Wikidata:Meinungsbild/Benutzerregeln
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Let's close this and get this over with now.
- There is consensus that administrators can block for a pattern of local abuse which includes vandalism.
- There is consensus that administrators can block open proxies if they have been used on Wikidata.
- There is no consensus regarding administrators blocking per a consensus with strong opposition to a one week requirement. Administrators may block, mentioning a consensus if relevant and would back up the initial blocking rationale although this does not remove the fact blocks should be done per policy.
- Global sysops and stewards may use their block tool to block only per cross-wiki abuse if necessary.
- Said cross-wiki blocks must be as a result of the user having a likelihood of hitting Wikidata or already having done so.
- Administrators may block for edit warring which is defined as repeated reverts over a short period of time. As Wikidata's editing system is different, reverts are defined as undoing a series of edits or an idea put forward the user. This may results in multiple reverts for a single idea as such thus would not constitute and edit warring. If content will be oversighted after, edit warring does not apply. Administrators may fully protect an item or property if they seem necessary and it would force the users in question to discuss on the talk page as blocking would prevent constructive discussion. Administrators should apply discretion when dealing with a case of edit warring as strict numerical rules are not always accurate when dealing with Wikidata.
- Administrators may block for harassment and personal attacks.
- Oversighters are authorized to block users per oversighted content while global sysops and stewards are not.
- Administrators may block a user when required when no community consensus has been sought or when no policy properly governs the block assuming the administrator seeks feedback at a public venue and can fully explain why they felt the block was necessary to prevent disruption.
- Administrators may revoke talk page and email access and they feel necessary if the use is not constructive or carries on the same behaviour the user was original blocked for.
- Administrators may block unauthorized and malfunctioning bots as they feel necessary. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In letzter Zeit reichte Benutze den gesunden Menschenverstand nicht aus, um Differenzen zwischen Benutzern zu verhindern. Es werden hier keine konkreten Beispiele gegeben, damit nicht impliziert wird, dass diese Dispute andauern. Aber unsere Richtlinien zur Benutzersperrung wurden nicht genügend beachtet, da es sich bisher nur um eine Richtlinie handelt; Benutzersperren wegen Sockenspielerei sind festgelegt gemäß Wikidata:Alternative Konten. Jedoch wurden Benutzersperren problematisch, die nicht durch Spam oder Vandalismus ausgelöst wurden, auch solche von Bots.
Ein weiteres Problem ist eine fehlende Definition, was einen Editwar ausmacht, denn es es ist nicht ausreichend definiert, was das bei Objekten und Eigenschaften bedeutet. Manchmal gibt es Serien von Bearbeitungen "Version wiederhergestellt", die als das selbe oder nicht das selbe betrachtet werden können wie ein einfaches mehrfaches Zurücksetzen.
Die Besprechung dieser Probleme ist überfällig und geschuldet dem multikulturellen Wesen dieses Wikis, den verschiedene Heimatwikis haben verschiedene Konventionen bei der Behandlung von Benutzern. Es wird nun Zeit einen Versuch zu starten, diese zu einem verbindlichen Regelwerk zu kodifizieren.
Dieses Meinungsbild besteht bezieht sich zugleich auf alle bereits bestehenden Seiten mit Leitlinien, als auch auf neue Zusätze. Bestehende Leitlinien werden mit "Bestehend" gekennzeichnet. Was auch immer am Ende als Konsens herauskommt, wird die neuen Regeln bilden.
Dieses Meinunsbild bleibt offen für mindestens vier Wochen. Die erste Phase wird zwei Wochen dauern und wird die Gelegenheit geben, neue Möglichkeiten hinzuzufügen falls nötig. Danach werden keine neuen Optionen mehr zugelassen und die Diskussion muss sich in einer zweiten Phase auf die Zustimmung oder Ablehnung der gegebenen Optionen beschränken. Alle Optionen sollten übersetzt werden mit der Translation Extension vor dem Ende der ersten Phase.
