This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A. B. (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 14 June 2006 (→Repeatedly removing warnings should lead to blocks and/or talk page protection, even in the absence of other ongoing disputes: concur). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:16, 14 June 2006 by A. B. (talk | contribs) (→Repeatedly removing warnings should lead to blocks and/or talk page protection, even in the absence of other ongoing disputes: concur)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This proposed poll is currently under construction. Please do not vote, but feel free to edit it, discuss it on talk, or otherwise try to improve it.
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.
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
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
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
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.