UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/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 method of:
- Reminding a user in a friendly way and leaving a note on an official page, that further edits following a specific behaviour may result in further reports at A/VB and/or escalations of his vandal status when his current edits do not constitute bad faith by themselves, or there's not enough evidence to consider them so.
- Warning without recurring to the official vandal escalations with the hopes of modfying the behaviour of a user so he doesn't continue to behave in a manner not desirable by the community.
- Creating 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.
Policy text
Seeing that there's an underlying uncertainty on the use of the so-called soft warnings on the wiki, as there's no official policy that regulates them, this policy attempts to fill this empty space in order to get rid of the aformentioned uncertainty, while following the status quo unwritten rules as closely as possible.
Soft warnings may be handled only when an user is found spamming administrational pages, defined as constantly adding unhelpful comments without being a directly involved party to the case in question. In this case, a soft warning may be handled in the vandal banning page. If the user's undesired behavior persists, a second unofficial warning may be handled before proceeding with the official vandal escalations. Thus, any user that has been handled two soft warnings may be escalated in the regular manner if they continue to spam administrational pages. This policy, however, does not include administrational talk pages. Also, soft warnings do not fade in time.
Soft warnings will lose their status of "unofficial warnings" as:
- Only Sysops will be allowed to handle them.
- They'll be recorded on the A/VB, A/VD and the warned user's talk page in the same fashion that common vandal escalations for accountability.
- They'll constitute a parallel system to the official vandal escalations, yet an official system in order to gather sufficient evidence that an user is not acting in good faith when editing the wiki in a certain manner.
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.
