Wikidata:Requests for comment/2018 administrator policy update

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "2018 administrator policy update" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

This is an update of several policies related to the use of administrator tools, as well as areas of user conduct. Most of these policies remain unchanged since 2013 and the first days of Wikidata. There have been several incidents of confusion over the last several months where greater clarity would have been helpful. A separate RFC on civility and personal attacks will follow at a later date. (Proposed: 23 September 2018‎)

Wikidata:Administrators[edit]

Accountability[edit]


Involved administrators[edit]

Administrators should avoid using their tools to perform actions where there are credible concerns about their impartiality. Those situations include using the tools in disputes in which they are involved parties. If the administrator is in doubt, the administrator is encouraged to ask for opinions, or to ask another administrator to review the case at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard.

Exception[edit]

An administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adapted from enwiki. This prevents a user from attacking every single admin and thus preventing every admin from enforcing policy against this user. --Rschen7754 23:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jc86035 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pamputt (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though it may help to clarify (or list), however redundant such a clarification (or listing) might be, what actions constitute those that are "purely in an administrative role", even if those are obvious to most who read the policy. Mahir256 (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but isn't it a bit overkill? VIGNERON (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Okkn (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MisterSynergy (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bovlb (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mbch331 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lymantria (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Users with an item[edit]

For the purposes of this policy, actions related to the item representing a Wikidata user are considered actions relating to that Wikidata user.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A subject of confusion over the last year. --Rschen7754 23:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good point to keep in mind. Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jc86035 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralSymbol support vote.svg Support May someone give a link to a past example of such situation? Pamputt (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Pamputt: Have a look at the history of this item around the 3rd of April. (All the still-pending deletion requests pertaining to items about Wikimedians might have something to do with this as well.) Mahir256 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support absolutely. Mahir256 (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support an item about oneself is sensitive and extra-care should be taken. VIGNERON (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Okkn (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral difficult to form an opinion here; maybe I’ll do this later, maybe not. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Every action I take on an item is and should be treated as an action on the item, not the subject of the item. I might have misunderstood this sentence, though, which means its formulation isn't clear, for so I oppose it as much as it stays unclear - no offence to who formulated it, of course, the problem stays with my intellect. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, could this mean a Wikidata user with "their own" Wikipedia article for example User:BabelStone with w:en:Andrew West (linguist) or with an item relating to their Wikidata user account? -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 19:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Part of a broader need to tread carefully where conflict of interest is concerned. Bovlb (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lymantria (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Blocking policy[edit]

Users and bots[edit]

Unless otherwise specified, any block placed on a user account should be extended to all accounts that a user operates, including authorized bot accounts.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is already inferred by Wikidata:Alternate accounts. However, some users apparently need this spelled out. Without this provision, blocks against users running bots for issues like civility are useless. --Rschen7754 23:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This avoids evasions. Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jc86035 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed. However, I am not sure how to know these alternate accounts at the time of a block. Pamputt (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though it would greatly help to clarify how the situation of the second community global ban should be handled here in the context of this proposed policy. Mahir256 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol conditional support.svg Conditional support Basically, I agree with this policy. But I think we also need an exception below. --Okkn (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol conditional support.svg Conditional support Per Okkn Bovlb (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm a little confused by this - shouldn't every user just have one account, unless they also happen to have a bot account (which is relatively rare - a few percent of active editors)? If a user is found to have multiple (unauthorized) accounts otherwise they should be handled under a socking policy I would have thought. And regarding users with a regular + a bot account, I think blocks should be handled differently for the two different cases. That is, I'd like a malfunctioning bot to be blocked immediately by admins, but I don't think that requires the associated user account to be blocked. Conversely, as Okkn suggests below, I don't think a user account that is blocked for one reason necessarily implies a bot account doing unrelated things should be blocked. So on its face I don't really understand this policy and I think I would oppose it as it stands. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, as long as authorized bot account blocks are involved here regardless of the blocking reason. Bots are essential infrastructure for this project and important in many regards to keep it running, so this proposal would create a lot of damage to the project. I would support bot account block only if the main account was blocked infinitely, or the bot account was abused to evade a temporary main account block, or if the bot is malfunctioning and the bot operator cannot address the concern due to their temporary block. I also note that there are a couple of bots operated by more than one operator, which makes it difficult to decide how to deal with them if this proposed policy became an actual policy. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per MisterSynergy. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose User:SuccuBot was blocked on vague grounds that way. --Succu (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I hate to be "that guy" but I'll have to bring up the local block of User:Daphne Lantier which was related to his vandalistic mass-deletion of "highly visible" pages on Wikimedia Commons and that "leaked" here through the fact that Wikidata edits are automatic, a user can edit Wikidata without their knowing, blocks should be to stop continued disruption, as much as I dislike the aforementioned user personally I have to give kudos to the handling administrators who didn't punitively block the User:INeverCry account here over edits that weren't in their own control. -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 19:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Mostly per ArthurPSmith. This sounds too strict, especially in view of the arbitrariness of some blocks that have been made over the past year. Some bots do non-controversial routine work. If a bot is used to circumvent a block, then it can be blocked. - Brya (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too general, too automatic, especially for bot accounts. We shouldn't automaticly block the main account of a user for the technical problems that may cause a bot to malfunction so that it has to be blocked. We shouldn't block a well functioning bot either for an unrelated incorrect behaviour by the user at their main account. An account may be hacked or unintendedly but also unautherizedly used by a third person - that does not mean that secondary accounts like bot accounts have to be blocked. Lymantria (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose - This is to wide-sweeping. I would rather not write this into policy as a command ("should extend"). Deryck Chan (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Users and bots (alternate)[edit]

