维基共享资源:封禁方针

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 41% 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.

ShortcutCOM:BP

管理员有权在适当的时候对用户实施封禁。被封禁的用户会被限制编辑和上传文件。一般来说,封禁是对于破坏与扰乱的最终手段。因为这样,所以封禁被视为一种“预防”而不是“惩罚”,为“冷静下来”的封禁是不被接受的。

使用

进行封禁的原因有很多。以下是比较常见的原因:

  • 破坏。破坏性编辑或上传可能导致被封禁。例如:
    • Insertion of gratuitous vulgarity
    • 插入虚假的信息(如虚假的图片来源)
  • 编辑战
  • 侵犯版权。重复上传不符合共享资源版权方针的文件也会导致封禁。在因许可问题上的封禁需要在封禁前和封禁后说明共享资源的方针。
  • 骚扰。可能会封禁只是为了攻击他人的用户或者IP地址。然而,用户之间非恶意的编辑争议应转至Commons:Village pump/zh处理。跟踪违反方针的用户不属于骚扰。
  • 未经许可的 机器人账户。未经许可的机器人不允许在Commons上运作,当用户的编辑类似于机器人运作时,账户可能会被封禁。机器人提案可在Commons:Bots/zh或者Commons:Village pump/zh中提出。未经批准不得在共享资源中使用机器人(可在Commons:Bots/Requests中申请)。
  • 暂时出现故障的已许可机器人账户。这是为了防止机器人在其所有者修复故障前对网站造成额外的损害。
  • 不适当的用户名
  • Evasion of blocks. An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked.
  • Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions. Secondary accounts are typically blocked indefinitely. The primary account may or may not be subject to new or extended blocks depending on the circumstances.
  • Open or anonymizing proxies are typically blocked upon detection in accordance with Wikimedia-wide policy. The normal duration of such blocks is one year.

對管理員的指示

在封禁之前

  • 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.

在封禁时

  • 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.

在封禁之后

  • 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.

核查员封禁

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.

监督封禁

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.

另见