Contents
- 1 Sperrregeln
- 1.1 Bestehend: Sperren für lokalen Missbrauch
- 1.2 Definition von lokalem Missbrauch
- 1.3 Offene Proxies
- 1.4 Bestehender Konsens
- 1.5 Entfernung der 1-Woche Bestimmung
- 1.6 Globale Administratoren
- 1.7 Cross-Wiki Missbrauch
- 1.8 Editwars
- 1.9 Persönliche Angriffe
- 1.10 Belästigung
- 1.11 Oversighter
- 1.12 Anderes Störverhalten
- 1.13 Missbrauch der Diskussionsseite während der Sperre
- 1.14 Benutzung von e-mail während einer Sperre
- 1.15 Bots außer Kontrolle oder unautorisierte Bots
- 2 Vandalismus
- 3 Editwars
- 4 Persönliche Angriffe und Belästigung
Sperrregeln
Bestehend: Sperren für lokalen Missbrauch
Administratoren können Benutzer blockieren, um lokalen Missbrauch zu verhindern, wenn ein Muster von lokalem Missbrauch bekannt ist.
Support
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep Ajraddatz (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --►Cekli829 17:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
Definition von lokalem Missbrauch
Für den Zweck des Abschnitts oben, würde lokaler Missbrauch definiert in Übereinstimmung mit diesem Abschnitt. Die Optionen schließen sich nicht gegenseitig aus. Alle folgenden Optionen, die beschlossen werden, werden in dieser Definition enthalten sein.
Bestehend: Vandalism und Spamming
Vandalismus muss hier definiert werden.
Support
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite obvious but I agree to Lymantria that defining vandalism might be hard. -- Bene* talk 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- The danger is that defining vandalism will lead to vandalism that is not covered by the definition. Lymantria (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Offene Proxies können blockiert werden, wenn sie erkannt werden. Das bedeutet häufig, dass auch bereits bekannte Absender keinen Spam senden können.
Support
- @Vlsergey: That will not prevent Tor from being blocked, since it is done automatically with mw:Extension:Torblock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The extensions can be switched on and off per community decision. Torblock extension has settings that allow already registered users to edit using ToR. It's up to community to decide, it is not a technical barrier. -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vlsergey: If you wish for that, then please add a separate proposal for that. Opposing this will just lead to hindrance of necessary abuse prevention, but I do agree that admins should be responsive when handing out IP block exemption. My opinion is that they are, as requests at WD:RFP are handled pretty quickly, but if not, then this is out of the scope of this RfC and needs to be addressed in an amendment to Wikidata:IP block exemption, not hindrance of blocking of open proxies.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm opposing to fully implement this rule and support to implement it only partially -- to allow already registered users to use open proxies, but prohibit non-registered from using them for edit or for creation of new accounts. From my point of view, it is enough to fight vandalism and prevent abuse. Well, at least until someone will show that this is not enough. -- Vlsergey (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jasper Deng: For me this is about removing the need for Wikidata:IP block exemption permission (at least for Tor), so this would not be an ammendment to that permission. My concern is not responsivenes of admins. I would be fine with splitting this up into "open proxies except Tor" and "no block exception needed with Tor for logged in users", but I don't feel confident to do this now myself. Which part of Wikidata policy would support the current setting of mw:Extension:Torblock regarding needing block exception to edit over Tor if not this part that is currently discussed here? JanZerebecki (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @JanZerebecki: Whenever torblock is enabled you must have its exemption permission to edit through it; if that permission were automatically assigned then the extension is effectively useless. I want torblock to be a separate discussion.
- The reason why Tor is blocked on almost every Wikimedia wiki is because of the abuse it's caused for us.
