Commons:Guia de bloqueig

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Blocking policy and the translation is 29% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Blocking policy and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Shortcut : COM:BP

Els administrators tenen la capacitat de bloquejar als usuaris quan sigui apropiat. Un usuari bloquejat queda restringit, entre altres coses, en l'edició i la càrrega d'arxius. En un sentit general, els bloquejos són l'últim recurs per a un comportament que pot danyar Commons o alterar el seu ambient amigable. D'aquesta manera, el bloqueig està dissenyat per ser una mesura "preventiva" i no "punitiva".

Ús

Els bloqueigs poden ser aplicats per un nombre de raons. La més comuna d'elles es detallen a continuació:

  • Vandalisme. Una edició o càrrega disruptiva poden comportar un bloqueig. Per exemple:
    • Inserció d'una vulgaritat gratuïta
    • Inserció d'informació deliberadament falsa (per exemple, fonts d'imatges falses)
  • Guerra d'edicions.
  • Violacions de drets d'autor. La càrrega repetida de fitxers multimèdia amb llicència inadequada és motiu de bloqueig d'un compte. Hi han explicacions i advertències clares sobre la política dels Commons per tal de participar en l'abans i el després de bloquejar a un usuari per problemes de llicència.
  • Assetjament. Quan s'utilitzen comptes i les adreces IP principalment per crear un ambient hostil a un altre usuari és motiu de bloqueig. Les controvèrsies de bona fe entre els usuaris, però, han de ser portats davant de La taverna per a una valoració. El seguiment de les contribucions d'un usuari per violacions de la política de Commons no és un assetjament.
  • Comptes de bot no autoritzats o que no responen. Als comptes de bot no autoritzats per la comunitat de Commons no se'ls permet operar a Wikimedia Commons; i l'edició qüestionable, com de bot, que l'usuari no pugui explicar comporta el bloqueig del compte fins que no es debati el fet. Les propostes d'edicions de bot poden ser discutits en Commons:Bots o en Commons:La taverna. Els bots no poden funcionar en Commons, sense un permís anticipat (que pot ser buscat en Petició de marca de bot).
  • Comptes de bot aprovats que estan temporalment funcionant malament. Per evitar qualsevol dany addicional fins que el propietari del bot pugui resoldre el problema.
  • Noms d'usuari inapropiats.
  • Evasió de bloqueigs. Un administrador pot restablir el bloqueig d'un usuari que eludeix intencionadament un bloqueig, i es pot allargar la durada del bloqueig si l'usuari du a terme un intent d'evadir el bloqueig. Els comptes d'usuari o adreces IP utilitzades per eludir un bloqueig poden i han de ser bloquejades.
  • Abús de múltiples comptes per confondre, enganyar, alterar, distorsionar un consens o per evadir bloqueigs o altres sancions. Les comptes secundàries solen quedar bloquejats indefinidament. El compte principal pot o no pot estar subjecte a un nou bloqueig o allargar-ne el temps de bloqueig depenent de les circumstàncies.
  • Els proxies oberts o anònims es bloquegen normalment després de la detecció d'acord amb la política de Wikimedia. La durada normal d'aquests bloqueig és d'un any.

Instructions for administrators

Before blocking

  • For blocks based on disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities, ensure that the user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template. No warning is necessary when blocking open proxies and users with inappropriate usernames. Accounts and IP addresses used solely for severely disruptive purposes such as automated spamming, serious vandalism or harassment may also be blocked without prior warning.
  • Controversial blocks may be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard, preferably before they are applied if at all possible. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block.
  • Range blocks are especially powerful tools, and discussion of these is particularly encouraged. Range blocks with a duration longer than 24 hours should be discussed with a checkuser to assess the likely impact.

When blocking

  • Blocks can be applied to registered users, IP addresses or address ranges.
  • As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour. Also consider the user's past behaviour and the severity of the disruption. When blocking IP addresses, keep in mind that innocent third parties sharing the same addresses may be affected.
  • Provide a reason for the block. The rationale should preferably use links to relevant policies to help the blocked user understand why they have been blocked. Where appropriate, diffs or permanent links documenting the reason for the block are also helpful.
  • Account creation should be prevented in most cases, but may be allowed when blocking an inappropriate user name to allow creation of a different name.
  • Autoblocking of IP addresses used by the blocked user should typically be enabled for users who were blocked for disruptive behavior. It should be disabled in most other cases, like blocking malfunctioning bots and usernames that don't follow the username policy.
  • Only prevent the blocked user from using their talk page or sending e-mail if they are likely to abuse these privileges.

After blocking

  • Notify the blocked user, preferably using a user block template.
  • Watch the blocked user's user talk page and ensure that requests for unblock are attended to.
  • Blocks based on disruptive behaviour should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behaviour will not resume.
  • Controversial blocks may also be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard after they have been applied. To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block.

Checkuser blocks

Checkusers may need to block an editor on the basis of technical checkuser evidence, due to disruption caused by abuse of multiple accounts or IP addresses. These blocks are marked as a {{Checkuserblock}} in the block summary and must not be reversed by non-checkusers without consulting a checkuser.

As checkuser data cannot be shared publicly and a checkuser block may involve other pertinent non-public information, an unblock appeal for a {{Checkuserblock}} must only be reviewed by a checkuser. A reversal of a check user block by an administrator without consulting a checkuser may result in the removal of permissions.

Oversight blocks

In exceptional cases, there may be a need to block an editor on the basis of oversighted information that cannot be shared publicly. In such a case, the available oversighters may jointly act on the basis of group consensus. If there are insufficient oversighters available or if additional input is required they may consult the Wikimedia stewards.

Except in an emergency, non-oversight administrators should not block on the basis of information known to them that has since been oversighted. An administrator believing that such a block is required should contact one of the oversighters privately or email oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org.

Any block made under this section should be reported by the oversighters to the community at the earliest opportunity, with as much background material as can reasonably be provided.

An editor who is blocked under this section may not be unblocked without the approval of the oversighters. An editor who wishes to have their oversight block reviewed should approach the oversighters privately, who will consider the request as a group. Public ‘appeals’ on the talk page of the blocked editor should not be used, and any that are posted may be removed.

Appealing a block

Blocked users are informed that they may request unblocking. They may do this by adding {{unblock|reason for the request}} to their own user talk page. Alternatively, they may request unblocking with an appropriate reason via e-mail to the blocking administrator or another administrator.

An appropriate reason will almost always include one of the following:

  • An acknowledgement that the block was appropriate and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated
  • An explanation of why the block is not appropriate based on this and other relevant policies and guidelines or is likely to be a mistake or an unintended side effect

An unblock request may be granted or declined. Before granting a request to lift a block placed by another administrator, the reviewing administrator should consult with the blocking administrator, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases. Requests made on user talk pages may only be declined by an uninvolved administrator. Unblock requests for blocks marked with {{checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a checkuser.

Making repeated unblocking requests without appropriate reasons may be considered abusive. As noted above, users who have abused or are likely to abuse the ability to edit their own user talk page and/or send e-mail in this or any other way may have either or both of these privileges revoked, which also prevents these privileges from being used for unblocking requests.

See also