Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump.
Discussion
When users behave in a manner which is outside Wikipedia norms, they are often warned on their talk page. It is generally agreed that users who receive such warnings should not remove them from their talk page if they are valid. However, there is disagreement as to whether action should be taken against people who do, and to what extent. The purpose of this discussion is to attempt to come to a
consensus about dealing with the removal of warnings. Please discuss this issue on the
talk page.
Makes it easier to ensure that vandals are given the proper level of warning
Makes it easier for administrators to know when to block users who have been repeatedly warned
Allows a contributor's problem history to be easily seen at a glance
Removing warnings without responding is
uncivil and frowned upon, and we enforce other behavioural standards
Arguments against enforcement
Removing warnings doesn't hide them, as they can still be seen in the talk page history or in a user's contributions, so they don't need to be displayed
A user's talk page is intended as a means to communicate with that user, not as a permanent record of all of that user's past mistakes
Ignoring the question of how important it is to revert vandalism as quickly as possible, how important is it to warn vandals as quickly as possible?
Should non-logged-in users be treated differently from logged-in users?
Should new users be treated differently from experienced users?
How should "new" and "experienced" users be defined?
How long should warnings need to be left on a talk page?
If a user's talk page is long enough that it should be
archived, and they then receive a warning, should they still be permitted to archive the page?
Should removing warnings be treated as
vandalism, making reverts to restore them exempt from the
three-revert rule?
If a user stops their problem behaviour, is it okay for them to remove the warning, or should it remain there if there's a risk that they may reoffend?
What if the sender and receiver of a message disagree as to its validity?
How should such disputes be handled, or is it
instruction creep to even define a process?
Which party, if either, gets the benefit of the doubt?
How often do people actually remove warnings?
How often are people able to get away with problem behaviour because they remove warnings?