- With that said you're more than welcome to re-amend this after this RfC with... another RfC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jasper Deng: I'm fine with anything here related to Tor being a separate discussion. Which would require amending the description of this "Open proxies" policy item with "This explicitly excludes any decision regarding access through Tor e.g. either for or against blocking and/or necessity of block exceptions or not.". Regarding your Tor related arguments: Users via Tor that are not logged in would still be blocked by the extension so it would not be useless. The user accounts used to log in via Tor would either have been created via a non-Tor IP which still can be blocked or via mailing a account request. Obviously such an account can still be blocked. So this would in no way limit the ability to fight abuse. JanZerebecki (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @JanZerebecki: But some people don't want TorBlock to be enabled at all. And even if Torblock were still enabled, removing admins' ability to manually block nodes would still hinder anti-abuse because the extension is not 100% effective. The English Wikipedia has a bot specifically to block Tor nodes not blocked by the extension.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jasper Deng: With our current state of abuse fighting infrastructure I think it is fine to block Tor exit nodes that the extension somehow misses, as long as the manual block gets removed as soon as the extension picks that IP up. Although I would prefer the extension being fixed. JanZerebecki (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vlsergey: If you wish for that, then please add a separate proposal for that. Opposing this will just lead to hindrance of necessary abuse prevention, but I do agree that admins should be responsive when handing out IP block exemption. My opinion is that they are, as requests at WD:RFP are handled pretty quickly, but if not, then this is out of the scope of this RfC and needs to be addressed in an amendment to Wikidata:IP block exemption, not hindrance of blocking of open proxies.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The extensions can be switched on and off per community decision. Torblock extension has settings that allow already registered users to edit using ToR. It's up to community to decide, it is not a technical barrier. -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditionally As long as admins are responsive about allowing for IP-block-exempt to legit users. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- per Koavf.--Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it really should be globally blocked, but okay, I guess. --Rschen7754 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I echo Rschen7754 on this one. MJ94 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I also echo rschen7754. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Rschen7754. Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- per Koavf. It turns out i can't edit using ToR. -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vlsergey: m:no open proxies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Koavf: i do know about policy and i do understand it and i do follow it when using my admin flag. But it doesn't mean i agree with it in 100%. -- Vlsergey (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @vlsergey: Agreed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Koavf: i do know about policy and i do understand it and i do follow it when using my admin flag. But it doesn't mean i agree with it in 100%. -- Vlsergey (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a legitimate need to use ToR (i.e. you live in China), you can request an IP block exemption from stewards at m:SRGP. --Rschen7754 23:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m curious but how is an IP-based exemption going to work for unblocking Tor in 2014? We’ve already officially run out of IPv4 addresses and any user’s IP address can change any time and any single IP could be an entire university.—Al12si (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vlsergey: m:no open proxies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- per Vlsergey—Al12si (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- support Tor. Mutante (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be ok with this if at least existing users were allowed to edit over Tor. JanZerebecki (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tor is already automatically blocked. Natuur12 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- per Rschen7754 -- Bene* talk 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Bestehender Konsens
Administratoren können Benutzer nach mindestens einer Woche Diskussion sperren, wenn es dort befürwortet wird, es sei denn es liegt ein anderer Grund vor (entsprechend dem Vandalismus), der hier anerkannt wird.
Support
Oppose
- There should be a valid reason to block the user, not just consensus of the community. The consensus we may seek is there a valid reason to block or not. There should be not any community-driven blocks without valid reason established by rules. -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 week is too long. --Rschen7754 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A week is really long. I dislike community blocks, I would expect that users have to know more or less beforehand how to behave without being blocked, while community votes could change the "rules". Lymantria (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Rschen7754.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Lymantria. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 09:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- per Rschen. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria has a good point. MJ94 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If Rsc said right below. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per rschen. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Is there be possible to start WD's ArbCom?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and then we can start the 10 mailing lists that we need to be just like enwiki... :P --Rschen7754 23:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
- Under what circumstances would a community consensus be used solely to block a user, if any? —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The community would only do so when it deems a user to be "disruptive", i.e. working against the interests of Wikidata - but not necessarily included in any of the other reasons. That may mean different things in the future; it's an elastic clause, really.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Entfernung der 1-Woche Bestimmung
Die bestehende Regelung, aber ohne Erfordernis einer Frist von einer Woche. Administratoren dürfen jeden Benutzer sperren, wenn es eine breite Zustimmung nach einer vernünftigen Zeit gibt, auch dann, wenn der Sperrgrund von dieser Sperregel nicht abgedeckt ist.
