Wikidata:Requests for comment/User conduct policies/lv

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Wikidata:Requests for comment/User conduct policies and the translation is 2% complete.
Other languages:

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]

Lately, Wikidata:Use common sense has not been adequate to prevent discord in our community. No specific examples will be named in order to avoid implying that these disputes are ongoing. But just for example, our blocking policy has not been heeded, as it is only at the level of a guideline; besides blocking for sockpuppetry, which was ratified per Wikidata:Alternate accounts, most blocks beyond vandalism and spam, often even including blocks of bots, become problematic.

Another problem is our lack of definition of what exactly edit warring constitutes, because a "revert" is ill-defined with items and properties. Sometimes one series of edits may be done by a "Restored revision..." edit, which may or may not be considered the same as simply reverting them with multiple "Undid revision..." edits.

These problems are due to the multicultural nature of our wiki, because different home wikis have different conventions regarding user conduct policies. Therefore, it has become time to attempt to codify these.

This RfC is in the form of both any existing content of the corresponding guideline pages and new amendments. Existing guidelines are prefixed with "Existing:". Whatever achieves consensus will form the new policy.

This RfC is to stay open for at least four weeks. The first phase will last 2 weeks and will be an opportunity to add new options as necessary. After this weeks, no more new options may be added and in the second phase discussion must focus on passing or rejecting the existing options. All options should be translated with the translate extension before the end of the first phase.

Blocking policy

Existing: Blocking for local abuse

Administrators may block users to prevent local abuse where a pattern of local abuse has been established.

Support

  1. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yep Ajraddatz (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yeah! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lymantria (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. MJ94 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bene* talk 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --►Cekli829 17:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Definition of local abuse

For the purposes of the above section, local abuse would be defined in accordance with this section. The options are not mutually exclusive. All of the following options that pass will be included in the definition.

Existing: Vandalism and/or spamming

Vandalism would also be defined here.

Support
  1. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MJ94 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Quite obvious but I agree to Lymantria that defining vandalism might be hard. -- Bene* talk 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. 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]
  2. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Open proxies

Open proxies may be blocked on sight. Often this also means blocking compromised hosts sending spam.

Support

  1. @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]
  2. 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]
  3. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per Koavf.--Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Though it really should be globally blocked, but okay, I guess. --Rschen7754 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I echo Rschen7754 on this one. MJ94 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I also echo rschen7754. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Rschen7754. Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
    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]
  2. per Vlsergey—Al12si (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. support Tor. Mutante (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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

  1. per Rschen7754 -- Bene* talk 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Existing: Consensus

Administrators may block users after at least one week of discussion in favor of doing so, unless the reason is for any other reason that gets ratified (such as vandalism)

Support

--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. --Jakob (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. 1 week is too long. --Rschen7754 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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]
  4. Per Rschen7754.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Lymantria. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bene* talk 09:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. per Rschen. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lymantria has a good point. MJ94 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. If Rsc said right below. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per rschen. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. 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]
  2. 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]

Remove 1-week requirement

The existing guideline, but without the requirement of one week. Administrators may block any user for which there has been a broad community consensus over any reasonable amount of time, even if the reason is not covered by this policy.

Support

  1. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MJ94 (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I prefer to block for reasons, not by consensus... -- Bene* talk 09:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lymantria (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Global sysops

Global sysops and stewards may only block for local and cross-wiki abuse as defined here, and must defer to local administrators for any other reason. This is already specified in Wikidata:Administrators, but not entirely clear about what they can and cannot do.

Support

  1. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vlsergey (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lymantria (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. MJ94 (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Nah need, we're not small wiki. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Not sure what the difference is between this and the current policy... --Rschen7754 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bene* talk 09:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Cross-wiki abuse

Administrators may block for cross-wiki abuse if at least one of the following options are chosen. The options below are not mutually exclusive; all that pass will be included in the definition for the purposes of blocking.

Must have likelihood of hitting Wikidata

Cross-wiki abuse is not blockable on Wikidata unless there is likelihood that the user would hit Wikidata, or the user has already caused local abuse on Wikidata. This specifically excludes cross-wiki sockpuppets that do not have a history of abuse here (i.e. blocks may not be made simply to "autoblock the user globally").