Any block placed on a user account may be extended to all accounts that a user operates, including authorized bot accounts, at the blocking administrator's discretion.

  • Second choice Symbol support vote.svg Support. Proposing as a potential compromise to some of the issues raised. --Rschen7754 18:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • First choice Symbol support vote.svg Support to give both guidance and discretion to admins. Deryck Chan (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It will be very difficult and will require much wasteful effort to reverse the other admin's vague discretion, if the decision is controversial. Block to an authorized bot should be conducted after there comes a particular reason including the violation of our bot policy. --Okkn (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Okkn: The proposal below about discussions of controversial blocks should take care of this concern. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Rules for blocking should be stipulated as much as possible. If a main account has been vandalizing Wikidata intentionally, I can agree to block all accounts including authorized bots, because the bot account may have also destroyed the contents too. However, if a user violates "alternate account policy" or "edit warring policy" by mistake, there is no merit in punitively blocking bots. I feel almost all cases of blocking an authorized bot for the reason that main account is blocked are controversial, and each blocking should be conducted after obtaining community consensus. In general, unblocking by discussion is much harder than blocking by one admin's discretion, and If the discussion is protracted, participated admins will become exhausted. --Okkn (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Exceptions for bots[edit]

The block should not be extended to the authorized bot account if and only if the blocked account meets all of the criteria below:

  1. The main user account is not indefinitely blocked.
  2. The bot account is only conducting authorized tasks.
  3. The reasons for the block are not related to the bot tasks.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Without this exception, we would hesitate to block a user operating an important bot. @MisterSynergy: You may be interested in this. --Okkn (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well, better than nothing, but I’d rather see bot accounts explicitly being exempted from the alternate account rule (in the context of user blocks). —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What about sockpuppetry or something that affects the level of trust? "are not related to the bot tasks" is too subjective, besides my overall disagreement with this concept. --Rschen7754 18:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, there are some bot accounts that are solely used for edits like QuickStatements. Are we really saying that if they make the edits off their main account it's not okay, but if they do it with their bot account it's okay? And that these bots are "so important" that we really cannot do without their services (which are basically semi-automated edits?) --Rschen7754 00:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Of course, when the behavior of the bot itself is doubtful, we can block the bot even if this exception exists, because it does not meet point 2 or 3. This exception allow us to decide not to block a bot. Conversely, without this exception, we cannot decide not to block the bot at our admins' discretion.
        Obviously, we should not block QuickStatementsBot on the grounds that one of the user (not a bot operator) of it is blocked. --Okkn (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I might support making the block optional, but this proposal goes too far and prevents an administrator from doing so. --Rschen7754 06:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I think this exception just make the block of bot optional. Could you please explain with concrete descriptions in what case this proposed exception is going to be a problem? --Okkn (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
            • Sockpuppetry, where the decision is not to block the master indefinitely but for a limited period of time (because it's a first offense). --Rschen7754 18:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
              • In that case, point 2 is not fulfilled. Also we should block an authorized bot only after it is actually used for an inappropriate purpose. Blocking an authorized bot in advance is an excess response, because the bot has already been associated with its operator, and the authorized bots are limited in number. --Okkn (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
                • "In that case, point 2 is not fulfilled." How so? And when we approve a bot, we should be looking at the trustworthiness of the operator. We should not be supporting editors who are volatile and are likely to be blocked often. --Rschen7754 06:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
                  • If a bot is used as a sockpuppet, that is usually not an authorized task. Or we can (or we should) review the approval of the bot. We can block a bot if the behavior of the bot is destructive, without automatically extending the block of main account to the bot. I think that's enough. --Okkn (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
                    • @Okkn: No, I mean using a third account as a sockpuppet. --Rschen7754 18:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
                      • I don't see any problem of this exceptiton then. This exception cannot be applied to a third account. --Okkn (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
    • (outdent) This would not fall under an exception. If we block someone for abusing multiple accounts (for example, they used an undisclosed sock to vote twice in a RFA) and they are blocked only 1 week, under this proposal we could not block the bot account. --Rschen7754 00:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      • There is no merit to block the authorized bot account at the time of the main account is blocked, if the bot has not been used inappropriately and the operator is not indefinitely blocked. --Okkn (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Absolutely no merit? Besides the dishonesty? Because if faced with this situation again, I would either press for an immediate revocation of the bot flag by a bureaucrat, or indefinitely block, if this proposal passes. --Rschen7754 02:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
          • What is your purpose of the block of the bot account? As a punishment for the dishonesty? We should not choice an indefinite block in order to avoid this exception. Don't confound the means with the end. Without resorting to such forcible means, we can block the bot from the moment the bot does something wrong, or after the approval of a bot task or a bot flag has been rescinded. --Okkn (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
            • Yes, it is punitive, but so is any non-indefinite block. --Rschen7754 05:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
              • I believe extending a punitive block to the authorized bot will do more harm than good. That is because authorized beneficial tasks may stop. --Okkn (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support User:SuccuBot was blocked on vague grounds that way. --Succu (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support points 2 and 3, point 1 makes no sense if the bot makes uncontroversial maintenance edits and is not used for actual evasion. -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 18:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Okkn, but we should also have another exception that a block of a bot may be "technical" and does not necessarily apply to the user. Bovlb (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per MisterSynergy. Not sure if this is right, but better than nothing. - Brya (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see issues here. There may be blocks of the main account like block longer than 6 months that would be reasonably accompanied by a block of the bot. So the first point IMHO is too weak. Second, I think that especially issues of a flood account leading to a block, should be stretched to the bot account as well. This is one of the point the third point is not clear enough about. Edits may not be related to the bot, but flood and bot behaviour may be related. Lymantria (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1. Per Rschen, 2. For areas which have to visit this site via VPN or Shadowsocks is this really fair for them? This can also make private info leaks during your sessions. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? How is this exception for authorized bots associated with users in China? You mean, we should make another exception to the "users and bots" policy? --Okkn (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Liuxinyu970226: 翻墙应该不会导致不同用户分享同一个账户啊。留意这个封禁方针收订是针对一个人有多个账户时,管理员有权一次过封禁所有账户,包括机械人账户,但不包括IP地址。Deryck Chan (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support This is a useful exception to have, if we ratify any proposal of blocking all accounts owned by the same person by default. However, the alternate proposal of giving the blocking admin discretion should suffice on its own. Deryck Chan (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblocking policy[edit]

For comparison, this is the text of the current policy: "If any block or unblock is controversial, the status-quo should be restored and discussion should commence via administrators' noticeboard on which course of action to take."