Support
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is never measured through straight voting, and any sane admin would make sure that the reason is valid, so ok. --Rschen7754 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer to block for reasons, not by consensus... -- Bene* talk 09:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Globale Administratoren
Globale Administratoren und Stewards dürfen nur für lokalen und Cross-Wiki-Missbrauch wie er hier definiert ist sperren und müssen sich in jedem anderen Fall lokalen Administratoren unterordnen. Das ist bereits festgelegt in Wikidata:Administrators, aber es ist nicht eindeutig klar, was sie machen können und was nicht.
Support
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Vlsergey (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Nah need, we're not small wiki. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Not sure what the difference is between this and the current policy... --Rschen7754 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 09:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Cross-Wiki Missbrauch
Administratoren können wegen Cross-Wiki-Missbrauch sperren, wenn mindestens eine der folgenden Optionen gewählt sind. Die möglichen Optionen schließen sich nicht gegenseitig aus, aber alle gewählten Optionen, werden als Sperrgründe in der Definition eingeschlossen.
Es muss Wahrscheinlichkeit bestehen, dass Wikidata betroffen wird
Cross-Wiki-Missbrauch ist kein Sperrgrund auf Wikidata, es sei denn es besteht eine Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass der Benutzer auch Wikidata als Ziel auswählt, oder dass der Benutzer bereits einmal Missbrauch auf Wikidata betrieben hat. Dieses schließt Sockenpuppen aus, die hier noch nicht negativ aufgefallen sind. Das bedeutet, dass Sperren auf einzelnen Wikis nicht automatisch in globale Benutersperren münden.
Support
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- if the user has already caused local abuse - yes. The rest of this proposal is too vague for me even to consider supporting it in whole; that is, what would classify as cross-wiki abuse? --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly at least it's a famous interwiki abuse e.g. called Kagemusha/影武者. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --►Cekli829 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- This and the next option are too binary for me, personally. --Rschen7754 21:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Jeder Cross-Wiki Missbrauch
Dieses ist die momentane Situation; Jeder Cross-Wiki-Missbrauch kann sanktionierbar sein.
Support
- Lymantria (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC) but only if it affects Wikidata as well.[reply]
- @Lymantria: This is the opposite of what the heading says, just noting. -- Bene* talk 14:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- This has caused problems in the past.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Too wide. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Per above but how about Leucosticte, Michaeldsuarez, Kauffner... --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Editwars
Administratoren können Benutzer sperren wegen Editwar, wie in diesem Meinungsbild festgelegt.
Support
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jakob (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- if necessary but rather protect the page which is being editwarred.Bene* talk 09:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --►Cekli829 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
Persönliche Angriffe
Addministratoren können wegen wiederholten oder schweren persönlichen Angriffen Benutzer sperren, wie in diesem Meinungsbild festgelegt wird.
Support
- Yes. --Jakob (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rschen7754 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- of course. -- Bene* talk 09:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Epìdosis 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK --►Cekli829 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
Belästigung
Administratoren können sofort sperren wegen Belästigung, vorzugsweise nach einer Warnung, in schweren Fällen auch ohne Warnung, die in diesem Meinungsbild festgelegt sind.
Support
- Support --Jakob (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rschen7754 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 09:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --►Cekli829 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
Oversighter
Oversighter oder andere Administratoren, die ein solches Vergehen sehen, können einen Benutzer für mehrfache oder schwere Vergehen gegen die die Bestimmungen sperren, für die ein Oversighter zuständig ist oder die gegen die Regeln der Foundation zum Schutz der Privatsphäre verstoßen. Beachte dass dieses nicht von der Gemeinschaft aufgehoben werden kann, denn die Regeln der Foundation zum Schutz der Privatsphäre sind notwendig, um private Informationen zu schützen.