Support
  1. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bene* talk 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lymantria (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. MJ94 (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --►Cekli829 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. This and the next option are too binary for me, personally. --Rschen7754 21:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Any cross-wiki abuse

This is essentially the status quo; any cross-wiki abuse may be actionable.

Support
  1. 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
  1. This has caused problems in the past.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too wide. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bene* talk 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. MJ94 (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Per above but how about Leucosticte, Michaeldsuarez, Kauffner... --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Edit warring

Administrators may block to prevent edit warring, as defined in this RfC.

Support

  1. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --Jakob (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support --Rschen7754 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. if necessary but rather protect the page which is being editwarred.Bene* talk 09:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Lymantria (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. MJ94 (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --►Cekli829 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Personal attacks

Administrators may block for repeated or severe personal attacks, as defined in this RfC.

Support

  1. Yes. --Jakob (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rschen7754 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. of course. -- Bene* talk 09:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Lymantria (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. MJ94 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Epìdosis 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. OK --►Cekli829 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Harassment

Administrators may block immediately for harassment, preferably after warnings (except in severe cases), as defined in this RfC.

Support

  1.  Support --Jakob (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rschen7754 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bene* talk 09:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Lymantria (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. MJ94 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --►Cekli829 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Oversight

Oversighters or any administrator seeing such an offense may block a user for repeat or severe insertions of material that can be oversighted under the local oversight policy or the Foundation privacy policy. Note that this may not in fact be repealed by the community because it is an obligation of the foundation privacy policy to do anything necessary to protect private information.

Support

  1. --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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]
  4. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rschen7754 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Bene* talk 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Lymantria (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. MJ94 (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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

Allow stewards to make blocks related to oversight, in addition to local and cross-wiki abuse.

Support
  1. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Not sure why this is necessary. --Rschen7754 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We have local oversighters, why stewards would have to oversight here? — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No need. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bene* talk 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lymantria (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Local oversighters are sufficient. MJ94 (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --►Cekli829 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Global sysops

Allow global sysops to make blocks related to oversight, in addition to local and cross-wiki abuse.

Support
Oppose
  1. Not sure why this is necessary. --Rschen7754 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GS even doesn't have OS. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No need. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bene* talk 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lymantria (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Local oversighters and sysops are sufficient. MJ94 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --►Cekli829 17:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Other disruption

If an administrator finds it necessary to block a user immediately to protect Wikidata, but without (but not against) community consensus nor for any of the other reasons in this policy, the block can be made, but the administrator must post notice of the action at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard for review by the community as soon as reasonably possible after the block. IRC and other off-wiki mediums are not sufficient for this purpose.

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vlsergey (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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]
  4. @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]
  5. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bene* talk 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lymantria (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. MJ94 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --►Cekli829 17:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Misuse of talk page while blocked

Any discussion or edits not related to the block or the conduct of the blocked user (specifically excluding the conduct of others) that led to the block is not appropriate use of the user talk page. Misuse also includes repeated frivolous unblock requests or anything that would be otherwise blockable, such as spam. Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her discretion, disable talk page access for a blocked user misusing his or her talk page.

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Jasper. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rschen7754 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bene* talk 10:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lymantria (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. MJ94 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. 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

Use of email while blocked

Special:EmailUser follows the same policy as the above section.

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. with the same conditional as I mentioned above (under misuse of talk page).--Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rschen7754 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bene* talk 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lymantria (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. MJ94 (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. Until we created a unblock maillist or UTRS.GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Malfunctioning or unauthorized bots

Administrators may block obviously malfunctioning bots, or bots not authorized by the bot policy. Unless the bot is a vandalism or other bot causing local abuse, the block should be soft (without autoblock) and the bot operator contacted (if known).

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bene* talk 10:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lymantria (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) supposing that unauthorized bots will only be blocked when flooding[reply]
  8. MJ94 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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

  1. Not sure how this is different from what we do already... --Rschen7754 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Vandalism

Existing: any deliberate attempt to damage or compromise the integrity of Wikidata

The existing definition, but "damage or compromise the integrity of Wikidata" may be defined by this RfC.