If any block or unblock is controversial, a short discussion should commence via the administrators' noticeboard on which course of action to take. Administrators should be mindful of both any past consensus that has been established in regards to blocking the user, as well as any relevant policies related to the block.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The current policy is flawed. Under it, literally any administrator (or maybe even user) could contest another administrator's decision and then it would be controversial and the user would have to be blocked or unblocked. A "short" discussion is an attempt to keep a balance between protecting the site (in the event that is necessary) or lifting undue blocks (if that turns out to be the case). --Rschen7754 23:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm, a short discussion isn't that well defined and may cause geographical bias. I think it would have been better to be more specific on what "controversial" is, for the matter that there might be discussion about it. I can't remember of excessive use of the "controversial" argumentation to lift a block or undo a block lift. Lymantria (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The current policy is too liberal. Administrators are the only ones who must handle cases like this. Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jc86035 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pamputt (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mahir256 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Okkn (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol conditional support.svg Conditional support I'm unclear on how we determine whether a block is controversial. Is an unblock request an example? Bovlb (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that's the problem. If one user raises a concern, it would be "controversial" and then we would have to unblock the user. I don't think that part of the policy has ever been carried out in practice, because it would mean anybody could object and then it has to be undone. At least with this change, a discussion would have to take place before unblocking. --Rschen7754 06:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral if a block isn't to stop local disruption it's punitive and doesn't serve the project. -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 18:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unclear how this proposal should improve the situation. As we’ve seen in the past, controversial blocks are already now very difficult to challenge, so we shouldn’t make it even more difficult. I suggest to formalize the unblock request procedure (How do we come to a conclusion after such a request has been filed? How many admins (or users?) should be involved in the discussion/decision? Which role does the blocking admin have?) —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per MisterSynergy. Lymantria (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per MisterSynergy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Despite MisterSynergy's very valid opinion, I think the proposed new policy will help prevent wheel warring amongst admins. Formalizing the unblocking procedure will help the blocked user get access to justice and should be done in addition to, not instead of, this change in the blocking policy. Deryck Chan (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice on blocking IP addresses[edit]

IP address blocks can affect many users, and IP addresses can change. When administrators intend to block an IP address, or to turn on autoblocking of IP addresses when blocking a user, they should at a minimum check for usage of that address and consider duration carefully. IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely.

Wikidata:Edit warring (new policy)[edit]

Basics[edit]

Edit warring is the repeated reverting of the same edits by multiple users. Continued edit warring can be addressed by protecting the page. Persistent edit warring or edit warring over multiple pages can be addressed by blocks. Administrators should not favor one side over the other, but can factor in the severity of the edit warring and previous blocks for similar behavior.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rschen7754 23:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jc86035 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral we have to decide which version we choose before the protection of the page. Do we need to protect the page as soon as the edit warring is detected whatever the version is? Pamputt (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though allowing an admin to return a given page to a state before an edit war began might be helpful. Mahir256 (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Okkn (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though does the "multiple users" here include 2 users who are just reverting one another, or does this definition require at least a third user who has made the same edit as one of the parties, and the other party reverted? That is, the wording seems ambiguous to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 18:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mbch331 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Brya (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC) - I don't like the wording, especially the "Administrators should not favor one side over the other". This prescribes that admins should just blindly take a stab. I would hope admins have some intelligence, and would act for the good of Wikidata.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Edit warring is per def doing harm. Lymantria (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Reverting vandalism is not edit warring.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rschen7754 23:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although it would be good to stop if a vandal continues vandalizing a single page, as this would badly flood the history, instead report it to administrator and wait for someone to block it and clean the mess with a single shot. Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jc86035 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pamputt (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course. Mahir256 (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Okkn (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Though I've seen some people cry "vandalism" on content disagreements, which might require defining vandlism a bit better? ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MisterSynergy (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 18:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mbch331 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Brya (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC). Obviously, although this should not be taken to assume that this is the only exception.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lymantria (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Goes without saying. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Do we have an agreed definition of vandalism? Some editors seem to take it to mean "edits I do not agree with". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Socks[edit]

Reverting edits by a locally blocked or globally locked/banned editor is not edit warring, but is also not mandatory.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rschen7754 23:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jc86035 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pamputt (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though I personally would prefer it be mandatory at least for globally locked/banned users; we should allow locally blocked users to still appeal their blocks on their talk pages. Mahir256 (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Okkn (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MisterSynergy (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the "globally locked 🔒" as if it's equal to a global ban part, the current global policy states "Such users are not globally banned, per se. If they create new accounts and are not disruptive with those accounts, they will not be locked again merely because it is discovered that they were previously globally locked." So global locks aren't de jure global bans under the current policy and if a user is let's say blocked at the Turkish language Wikipedia and Turkish language Wikisource and then globally locked and then makes a new account and exclusively makes good edits here these shouldn't simply be reverted because of an unrelated lock. Local disruption should be treated locally, as Wikidata edits can happen without a users knowledge the aforementioned case can make good edits at the at the Turkish Wiktionary and make edits to Wikidata without even knowing, I just don't think that the largest Wikimedia project should create exclusionary language no other project has. -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 18:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mbch331 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Living people[edit]

Reverting clear-cut violations of Wikidata:Living people is not edit warring.

