UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Warnings Policy

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Warnings Policy

As mentioned under Section Protection, our policy forbids the alteration of official warning messages. In the short term, this makes plenty of sense, but should we have a policy that allows for removal after x-period of good behaviour? We don't want to drive off good-faith editors by forcing them to retain a warning on their talk page forever! Or do we just want to handle this on a case-by-case basis? (In which case, I'd say we should mention that in our policy.)

Also, I'd like to suggest that we copy that policy to a more logical location (like the Messages page and perhaps Warnings as well) and change the warning to explicitly mention deletion as well, especially in light of the fact that this differs from Wikipedia policy. I think "deletion" is implied by the words "alter" and "tamper", but it's best to be clear. Anybody else have thoughts on this? —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 04:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't they move the warnings to an archive? --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 14:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, since it the times it happened, they archived merely minuted after they received the warning.

I don't know if they should be allowed to remove it. It depends on if someone would get blocked for doing something wrong 6 months after their first warning. If not, then they should be able to remove it. Since, I see the warnings as partially a guide for administrators to sum up their behavior that they may have missed. And they shouldn't have to scour a bunch of archives in order to find it. I guess I am fine with an archive after X amount of time, but we would need something a tad more concrete for it to be policy. –Elliot ^talk 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The way the warnings policy has been applied recently is incorrect. Section protection is designed to stop tampering with official warnings - for example, edits like [1] and this. That's why the word "tampering" is used in the policy. Archiving warnings is explicitly allowed on Wikipedia here, and UESP has always taken WP as a base where no other explicit policy exists.

Until anybody wants to propose a change to the warnings policy, people are allowed to archive any warnings on their page.

Please will an admin or patroller remove the section protection from my talk page so I can follow site policy? –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While that's all well and good, it seems like a minor cop-out to archive soon after. I guess I am not opposed to removing it, I don't want to step on anyone's toes. –Elliot ^talk 22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No can do, especially because we actually do have a policy on that right here. As you will notice, there are no stated exceptions for archiving. This is too keep warnings and blocks from being lost in the depths of talk page histories/archives (so that future editors can see that bad behavior from users may be part of a trend, and so they can act accordingly. That being said, I do believe that it would be in the spirit of the policy to move them to a subpage called 'Warnings' that was linked off of the User Talk page, but I think even that should wait a little while since your block just expired.--Ratwar 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I was asking active editors. The full policy is as I described, and a personal dislike of one admin for one user isn't the basis for a decision. The policy regarding section protection is a later addition and therefore takes precedence. I know - I was there when Nephele wrote it. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ratwar is active as an admin, even if his edit count per se is low. I'm sure I don't need to direct you of all people to the various activity logs. :) He may still not be as active as he once was, but the activity on the site isn't as great as it once was, and I know a great many people needed (and some are still on) a wiki-break after recent events. In addition, I know from personal experience that Ratwar's also quite active on IRC, and it's my understanding that he's active in the forums as well. And last I heard, frequency of editing or performing the various admin duties wasn't a prerequisite to have an opinion at a site you've been an admin at for close onto 3 years now. I doubt if you'd have allowed someone to dismiss your points so easily after any of your wiki-breaks, so it's hardly fair for you to expect anything different here. I don't say this to be a jacka**, just to be fair to all involved.

But as to the matter at-hand, my understanding of Section Protection is that it was designed to prevent exactly the scenario described above. We do and always have (or at least since I've been here) differ from Wikipedia on this. Warning messages stay on the user page. Period. I don't see the word "tampering" as in any way overriding the previous policy, but simply summarizing it in a single word rather than going into unnecessary detail. If you require further proof that this is our policy as understood by Nephele, here is one example that I found within a few minutes where Nephele restored a deleted warning. I don't think anybody has previously tried the "archiving" argument, but that's still a form of deletion or tampering, since it makes the warning harder to find for an admin or patroller, possibly leading them to assume that a situation requires less serious action than it actually does. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's not make this a personal discussion.

I thin after a month of good behavior they should be able to be removed. And they must be active during that month. It is like the forums, where warnings can be removed after 6 months. I really don't see it as being an issue. If they see the warning, understand it, then why do we have to eternally brand them? One thing I would like to see though, is to blank blocked members user pages so they don't end up in categories where they don't belong. –Elliot ^talk 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section protection from rpeh's talk page. This is in agreement with involved parties and rpeh agreed to archive the warning and block notice to a seperate archive. --Timenn-<talk> 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)