst:autoarchive resolved section/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for more details).
    Hence, this template simply encourages to archive talk pages, preferably through archiving bots, instead of removing such notices. This is indeed the prefered practice at Commons. Talk pages are not just for the users in question but also for others who want to see if there is a recurring issue. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing messages is NOT rude or hostile. On the contrary, it means that you have read them and they are no longer needed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not agree. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AFBorchert, you wrote: "Talk pages are not just for the users in question but also for others who want to see if there is a recurring issue." Use the talk page revision history. Talk pages should be under the control of the user, not you. From the template: "Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history, and doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community." This is a statement against AGF (Assuming good faith). Those who make these assumptions should leave Wikimedia. I have created several Wikipedia userboxes exposing admin misconduct. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Admin misconduct drives away editors. Good ones. I may create a userbox that states that talk pages are under the control of the user, and that those who think otherwise are often considered rude or hostile by many in the community. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a community project where user talk pages are not private mailboxes. They serve both sides, the respective users and anyone wanting to contact a user. This is not about perceived admin misconduct as admins should likewise archive their talk pages properly instead of burying complaints in the talk page history. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote this template, what seems like a lifetime ago now... Commons was much more informal then. The template has been through 2 deletion discussions already, and I see that it remains controversial. Although I think there's merit in encouraging people to archive rather than delete, and AFBorchert is exactly correct, if it really offends so many people, perhaps best to delete it. I've not been actively engaged in Commons much lately so my understanding of community norms is weak... Maybe we want the warned to be free and clear to remove them and trip up subsequent visitors that don't realise they were already warned... I just don't know, but... if so, so be it. Further, although no one SHOULD object if a discussion results in a delete, I wanted to turn up and say that I won't mind even a little. I hope it's kept, but I am deliberately not commenting with a Vk or Vd... ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This template is completely inconsistent with other WMF projects. Forcing others to keep warning messages as a wall of shame is wrong and can be done abusively. This template can easily be used to harass others (example) and the wording, specifically doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community is completely incorrect. Eti15TrSf (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 16:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker: Hope you can provide a reason for keeping this template. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @A1Cafel: Okay, then I'll provide a reason why this template should kept, according to me. I don't really see a clear reason the template to be deleted. Sometimes users are removing right warnings, without providing a clear reason to do so. When noticing it, you can restore it and sending this warning. But anyway, the most warnings that have been send are justify, and the best way of removing warning is archiving them. And it's not a good idea to delete this template, because it causes a lot of damage when administrator deletes such a template. So how do you want to take this warning template away when it's being deleted? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Users are allowed to remove warnings and don't have to provide a reason. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic discussion
        • Sorry Guido den Broeder but you're completely wrong - Removing warnings is seen as you understanding what you did wrong and not to repeat it again. I do agree it can be seen as hostile or un-collaborative to remove warnings without providing an edit summary however as stated removing them is fine for the aforementioned reason. This template simply acts as a "badge of shame" and serves no real purpose beyond that. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          One day it will sink in that we're not en:Wikipedia. Maybe. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Guido den Broeder What a petty, desperate and sad individual you are. That comment was in relation to this (where I have a bad habit of linking to EN). That wasn't a fucking invite to use it against me and it was certainly uncalled for considering I came here in good faith and treat you with good faith. Go read COM:Assume Good Faith. –Davey2010Talk 23:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Because this is the language one uses when assuming good faith? Pathetic. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm sorry but on what universe can your comment be taken as good faith ?, I don't quite understand why on earth you felt the need to derail this and turn it into a shit-slinging match genuinely I don't.
Good faith and respect works both ways mate. I've made my point above so further replies are pointless now. –Davey2010Talk 16:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't sling anything, you did. You need to back off now. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I was harassed by an administrator a few years ago with this template, at a time I was not familiar with Commons. Very luckyly some more experienced users helped me, and saved me from a completely unfair block. See how it happened :
  1. This file was nominated for deletion for a weird reason, perhaps just to pollute my talk page
  2. I removed the notice, then was reverted and immediately got this template Don't remove warnings stuck on my talk page
  3. After writing a message in French on the admin's TP, I received a hostile message, then a "last warning" saying I would be blocked soon!
It took me great effort to report the story at COM:ANU and find a solution with Template talk:Dont remove warnings#Get rid of this template? But this story indicates how destructive this template can be. Because anybody can use it to harass newbies with an avalanche of cascading warnings leading to unfair blocks.
