UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Forbidding soft warnings
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Definition of soft warnings
Soft warnings are defined by this policy as a metod of:
- Reminding a user, in a friendly way or not and leaving a note on an official page or not, that further edits following a specific behaviour may result in official reports at A/VB and/or escalations of his vandal status when his current edits do not constitute bad faith by themselves.
- Unofficially warning with the hopes of modfying the behaviour of a user so he doesn't continue to behave in a manner not desirable by the warning Sysop(s)
- Fabricating enough evidence pointing that the user warned in this manner has disregarded attempts by the administrational team to stop his behaviour and thus his actions clearly constitute bad faith.
Aditionally, if the warned user's edits result to be bad faith yet he/she gets warned in an unofficial way, the warning itself may be considered as a type of soft warning as well.
Policy text
Soft warnings as described above are by this policy forbidden to be used by any member of the administrational team, stripped of any value they may currently have and unable to be used as evidence on any administrational case posterior to the approval of this policy.
Sysops found out to be handling any soft warnings as defined on this policy, even if these unofficial warnings are not called by the handling Sysop "soft warnings" per se, may be brought to Misconduct under the charges of "treating the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki", on the grounds that said Sysop is trying to modify the behaviour of the userbase by making them avoid an "undesirable" path of conduct (i.e., making users fear adding their input on a case, may not they be treated as "spammers" and reported). On such a case, the only action of handling this type of unofficial warning will be treated as sufficient evidence that the Sysop has commited misconduct in this manner, and the only grounds for defense would be that the soft warning did not occur at all, or that the supposed "soft warning" was not one in the first place.
The only exception to this policy will be in the case a user commits what is considered a mistake and not an edit made in bad faith (i.e. a newbie inadvertenly screwing up the code of a suggestion page). In this case the user may (or may not, if it's found to be another good faith mistake on their part) be hereby warned by the administrational team and/or the user base in general that he or she commited a mistake and is expected to learn from it and not to commit the same mistake again, or he/she may be found commiting vandalism.
Disclaimer
Please, as long as the policy isn't being voted on feel free to discuss the policy text here.
There's also another policy handling the same issue here, please read it. If you feel this policy is the preferable option versus the status quo (no regulations over soft warnings), please vote For it when voting begins; on the same fashion, if you don't, then vote Against. You may even want to vote For both policies if you feel any of them is preferable to the status quo: in case your preferred choice don't get enough votes, the other may succeed. If you prefer the status quo, then please vote Against both policies. If, in a rare twist of fate, both policies are going to be approved, the author will remove the one with the less percentage of For votes on it. This system was conceived keeping in mind that the community has the right to choose any of these three options instead of being force-feed the status quo as is.
Voting Section
| Voting Rules |
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop. |
| The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote. |
For
Voting has not yet begun. Discuss the policy here.
Against
Voting has not yet begun. Discuss the policy here.
