UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Soft warnings
Just as unreasonable as the other policy, Soft Warnings are not meant to be done in such a manner, there is no uncertainty there's purposeful ignorance caused by certain users trying to make soft warnings seem to be more than they really are. Soft warnings have nothing to do with spamming administration pages, you just see them used in that case most frequently because we don't want to have to punish users for trying to be helpful or expressing opinions, soft warnings are not necessary, they are not limited to any number of soft warnings(which means you possibly get more chances and we get less work). Point being we don't want them administrative in nature, it lets knowledgeable users give people a heads up when they are crossing a line, it lets sysops do it without having to document every single time we let a user know something might be considered vandalism, and it's one of the few things that actually is beneficial to everyone involved.--Karekmaps?! 10:26, 3 August 2008 (BST)
"there's no official policy that regulates them" -- this is INTENTIONAL. As per karek above, and our comments on the other policy. The system is as it is for a reason. It works. And more red tape is bullshit. No thanks. --WanYao 10:41, 3 August 2008 (BST)
The only thing that should be done about soft warnings is write an essay-type article (UDWiki:Soft Warnings?) describing how they are used and why they are not a policy. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:44, 3 August 2008 (BST)
- How about we forget about the words "soft warning" altogether, and just make it a Sysops duty to deal with a User, outside of a public administration page.--CyberRead240 12:08, 3 August 2008 (BST)
- So, Midianian, you want someone to write a policy article on something that isn't a policy because we aren't going to vote for a policy on it? Perfect.--– Nubis NWO 13:31, 3 August 2008 (BST)
I want to start by saying that I think I’ve been watching this long enough to understand most of what’s going on here, but that I admit I may not have the entire story. Therefore, I extend my respect to the authors of both of these policies, even as I disagree with their very root.
If I read between the lines here, I think I see less a problem with the rules of warnings and escalations of vandal problems and more a problem that some have with a few sysops. As such, this is a roundabout way to try to address that problem – if it is even possible to resolve what seems more like a personality conflict and a general bristling at some perceived misuse of authority.
In general, both of these rules serve more to propagate the notion that the sysops are the "authorities" rather than folks who have volunteered to be janitors for us. I am often amazed at how the sysops are transmuted by some into “the man” that must be foiled at every turn, when most of the rest of us have no interest whatsoever in sweeping up messy pages, and whatever else constitutes the bare minimum of keeping the wiki orderly.
So what if a sysop warns people? So what if even they warn too many, too often? There are no consequences to soft warnings. By definition, they’re ‘off the record.” Might they be annoying to some? I’ll grant that, but a minor annoyance is a small trial to endure if such ‘power grabbing’ behavior travels along with the selfless behavior to continually polish the wiki for free. Soft warnings are free pitches – you can swing without altering the count against you. Even “hard warnings” are virtually without consequence – as there are plenty of steps before anything real happens where one can modify their behavior within the incredibly broad guidelines of the wiki rules.
I think a step back is in order. If you really want to fight how authority is exercised on the wiki, perhaps you should start at working on a different grievance process for dealing with what you consider ‘rogue’ sysops – rather than trying to limit their so-called ‘powers.’ This is hardly a power.
Of the two proposed policies - the second reads less like a revolutionary manifesto than the first, but both seem to more about rage against the machine than a clear evaluation of the purpose of warnings.
Again, I’m not saying that folks may not have real grievances against this or that Sysop – I’ve witnessed some things that would upset me were I involved – but this isn’t the way to address them. --Squid Boy 14:10, 3 August 2008 (BST)
- Hi Squidboy. First let's clear some things: I'm the author of both policies. I bear no grudges, have barely edited the wiki (altough I know a lot about it and the rules), and don't take sides, believe it or not. I do not think of the administrational team as "the man" or as "oppressive", although neither do I think they are innocent tools lacking a personality and/or objectives, or how they like to be called: "janitors".
- That said, both policies do sound different as they treat the same issue in two totally different perspectives, and as I have stated: The status quo is an alternative as well, just vote against. However, if you think there's something valuable to add to the policy, a wording that may need to be changed in order for it to sound less "revolutionary" as you say (...), please point me how and I'll follow suit (well, it really depends on the input).
- The rest of your essay strolls too much, as some philosophic work rather than a real constructive criticism. Anyways, thanks for your input. --Starplatinum 14:45, 3 August 2008 (BST)
- LOL! Serves me right for being gentle. How about this for clear: There were no constructive suggestions because this is a bad idea that should go away. Clear enough? --Squid Boy 17:50, 3 August 2008 (BST)
I'm getting a lot of (negative) input on the other policy and not so much here. This policy is meant to imitate the current use of soft warnings while setting an easily understandable policy that the community can refer to about them, so if you think I missed some use, or I misinterpreted how they are being currently used, then please let me know. Of course, if you just oppose the policy by principle, just vote against when it comes to vote and, if you feel like adding your criticism, do it on a civil manner and do not spam the discussion with arguing and it will be much appreciated: it's not like I love my own policies and consider them better than anything else that is already set up or could be written :). --Starplatinum 16:40, 3 August 2008 (BST)
- General silence on the talk page means either the community does not like the idea and will vote against regardless of any changes you make or they all love it in its current form. I'm from the first, so I'll be of little help. Soft warnings are just telling the user to stop, that's all. It's a heads up for the user being softly warned and a heads up for the sysops to know what's going on and for future reference. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:48, 3 August 2008 (BST)
- I agree, Soft Warnings are the Sysops telling a user to be careful, and I don't support any "official policy" limiting their ability to talk or warn other users. There's nothing official about it, and trying to make everything they do official would pointlessly cripple them in red tape and over analysis. Techercizer (Food) (TSoE) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (BST)
How soft warnings should work
Soft warnings should simply be a reminder to a user that they are doing something that can be considered vandalism if it continues after they have been reminded about it. I see absolutely no need for soft warnings to be recorded anywhere other than the talk page of the page in question (as long as the user responds, showing that they got the message) or the users talk page. If the user repeats the act they got "soft warned" for (within a reasonable timespan), the soft warnings can be linked to in any subsequent A/VB case. Other sysops don't need to be informed of soft warnings (unless it comes to an A/VB case) because if they don't notice them, then it's probably not a serious enough problem to worry about. Placing soft warnings on the A/VB page (unless it's the outcome of an existing report) only serve to further shit up the page with argument, seeing as they hold no more weight there than they should on the users talk page -- boxy talk • i 11:42 24 August 2008 (BST)