维基数据:评论请求/用户行为方针
- 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]
最近,我们发现「使用常识」方針並不足以预防社群出現不和谐因素。為了避免令人以為某些爭端仍在發生中,具體的例子實在不便列出,但如果真是要舉例,其中一例就是因為我們的封禁方針只是一個指引,而有人沒有遵從;事實上,除了維基數據:代用帳戶批准 (
另一個問題是,在「項」和「屬性」的架構下,很難定義什麼叫「回退」,結果是,究意什麼才算編輯戰,這裏也沒有定義過;有時,恢復某版本而作出的一系列的編輯,可能可以視為對多個項或屬性作出撤回一樣,也可能是不一樣。
這些問題的起因,都是因為這個維基的多元文化性,也就是說因為不同用戶原本使用的不同維基都有不同的用戶行為準則,所以,現在是制定這些行為準則的時候了。
這個評論請求的形式,是同時包括現有指引頁面的任何內容(現有指引前標上「目前:」以資識別),再加上任何已經提出的新修訂。討論後無論達成什麼共識,將成為新的方針。
這個評論請求的公開諮詢期為期至少四週,第一階段為期二週,目的是提供機會給人提出任何認為有需要提出的新方案,這一週過後將不會再接納任何新方案。第二階段期間,任何討論的目的,必須是對各個已提出的方案作出通過或否決。第一階段結束前,所有方案應透過翻譯扩展進行翻譯。
Contents
- 1 封禁方针
- 2 破壞行為
- 3 編輯戰
- 4 人身攻擊及騷擾
封禁方针
目前:封禁本地滥用
為防止本地濫用的發生(本地指維基數據),管理員可封禁任何被確定有本地濫用傾向的用戶。
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
本地滥用的定义
以下部分中「本地濫用」的定義,將以此部分為準。以下方案並不互相對立,以下所有方案,一經通過,一律收入定義中。
目前:破坏和/或滥发电邮
「破坏」也會在此文件明确定義。
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
任何開放代理,一經發現,可立刻進行封禁。一般情況下,開放代理包括被破解,正在發放垃圾訊息的主機。
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
目前:依共识處理
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]
取消「先討論一週」的規定
沿用目前使用的指引,但取消「先討論一週」的規定,即如果社區在討論了一段任何合理時間後普遍達成共識,即使理由沒有列明於本方針之內,管理員即可對任何用戶進行封禁。
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
全域管理员
全域管理員及監管員只可以本地濫用及跨維基破壞為理由進行封禁(本地濫用及跨維基破壞以本文件定義為準),如果封禁基於其他理由,則必須轉交本地管理員處理。這其實已在維基數據:管理員說明,但究竟全域管理員及監管員可以做什麼,不可以做什麼,該文件並無徹底明確交待。
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
跨维基破坏
如選擇以下一個或多個方案,管理員可以以跨維基破壞為理由進行封禁。以下方案並不互相對立,以下所有方案,一經通過,一律收入定義中,以便作為封禁的準則。
必须有機會來到维基数据
除非用戶有機會來到維基數據這裏,或該用戶已進行過本地濫用,否則跨維基破壞並不構成封禁該用戶的理由。此方案特定排除過去在本維基沒有濫用前科的跨維基傀儡賬戶(即不可以以「對某用戶實行自動全域封禁」為理由進行封禁。)
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
任何跨维基破坏
基本上即是保持現狀,即任何跨維基破壞均可視為進行處分的理由。
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
编辑战
管理員可以以預防編輯戰為理由進行封禁(「編輯戰」的定義以本評論請求為準)。
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
人身攻擊
管理員可以對重複進行人身攻擊或進行嚴重人身攻擊的用戶進行封禁(「人身攻擊」的定義以本評論請求為準)。
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
骚扰
如果用戶進行騷擾,管理員可以立刻封禁該用戶,最好是警告後才封禁(情況嚴重者除外,「騷擾」的定義以本評論請求為準)。
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
监督
針對重覆或嚴重的插入可受監督的資料,無論可監督是根據本地的監督方針,抑或根據維基媒體基金會的隱私方針,監督人或任何管理員如發現某用戶進行該種罪行,可封禁該用戶。請注意,根據維基媒體基金會的隱私方針,基金會有責任盡一切有需要使用的方法保護私人資訊,因此實際上,社區不得廢除此例。
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
监管员
除了可以和進行本地濫用及跨維基破壞有關的封禁外,允許監管員進行和監督有關的封禁。
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
全域管理员
除了可以和進行本地濫用及跨維基破壞有關的封禁外,允許全域管理員進行和監督有關的封禁。
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
其他破坏