Support
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporting with an suggestion for different wording. "such an offence" should be replaced with "vandalism as defined in Wikidata:Vandalism" or anything along that line. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rschen7754 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Per bugs 32628 and 60373. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, "oversight" and "suppression" are interchangeable, unless explicitly stated. --Rschen7754 23:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Stewards
Erlaube Stewards Blocks im Zusammenhang mit Oversight vorzunehmen, zusätzlich zu lokalem und Cross-Wiki-Missbrauch.
Support
Oppose
- Not sure why this is necessary. --Rschen7754 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have local oversighters, why stewards would have to oversight here? — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No need. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Local oversighters are sufficient. MJ94 (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Globale Administratoren
Erlaube Globalen Administratoren Blocks im Zusammenhang mit Oversight vorzunehmen, zusätzlich zu lokalem und Cross-Wiki-Missbrauch.
Support
Oppose
- Not sure why this is necessary. --Rschen7754 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GS even doesn't have OS. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No need. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Local oversighters and sysops are sufficient. MJ94 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --►Cekli829 17:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Anderes Störverhalten
Falls ein Administrator es für notwendig erachtet, einen Benutzer sofort zu sperren, um Wikidata zu schützen, aber es gibt keinen Konsens der Wikidatagemeinschaft dafür (jedoch keinen Konsens dagegen), noch irgendeinen anderen zutreffenden Grund, wie er in den Regeln festgelegt ist, kann er die Sperre vornehmen, aber der Administrator muss eine Nachricht auf auf Adminanfragen hinterlassen, damit die Gemeinschaft dieses nach der Sperre schnellstmöglich überprüfen kann. IRC und andere Medien außerhalb des Wikis reichen nicht aus für diesen Zweck.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Vlsergey (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but I'm concerned that posting at WD:AN would only attract a handful of users to discuss the block. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wylve: Unfortunately, it's the best we have at this moment - if you have an idea to remedy that, feel free to start another proposal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --►Cekli829 17:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
Missbrauch der Diskussionsseite während der Sperre
Alle Diskussion oder Bearbeitungen, die nichts mit der Sperre zu tun haben oder mit dem Verhalten des Benutzers, das zur Sperre geführt hat, (genauer unter Ausschluss des Verhaltens von anderen), ist unangemessener Gebrauch der Benutzerdiskussionsseite. Missbrauch schließt ein wiederholte leichtfertige Anfragen zur Entsperrung oder alles, das an ansonsten mit Sperre belegt ist, wie beispielsweise Verbreitung von Spam. Jeder nicht involvierte Admin kann nach seinem Ermessen den Zugang zur Diskussionsseite sperren für einen gesperrten Benuzter, der seine Benutzerdiskussion missbraucht.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When it's clear the user is just trying to be disruptive, talk page access can be removed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically per Jasper Deng. For example, an response from an blocked user to an discussion on his chat page is acceptable (even if the subject is not about the block itself), but any disruptive behavior is not.--Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Jasper. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rschen7754 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- don't see the reason to prevent user from using his talk page, unless it's against other rules (i.e. spam, vandalism, self-hosting, etc.) -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This clause is incomprehensible, and my translator query has not been responded to after 2 days when the first stage is supposed to be almost over. As a translator I cannot support this.—Al12si (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Benutzung von e-mail während einer Sperre
Für Special:EmailUser gelten die selben Regeln wie für den Abschnitt darüber.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- with the same conditional as I mentioned above (under misuse of talk page).--Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rschen7754 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- If this is the same as the previous clause and I can’t confidently translate the previous one, then I can’t support this either.—Al12si (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Until we created a unblock maillist or UTRS.GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Bots außer Kontrolle oder unautorisierte Bots
Administratoren können Bots sperren mit offenischtlicher Fehlfunktion oder Bots, die nicht gemäß den Regeln für Bots autorisiert sind. Außer der Bot ist ein Fall von Vandalismus oder verursacht lokalen Missbrauch, sollte die Sperre ohne Autoblock erfolgen und Kontakt zum Botbetreiber aufgenommen werden, falls er bekannt ist.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) supposing that unauthorized bots will only be blocked when flooding[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Malfunctioning -- yes, unauthorized -- "no". We need to review bot policy and make much lighter version of it (comparing to Wikipedia rules), because Wikidata, from my point of view, are edited and will be edited mostly my bots, not by people. De-facto a lot of bot edits are already here without community consensus. For example, all widar edits are de-facto bot-alike edits -- there are a lot of those, they are all alike, and still, no prior consensus for them. -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Not sure how this is different from what we do already... --Rschen7754 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Bestehend: Jeder absichtliche Versuch Wikidata zu beschädigen oder die Integrität zu kompromitieren
Die bestehende Definition, aber "beschädigen oder kompromitieren" soll in diesem Meinungsbild definiert werden.