Support

  1. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bene* talk 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lymantria (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. MJ94 (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --►Cekli829 17:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Definition of "damage or compromise"

The actions are clearly done in bad faith and they deface Wikidata pages, including but not limited to the insertion of gibberish, clear libel, or inappropriate obscenities into items, properties, or any other page.

Support

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bene* talk 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. per Lymantria -- Bene* talk 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What about incorrect facts? Or someone not willing to listen to consensus? --Rschen7754 06:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lymantria has a point; also, as Snaevar says, gibberish could easily be a test edit. MJ94 (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Lymantria Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Edit warring

There does not exist a policy or guideline on this yet, so all proposals here are completely new.

Core definition of edit warring

Edit warring is defined as repeat reverts over a short period of time by two or more users when all involved users knowingly fail to resolve the content dispute by discussion. Reverts would be defined below.

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lymantria (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) but please do not define reverts.[reply]
  10. MJ94 (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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

  1. What is "a short period of time"?GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Definition of reverts

A revert on a property or item constitutes undoing a single series of edits by one user, whether done in one edit or not. On other pages, it is defined as simply an edit undoing another.

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. MJ94 (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. 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]

3-revert rule

A general rule of thumb is that more than three reverts in a single 24-hour period by one user in the same dispute is grounds for blocking. This does not define edit warring and blocks may be made for three or less reverts, or four or more reverts just outside the 24-hour period.

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vlsergey (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Wylve (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Just like how enwiki does. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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]
  8. Please also bring 3RR exemptions from e.g. enwiki.GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. A "general rule of thumb" should not become a policy imho. -- Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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]
  4. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC) No, please.[reply]
  5. No, please. --Konggaru (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No. Natuur12 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. 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]

Scope of definition

The following options are mutually exclusive.

Any number of pages

Administrators may action edit warring by the same users in the same dispute over multiple items, properties, or other pages.

Support
Oppose
  1. 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]
  2. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

One page

An edit war's participants cannot be unilaterally sanctioned unless evidence of it can be found in the history of a single page.

Support
  1. -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Exception for oversightable material, vandalism, and spam

Reverting any material that must be subsequently oversighted, any vandalism, or any spam is specifically excluded from the definition of edit warring.

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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]
  8. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Needed to ensure vandalism fighting remains efficient.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Per 32628 and per 60373. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Exception for userspace

Users reverting others' edits to their userspace (User:Username and User talk:Username, along with subpages) are exempt from the definition of edit warring, except that they may not revert removals of obviously inappropriate content (particularly libel), nor remove block notices or unblock requests while the block is still in effect.

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. Per Bene* --Lymantria (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Sub-exemption

If an administrator posts a comment on a user talk page specifically asking against removal of the comment, that comment is not subject to the above exemption. Administrators are to exercise this exemption solely to ensure that the user in question is acknowledging and addressing the concerns in question.

Support
Oppose
  1. 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]
  2. per Lymantria Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Aizsardzība

Pilna aizsardzība ir atļauta izmaiņu karu apturēšanai un ir alternatīva bloķēšanai par dalību izmaiņu karā.

Support

  1. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. @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]
  3. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. protection is even preferable to a block in my opinion. -- Bene* talk 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lymantria (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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

Discretion

Administrators are specifically permitted to and advised to exercise discretion when dealing with edit warring. This includes warning users before any sanctions, and being able to refrain from actions when the edit war has since stopped, or on the other hand, blocking even if the three-revert rule is not violated.

Support

  1. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lymantria (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Much better than the 3RR rule[reply]
  4. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. 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

Personal attacks and harassment

Core definition and policy

Personal attacks are statements deliberately intended to hurt the feelings of someone else, which does not include good-faith criticism with evidence. Except in severe cases, and particularly when a cultural barrier may have caused a misunderstanding, users making personal attacks should be warned before any actioning.

Support

  1. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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]
  7. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. 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

  1. Not really sure about the wording here. --Rschen7754 21:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Harassment

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that clearly is targeted against another person or group, in the eyes of any reasonable observer. This may or may not include actual direct personal attacks.

Support

  1. --Snaevar (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Nouill (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — by Revicomplaint? at 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. same as above. -- Bene* talk 10:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lymantria (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GZWDer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]

Neutral

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_policies/lv&oldid=2024497093"