| Revision as of 16:47, 19 August 2006 editFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits falling asleep← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:49, 19 August 2006 edit undoJohn254 (talk | contribs)42,562 edits added commentNext edit → | ||
| 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. ~~~~ | |||
| # | # | ||
Revision as of 16:49, 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)