A friendly message inviting the users to archive the content of their TP if they want would be appropriate, but certainly not this imperative text, which sounds too much like an obligation -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep useful template. it serves as a reminder for users who have received multiple warnings but removed them without addressing the problems. good intermediate warning before {{End of copyvio}}.--RZuo (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is that useful? If problems persist, deal with those. Instead claiming a policy that doesn't exist will only serve to antagonize. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - this has been hashed over now three times I agree that the template could be useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Dont remove warnings 4

[edit]

I agree with Ymnes that this template exists just to frighten new users into believing that they've broken the rules. This template being disguised as a legitimate warning (it even has a little warning sign) for a policy that doesn't even exist is far more hostile than blanking your own talk page allegedly is considered to be. This Wikipedia policy page states that "although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages" and that "the removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Why should antagonistic "warnings" be resorted to over assuming good faith? It would be miles better to say something along the lines of "Hey user, I'm other user. I just want to inform you that, while it's not against any policy, it isn't always the best idea to remove warnings from your talk page because [...]".

Furthermore, the links included in the template aren't even useful to new users because they don't discuss anything about removing warnings from your own talk page, so now this looks even more like an easy way to get a quick scare out of someone without assisting them or further elaborating.Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep per the three previous sections, particularly LX's post of 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. Although I’m inclined to agree with your vote, responses like that do nothing to help new users integrate into our community (the nominator isn’t new, but it’s clear that they are feeling some undeserved hostility here). I saw an English Wikipedia user talk page of a user with a rejected draft and an indefinite block – even there, every template seemed to be carefully written to soften the blow, offer assistance and hold open the possibility that the user would become a substantial contributor. Commons has much to learn from the English Wikipedia. Brianjd (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. My comment above was posted before you added the reference to LX's post of 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC). For my response to that post, see below. Brianjd (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13 I agree with everything you said, but given how the DRs above went, there is almost no chance of this DR succeeding.
If we can’t delete this template, can we at least fix it? Like I said at the template’s talk page, the current wording is terrible. Brianjd (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete per the previous discussions. We need no templates that suggest policies which don't exist. It should have been deleted the last time. That close was against consensus and without merit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guido den Broeder: Speedy deletions have to comply with one or more of the criteria at COM:CSD. Which criterion or criteria do you allege here?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. I think speedy delete !votes can be interpreted a bit more loosely than that, just like speedy keep !votes. I note that this DR has attracted two such votes, yet it has not been closed. Brianjd (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: COM:CSD is a policy here. By making that post, it appears that @Guido den Broeder thinks the subject template should be speedily deleted by the closing Admin because it meets one or more of the criteria for that policy. I want to know which criterion or criteria and why. If the user cannot produce a good answer, then the post was disruptive.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. Admins are expected to apply good judgement, which sometimes involves closing a DR early (either as keep or as delete). No specific policy-based reason is required.
It follows that other users may request the closing admin to act a certain way, also without giving a specific policy-based reason. Brianjd (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Nonetheless reasons have been provided: G3 and G7. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guido den Broeder I’m not really sure why this DR is suddenly open (yet again), but now I can reply: G7 is absurd, given that the first comment suggesting deletion was more than 8 months after the template was created and the first deletion request was more than 2 years after the template was created. Brianjd (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older a deletion request should be filed instead." Which is what we've done and what Lar would have done themselves if someone else hadn't done it first. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guido den Broeder Obviously, if something is not eligible for speedy deletion, a regular deletion request should be created. So what? How is G7 relevant here? Brianjd (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By itself it wouldn't be, but it supports my argument for a speedy delete per G3. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per the previous DR. A) There's no rule here that says users cannot remove warnings. B) The template is purely acting as a "badge of shame" and serves no real purpose beyond that. –Davey2010Talk 21:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep no merit repeating discussion because of some users. RZuo (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is how we do things here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can and does change although sure repeatedly renominating the same thing over and over again is disruptive,
Although not EN there has been one rule set up where one EN page can only be nominated every 5-10 years (and anything before that is speedy closed) - Maybe that should apply here once this DR is done?