Support
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ·addshore· talk to me! 21:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --►Cekli829 17:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
Definition von "beschädigen oder kompromitieren"
Die Aktionen wurden eindeutig unternommen in böswilliger Absicht, sie zerstören Seiten, inklusive aber nicht beschränkt auf Einfügen von sinnlosem Geschwafel, verleumderische oder unangemessene Obszönitäten bei Objekten, Eigenschaften oder irgendeiner anderen Seite.
Support
- with an dependancy that gibberish is removed from this rule. gibberish can easily be classified as an test edit.--Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Test edits would be seen as good faith, so this rule would not apply in those cases. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Lymantria (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC) I like the general description better. I like the examples. Bad faith however is something we can at best be assuming and should not be the central part of the definition. We cannot read minds.[reply]
- per Lymantria -- Bene* talk 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What about incorrect facts? Or someone not willing to listen to consensus? --Rschen7754 06:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria has a point; also, as Snaevar says, gibberish could easily be a test edit. MJ94 (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- per Lymantria Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Editwars
Es gibt dazu bisher noch keine Regel oder Richtlinie, alle Vorschläge dazu sind vollkommen neu.
Basisdefinition von Editwar
Editwar ist definiert als wiederholtes zurücksetzen in einem kurzen Zeitraum durch zwei oder mehr Benutzer, wobei alle beteiligten Benutzer wissentlich darin versagen, die Auseinandersetzung über den Inhalt auf der Diskussionsseite zu lösen. Zurücksetzungen würde weiter unten definiert.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Was deliberately clearly worded so just undoing a single edit wouldn't be a whole edit war.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) but please do not define reverts.[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- in ruwiki there is much simple definition: "edit war begins when the user returns the edit that was lately previously canceled without prior consensus". No need to define "repeat" or "reverts". -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- What is "a short period of time"?GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Definition von Zurücksetzungen
Eine Zurücksetzung bei einer Eigenschaft oder einem Objekt bewirkt die Zurücksetzung einer ganzen Serie von Bearbeitungen eines Benutzers, egal ob in einem Bearbeitungsschritt oder nicht. Auf anderen Seiten ist es einfach definiert als eine Bearbeitung, die eine andere Bearbeitung zurücksetzt.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MJ94 (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Lymantria (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC) If only simple things as interpunction or capitalization are changed (other pages), it should still count as a revert. Essentially we are better off without this definition.[reply]
- Basically per Lymantria but I mean the other stuff (items, properties and translations) too. It’s way too hard to track history on items, properties and translations and it’s way too easy to “revert” without even a clue you’ve technically reverted. When you can’t even see all the properties on the screen (and when some items are even displayed incorrectly) you can’t penalize people for “reverts”.—Al12si (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Isn’t this definition backwards? Do I assume “On a property or item, undoing a single series of edits by one user constitutes a revert” is what this is trying to say?—Al12si (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dreimal-Zurücksetzen-Regel
Als Faustregel gilt, dass mehr als dreimaliges Zurücksetzen in einem Zeitraum von 24 Stunden vom einem Benutzer in der selben Auseinandersetzung ein Sperrgrund ist. Dieses definiert nicht den Begriff Editwar und Sperren können verhängt werden für drei oder weniger Zurücksetzungen oder für vier oder mehr außerhalb des 24 Stunden Zeitrahmens.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Vlsergey (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just like how enwiki does. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a fan of all the official definitions and "rulebooks", but if it's necessary, yes. MJ94 (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also bring 3RR exemptions from e.g. enwiki.GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- No 3RR please. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason, Revi? --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like idea of 3RR, since (I think) it makes administrative work more robotic even though it will make admin's work more easier. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason, Revi? --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A "general rule of thumb" should not become a policy imho. -- Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC) If a larger number of items is involved than 3RR is a strange rule. What is the same dispute? If I revert a disputed change of Property on a series of 10 items, is it a violation of 3RR?[reply]
- Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC) No, please.[reply]
- No, please. --Konggaru (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Natuur12 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I dunno. A bit too legalistic, in my opinion, but if it's necessary... --Rschen7754 17:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
This assumes a specific approach to adding data to Wikidata. In a previous RfC it was discussed that there is a correlation between the number of edits and the potential of errors. Given that I have at this time 1,230,652 edits and given that on a "good" day there can be as many as 100K more edits, three reverts can be from many moths, weeks and days ago. This rule feels therefore like nothing but "finding a stick to hit a dog".
That RfC was to discuss exactly this situation. There was no comment so it rules fine. At issue is that the error rate of what I do is low. When things get off track it may be spectacularly so for a very limited subset of data. It then helps when we communicate, analyse what went wrong so that remedial action can be taken. However, we seem to have decided that that is not necessary. If anything communicating in an aggressive way is the norm.
This RfC is not an RfC as you can read; you feel that it is needed and consequently are not inclined to discuss or consult. Consequently this is very much a power play and certainly not a request. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @GerardM: If you don't like "aggressive way"'s of commenting, please retract your last sentence. And I'd appreciate it if you could propose alternatives rather than complaining about existing ones.
- I personally think WIDAR needs to be regulated too, but that's for another RfC. To be nice, I will not talk about your particular use of it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Übersicht der Definitionen
Die folgenden Optionen schließen sich gegenseitig aus
Beliebige Anzahl von Seiten
Adminstratoren können auf Editwar erkennen im Fall von den selben Streitigkeiten der selben Benutzer über mehrere Objekte, Eigenschaften oder anderen Seiten.
Support
Oppose
- I would probably go with an scope that is somewhere inbetween "any number" and "one page".--Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Eine Seite
Die Teilnehmer an einem Editwar können nicht einseitig bestraft werden, es sei denn Beweise die dem entgegen stehen können gefunden werden in der Versionsgeschichte einer Seite.
Support
- -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
- This is totally unclear to me, I rather like common sense as guidance here. Lymantria (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Snaevar and Lymantria, please UCS. -- Bene* talk 14:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This Option seems to contain a rule to punish all edit warriers equally, unless there is an evidence that one participant mus be excluded e. g. one opponent can prove a prior consent or has posted on a discussion page prior to the editwar. However this Option must be reworded to make things clear.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ausnahmen für Material das Oversight unterliegt, Vandalism und Spam
Zurücksetzen von Material, das anschließend durch Oversight entfernt werden muss, alle Formen von Vandalismus oder Spam sind von der Definition von Editwar ausgenommen.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC) although reverting "vandalism" may lead to disputes if it is not agreed that the action is indeed vandalism.[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Needed to ensure vandalism fighting remains efficient.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- Per 32628 and per 60373. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Ausnahme für den Benutzernamensraum
Benutzer, die die Bearbeitungen anderer in ihrem Benutzernamensraum zurücksetzen (User:Username and User talk:Username, zusammen mit den Unterseiten), sind ausgenommen von dieser Definition des Editwars, es sei denn sie revertieren die Entfernung von offensichtlich unangemessenen Inhalten, insbesondere Verleumdungen, noch dürfen sie Nachrichten über die Sperrung oder Entsperrwünsche entfernen, solange die Sperre andauert.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- If we have to add sub-exemptions etc. the whole proposal does not make sense, so Oppose -- Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Bene* --Lymantria (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Unterfall der Ausnahmen
Wenn ein Administrator einen Kommentar auf einer Benutzerseite abgibt, insbesondere die Bitte um die Entfernung einer Bemerkung, so ist dieser Kommentar nicht Bestandteil der obigen Ausnahmen. Administratorendrüfen diese Ausnahmeregelung einzig und alleine nutzen, um sicher zu stellen, dass der fragliche Benutzer dieses zur Kenntnis nimmt und den angegeben Missstand beseitigt.
