| Revision as of 16:49, 19 August 2006 editJohn254 (talk | contribs)42,562 edits added comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:51, 19 August 2006 edit undoJohn254 (talk | contribs)42,562 edits uncommenting text of pollNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ::Then this poll is based on a misunderstanding. If an issue is contentious (with almost equal strength at both sides), and then goes ''dormant'' for several months (see talk page), you're not solving anything with a vote --] 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC) | ::Then this poll is based on a misunderstanding. If an issue is contentious (with almost equal strength at both sides), and then goes ''dormant'' for several months (see talk page), you're not solving anything with a vote --] 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| <!-- | |||
| ==Vandalism warnings== | ==Vandalism warnings== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| ====Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong==== | ====Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong==== | ||
| # Users participating in RC patrol often rely on the existence of prior vandalism warnings on the current version of the vandal's talk page to indicate whether and how the vandal should be warned again, or whether the vandal should be listed on ]. Allowing vandals to hide the warnings in the history of their talk page frustrates countervandalism efforts. From my personal experience in countervandalism efforts, I am able to state that RC patrol is a highly time-pressured activity. Every minute that must be spent on combing through a vandal's talk page history is a minute during which a vandalism warning or a report to ] must be delayed, an additional minute during which the vandal will remain unblocked and may commit further acts of vandalism. Furthermore, while I identify the placement of vandalism warnings in my edit summaries, some users who place vandalism warnings do not supply such edit summaries. Thus, identifying such "no-summary" warnings in a talk page history would involve viewing every diff between edits, a particularly time consuming process. As a practical matter, the time-critical nature of countervandalism efforts demands that the integrity of talk pages as an quick reference to legitimate vandalism warnings be maintained. |
# Users participating in RC patrol often rely on the existence of prior vandalism warnings on the current version of the vandal's talk page to indicate whether and how the vandal should be warned again, or whether the vandal should be listed on ]. Allowing vandals to hide the warnings in the history of their talk page frustrates countervandalism efforts. From my personal experience in countervandalism efforts, I am able to state that RC patrol is a highly time-pressured activity. Every minute that must be spent on combing through a vandal's talk page history is a minute during which a vandalism warning or a report to ] must be delayed, an additional minute during which the vandal will remain unblocked and may commit further acts of vandalism. Furthermore, while I identify the placement of vandalism warnings in my edit summaries, some users who place vandalism warnings do not supply such edit summaries. Thus, identifying such "no-summary" warnings in a talk page history would involve viewing every diff between edits, a particularly time consuming process. As a practical matter, the time-critical nature of countervandalism efforts demands that the integrity of talk pages as an quick reference to legitimate vandalism warnings be maintained. ] 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| # | # | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
| ====Disputed warnings should not be removed==== | ====Disputed warnings should not be removed==== | ||
| # | # | ||
| --> | |||
Revision as of 16:51, 19 August 2006
Users are often issued warning messages when someone feels they are engaging in conduct which is outside the bounds of policy or good behavior. Such messages can take the form of both warning templates (such as {{test3}}, {{civil1}}, {{npa}}) as well as personalized complaints. User page sockpuppet notices can also qualify as warnings, for the purposes of this poll.
In January, a user added
- Removing warnings: Removing vandalism warnings from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.
to WP:VAND. This statement and ones like it have subsequently been added, removed, and modified many times in the last several months to both WP:VAND and WP:TALK. This topic has also served as a persistent topic of discussion in several places()
This poll aims to provide a definitive resolution to the issue of how warning messages should be treated by surveying community feeling as broadly as possible.
- Then this poll is based on a misunderstanding. If an issue is contentious (with almost equal strength at both sides), and then goes dormant for several months (see talk page), you're not solving anything with a vote --Francis Schonken 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism warnings
This section deals with users removing vandalism warnings placed on their talk page. It is assumed below that creating a proper archive is not a form of deletion.
Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.
Deleting valid vandalism warnings is always wrong
- Users participating in RC patrol often rely on the existence of prior vandalism warnings on the current version of the vandal's talk page to indicate whether and how the vandal should be warned again, or whether the vandal should be listed on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Allowing vandals to hide the warnings in the history of their talk page frustrates countervandalism efforts. From my personal experience in countervandalism efforts, I am able to state that RC patrol is a highly time-pressured activity. Every minute that must be spent on combing through a vandal's talk page history is a minute during which a vandalism warning or a report to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism must be delayed, an additional minute during which the vandal will remain unblocked and may commit further acts of vandalism. Furthermore, while I identify the placement of vandalism warnings in my edit summaries, some users who place vandalism warnings do not supply such edit summaries. Thus, identifying such "no-summary" warnings in a talk page history would involve viewing every diff between edits, a particularly time consuming process. As a practical matter, the time-critical nature of countervandalism efforts demands that the integrity of talk pages as an quick reference to legitimate vandalism warnings be maintained. John254 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleting valid, recently given vandalism warnings is wrong
Deleting valid vandalism warnings related to ongoing disputes is wrong
Deleting valid vandalism warnings is discouraged but should be tolerated
Deleting valid vandalism warnings is acceptable if (and only if) the user stops vandalising
Deleting valid vandalism warnings is acceptable after reading said warning
Non-vandalism warnings
This section deals with users removing warnings for behaviors others than vandalism (i.e. violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, etc). It is assumed below that creating a proper archive is not a form of deletion.
Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.
Deleting other valid warnings is always wrong
Deleting valid, recently given warnings for other behavior is wrong
Deleting other valid warnings related to ongoing disputes is wrong
Deleting other valid warnings is discouraged but should be tolerated
Deleting warnings is acceptable if the user stops behaving in the manner that led to the warning being given
Deleting warnings is always acceptable
Immediate response to the inappropriate deletion of warnings
This section deals with how one should immediately respond when you see someone inappropriately removing warnings from their talk page. It is presumed that the responder has verified that the warning was reasonable.
Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.
The warning should always be restored and an additional warning about removing warnings added
Restore the warning only if the user is engaged in other disruptive behavior
Restore the warning only if the user is continuing the same behavior that got them warned initially
A warning about removing warnings should be given but the original need not be restored
Issue additional warnings when and if appropriate, but do not try to restore warnings that a user has deleted
Response to repeatedly removing warnings
This section deals with how one should response to a user that repeatedly removes warnings in a way that is inappropriate.
Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.
Repeatedly removing warnings should lead to blocks and/or talk page protection, even in the absence of other ongoing disputes
Repeatedly removing warnings is a negative factor that may affect the issuing of other blocks, but is not in itself justification for blocking
Repeatedly removing warnings should be addressed through the dispute resolution process
Repeatedly removing warnings should be ignored
Inappropriate warnings
This deals with how a user should respond when they believe they have recieved an inappropriate warning.
Please indicate the statement you most agree with by adding #~~~~ at the bottom of the relevant section.