Again I still maintain it should be deleted and this should be the final DR on this but thee would need to be boundary line somewhere. –Davey2010Talk 15:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, I would say every 1 year, but there should always be room for an exception when circumstances require it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, we have just passed one year since the last DR. Brianjd (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, but rewrite it to actually match the linked talk page guidelines so that it's a broadly friendly notification about archiving. The "rude and hostile" angle, and the pressure on "addressing the identified issues" before removing a message, both seem to come out of nowhere. Belbury (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewriting it to match the prevailing guidance would require a name change into e.g. 'Feel free to remove warnings'. Better to create that from scratch. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - I would support deletion and a whole new friendly template from scratch I would 110% support that. That's a fantastic compromise. –Davey2010Talk 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Fair point, striking earlier vote. --Belbury (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Elliot321, Timeshifter, Eti15TrSf, A1Cafel, AFBorchert, Lar, Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker, Basile Morin, Liuxinyu970226, Ellywa as the remaining contributors to the previous DR (not already involved in this DR). Pinging @Jameslwoodward as the closing admin of the last DR. Pinging @Yann, whose only contribution to this DR was to close it (now reverted). Brianjd (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest to also ping other editors of it @Siebrand, Rocket000, Guest 0, Kanonkas, Alno, Furcharly, Canoe1967, XK8ER, Tom Sorensen, Psujauddin, Jdx, Gunnex, El Grafo, 4nn1l2 and WaddlesJP13 to let em know the situations. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Elli (whose ping failed before due to a username change). Brianjd (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Slomox, Denniss, Herbythyme, Rillke, Fastily as the remaining contributors to the first two DRs (not already involved in this DR, but still active on Commons). Brianjd (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete unless the template has changed into a friendly wording to encourage archive but not warned others. COM:ARCHIVE indicated "Archive rather than delete", it is not a violation of the policy if user choose to delete those notes. Apart from this, this template seems to escalate conflicts, particularly among those new comers. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Herby talk thyme 16:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herbythyme Just a vote without any agreetion or against of majority census? For me that only makes someone a dull boy/girl. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we get some reasons for keeping this template aside from "per the previous discussions" or context-less votes? Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaddlesJP13: The best reasons for keeping were expressed by LX 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff G. That post is one of many arguments for archiving rather than deleting – but there are several ways we might achieve this, such as adding automatic notices on all user talk pages (on the page itself or on the edit screen), setting up archiving by default or including instructions on certain notices that they should not be removed. Another way is a template like {{Dont remove warnings}}, which is what this DR is about.
    Can we get some specific reasons for keeping this template, as requested by @WaddlesJP13? Brianjd (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay, marking deprecated also complete LX's opinion, just like m:Don't delete redirects. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It says "Hello. This is a reminder for you that it is important to address the identified issues instead of simply removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page." At what point can it be deleted then? Who decides? Some imperious admin who didn't get the issue resolved exactly the way they wanted. Some random editor who keeps placing it because of some grudge based on some other issues. Wikipedia policy makes more sense, because Wikipedia has far more editors and experience with how things work between people. Whatever is gained by this lousy template is outweighed by the problems it creates. Here is an example from the last discussion:
* Delete I was harassed by an administrator a few years ago with this template, at a time I was not familiar with Commons. Very luckyly some more experienced users helped me, and saved me from a completely unfair block. See how it happened :
  1. This file was nominated for deletion for a weird reason, perhaps just to pollute my talk page
  2. I removed the notice, then was reverted and immediately got this template Don't remove warnings stuck on my talk page
  3. After writing a message in French on the admin's TP, I received a hostile message, then a "last warning" saying I would be blocked soon!
It took me great effort to report the story at COM:ANU and find a solution with Template talk:Dont remove warnings#Get rid of this template? But this story indicates how destructive this template can be. Because anybody can use it to harass newbies with an avalanche of cascading warnings leading to unfair blocks.
A friendly message inviting the users to archive the content of their TP if they want would be appropriate, but certainly not this imperative text, which sounds too much like an obligation -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are losing editors because of this template. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: Evidently, Basile Morin is still here, having edited 1 day, 7 hours and 57 minutes ago.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. Apparently, Basile Morin was lucky[] to receive help from more experienced users, and went through great effort to find a solution. Clearly, you cannot generalise this experience to other new users, who are more likely to simply give up on Commons. Brianjd (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If Basile Morin's action was AGF and Yann ignored even the AGF to do warnings, then I'm afraid that the Yann is probably violating COM:A requirements, and hence a removal of their adminship should be considered, yeah it should be seriously considered as matters are too much complex. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate: This discussion has gone for nearly 1.5 years, and consensus has emerged that the use of this template is a) not backed by any policy, and b) presented as a warning rather than a suggestion, and is hence extremely bitey towards newcomers. I will hence add some tags that prevent new substitutions, however old substitutions will still be respected. This decision does not prevent any new user templates from being created, providing they are presented as suggestions, not warnings to new users. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Dont_remove_warnings&oldid=863521329"