Userspace[edit]

Users reverting in their own userspace is not edit warring.

Copyright violations or legal issues[edit]

Removing copyright violations or other illegal (in the U.S. where the servers are hosted) content is not edit warring.

Wikidata:Page protection policy[edit]

Edit warring: Proposal 1[edit]

Pages may be protected at administrator discretion in the event of edit warring. Administrators must not use their privileges to continue the edit war; doing so may lead to blocks, or in repeated instances, a discussion about their continued administrator privileges.

Edit warring: Proposal 2[edit]

Pages may be protected at administrator discretion in the event of edit warring. Administrators must not use their privileges to make any edits to the page (unless the administrator's changes are clearly uncontroversial or supported by consensus); doing so may lead to blocks, or in repeated instances, a discussion about their continued administrator privileges.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as this prevents administrators from having an advantage by editing pages that other users cannot edit. --Rschen7754 23:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Administrators should not use their privileges to take advantage on something others cannot. Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jc86035 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Rschen7754: I've modified the last sentence slightly so that it's clearer what the part after the semicolon refers to. Jc86035 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pamputt (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mahir256 (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But I think "Administrators must not undo the page protection to continue the edit war" is better than "Administrators must not use their privileges to continue the edit war". --Okkn (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Okkn: Administrators can edit protected pages without unprotecting them. --Rschen7754 18:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh I see. It was the case of an administrator causing an edit war... --Okkn (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: As far as I know, there is no page protection indicator/warning when viewing and editing an item in the standard web UI. I am pretty sure that there is also no page protection indicator while editing via a semi-automatic tool such as QuickStatements. How should I make sure that I don’t edit an admin-only protected item accidentally? It is not reasonable to expect admins to have a look into the page log before doing an edit… —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • There is a lock icon in the upper right corner (silver for semi-protection and gold for full protection). Mbch331 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I had to activate a gadget “Protection indicators” to see this. The indicator is rather small, it does not appear in tools, nor in mobile view, nor is it visible when I scroll down. Nice gadget, but not sufficient to my opinion. On fully-protected regular wikitext pages in edit mode there is a fat red box with a warning above the source textarea, which itself has red background.
        To avoid confusion: of course I support the idea of the proposal, but I’m afraid that it is too rigorous considering the fact that accidental edits can very easily slip through right now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't see accidental edits as block-worthy and I hope the community would not either. I would be open to changes in the language to make this more clear. --Rschen7754 18:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 18:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Mbch331 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question If a page is semiprotected because of (IP-)edit warring, I suppose that editing such page is not supposed to be "using their privileges" (I dislike this word "privilege" as it is status bearing and would have preferred the more neutral "rights" or "tools") as any autoconfirmed user can do so? --Lymantria (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Lymantria: Yes, that wouldn't mean abuse of rights as autoconfirmed users could edit the item, but this proposal is for full protection (being the administratros the only ones capable of editing the item). Esteban16 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is how I read it as well, but I felt unsure. Symbol support vote.svg Support Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Interface administrators[edit]

Ratification as a policy[edit]

This page is ratified as a policy. (Any further proposals stand on their own unless otherwise specified.)

Accountability[edit]

Interface administrators are expected to reply promptly and civilly to concerns about their interface administrator actions. Repeated failure to do so may result in removal of the right, subject to the usual procedures.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To bring this in line with the administrator proposal and the property creator policy. --Rschen7754 23:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jc86035 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I do not consider interface admin as "normal" admin. Thus, interface admins are editors like everyone else and like everyone else, they must interact with other contributors in a civilized way. Pamputt (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mahir256 (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support again, I'm not sure this is the best wording. VIGNERON (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Okkn (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MisterSynergy (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 18:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mbch331 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lymantria (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Deryck Chan (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)