UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Soft warnings

gdlknfffffhep9ta3q56g36t-q39476q304qw3t-70476-0364-9067q37-064-79-q475q3-0q7-05623479086q347-0qhkljbfzs;`khgblsdf«p

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)

Please read

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)