Support
Oppose
- Lymantria (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Oh please, not this type of subexemptions. What makes an administrator more than a steward here? Or even a trusted non administrator user?[reply]
- per Lymantria Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Seitenschutz
Voller Seitenschutz ist insbesondere zugelassen, um einen Editwar zu beenden und ist eine besondere Alternative zu Benutzersperren wegen Editwar.
Support
- --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Snaevar: By the way, the RfC is specifically designed so that any objections of that kind can be added as new proposals without ambiguity over whether it got consensus or not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- protection is even preferable to a block in my opinion. -- Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- semi-protection should be preferred when it denies access for all parties involved to the page in question. An full protection should not be done in this case unless 4 or more accounts or ips (disregarding the fact that there could be one individual behind several ips) are involved in the edit war. Full page protections should only be active for a limited time (maybe 2 weeks max).--Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Diskretion
Adminstratoren haben die besondere Erlaubnis und die Anweisung diskret vorzugehen, wenn es um Editwar geht. Das bedeutet, dass der Benutzer vor Sanktionen gewarnt wird und dass der Administrator auf Sanktionen verzichten kann, wenn der Editwar seither unterblieben ist, andererseits auch die Möglichkeit zu sperren, auch wenn die Dreimal-Zurücksetzen-Regel nicht verletzt wurde.
Support
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Much better than the 3RR rule[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- Do we have to write this into the policy? I think it should be natural. -- Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Persönliche Angriffe und Belästigung
Basisdefinition und Regeln
Persönliche Angriffe sind Aussagen, die vorsätzlich darauf abzielen die Gefühle eines anderen zu verletzen, was nicht gleichzusetzen ist mit Kritik in guter Absicht mit einem Beweis. Ausser in schweren Fällen und ganz besonders wenn eine kulturelle Barriere die Missverständnisse ausgelöst haben könnten, sollten Benutzer, die persönliche Angriffe starten, vor einer Maßnahme verwarnt werden.
Support
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there are times that we do have to discuss other users at WD:AN, but at least it can be collegial.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Important: first try to fix misunderstanding. This should be quite bold because we are a multilingual project. -- Bene* talk 10:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- prefer much simple rule: "don't discuss other editors" (with exception of RfA and admin-flag-granting discussion pages) -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Peronal attacks are attacks to the (supposed) person of the user involved, in stead of critisism on his/her edits or actions. I miss that point and I do not think it is a good idea to add POV words like "deliberately" and "good-faith". Lymantria (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Not really sure about the wording here. --Rschen7754 21:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Belästigung
Belästigung ist definiert als ein Muster von wiederholten Angriffen, die eindeutig gegen eine bestimmte Person oder Gruppe gezielt sind in den Augen eines vernünftigen Beobachters. Dieses kann, muss aber nicht persönliche Angriffe enthalten.
Support
- --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- same as above. -- Bene* talk 10:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lymantria (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- prefer much simple rule: "don't discuss other editors" (with exception of RfA and admin-flag-granting discussion pages) -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]