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
封禁期間不當使用討論頁
任何被封禁用戶的討論或編輯,如屬無關其所處於的封禁,亦無關其導致被封禁的行為(有關其他用戶的行為者除外),均為不恰當使用用戶討論頁;重覆發出無理或不誠懇的取消封禁要求,或做出任何可導致封禁的行為(例如發放垃圾訊息),亦為不當使用。一旦被封禁的用戶不當使用其討論頁,任何本來不涉及該封禁的管理員可酌情停用該用戶使用其討論頁的權限。
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
封禁期間使用電郵
特殊頁面:电邮联系採用的方針,與上部分所述方針相同。
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
運作失靈或未獲授權的機器人
管理人可封禁明顯運作失靈的機器人,以及未獲機器人方針授權的機器人。除非機器人(無論是否專用於破壞的機器人)引致本地濫用,否則封禁應為軟性(不使用自動封禁),並且應該通知機器人的操作者(如已知)。
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
目前:任何蓄意企圖損壞或破解維基數據的完整性的行為
沿用目前的定義,但「損壞或破解維基數據的完整性」可在本評論請求定義。
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
「損壞或破解」的定義
指所有欠缺真誠,並污損維基數據頁面的各種行為,此等行為包括但不限於在項、屬性或任何其他頁面插入胡言亂語、明顯的誹謗或不恰當的淫褻性或不雅言詞。
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
編輯戰
因為目前並沒有針對編輯戰的任何方針或指引,所以下列方案都是全新的。
「編輯戰」的核心定義
「編輯戰」定義為短時間內由兩個或多個用戶重覆作出回退,而涉及的所有用戶在知情的情況下無法以討論的方式解決爭端。「回退」在以下部分定義。
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
「回退」的定義
對於項或屬性,如一次或多次編輯導致某一用戶所作出的一系列編輯被取消,即構成回退。在其他頁面,回退則定義為一次的編輯取消另一次的編輯。
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]
「回退不過三」的原則
一個一般適用的原則是,如果在二十四小時內,一個用戶因同一爭端而進行了三次以上的回退,即構成封禁該用戶的理由。請注意這並不是編輯戰的定義;三次或以下的回退也可導致封禁,反之,四次或以上的回退,如果在略多於二十四小時的時間內進行,也可導致封禁。
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]
定義的範圍
以下方案互相對立。
一個或多個頁面
涉及同一糾紛的同一批用戶,無論糾紛涉及多個項、多個屬性或多個其他頁面,管理人可對編輯戰進行處分。
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
一個頁面
除非可在單一頁面的編輯歷史中可找到編輯戰的證據,管理人不能單方面處分編輯戰的參與者。
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]
可監督資料、破壞及垃圾訊息除外
回退任何隨後必須受監督的資料、回退破壞及回退垃圾訊息,特此排除於編輯戰的定義內。
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
用戶頁除外
編輯戰的定義,豁免用戶在自己的用戶頁(User:用戶名稱、User talk:用戶名稱、及所有子頁)回退其他用戶在此等頁面上作出的編輯,除非是對明顯不恰當的內容(尤其是誹謗)的移除,則不得回退,封禁通知或取消封禁的要求,在封禁有效期內也不得移除。
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
附屬豁免
如果管理人在用戶頁貼上評論,特定要求某評論不得移除,該評論則排除於上述豁免之外。管理人使用此附屬豁免,應限於確保用戶承認問題或事項的存在及處理該問題或事項。
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
頁面保護
為達到中止編輯戰的目的,特定准許使用全保護,並特定以此作為封禁以外,針對編輯戰的另一對策。
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
酌情權
在處理編輯戰時,特定准許管理員使用酌情權,並特定建議管理員使用酌情權,酌情權包括制裁前酌情事先通知用戶,或編輯戰如已停止酌情不作出任何處分,反過來也包括對沒有犯「回退不過三」的用戶仍然酌情進行封禁。
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
人身攻擊及騷擾
核心定義及方針
蓄意令他人情緒上受到傷害的言詞,稱為「人身攻擊」;人身攻擊並不包括出於真誠、有證有據的批評。除非事態嚴重,對發放人身攻擊的用戶進行任何處分之前,應事先予以警告;如果情況可能係由文化障礙引起的誤會所導致,更應事先予以警告。
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
騷擾
「騷擾」定義為任何一個合理的觀察者均會視為係重覆發生,明顯針對某人或某羣體,令人反感的行為,該行為可能(但未必)帶有直接的人身攻擊。
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]