開主選單
維基百科政策
行為標準
假定善意
機械人
禮貌
編輯政策
唔好訴諸法律威脅
唔好人身攻擊
文章擁有權
襪公仔
三次打回頭規則
用戶名
破壞
Walnut.png 一句講嗮: 唔好為咗阻止第啲人使用維基百科,向佢哋做出恐嚇威脅、對佢哋嘅善意編輯挑挑揀揀、不停惹嬲人同不必要嘅接觸、一再人身攻擊人地甚甚至乎公開埋對方嘅個人訊息。

若果你正畀人騷擾,請睇下底處理騷擾問題一節。

騷擾定義係一種攻擊行為模式,有所企圖嘅觀察者為咗對個別編輯者或多數造成不良影響,通常係以恐嚇威脅首要對象來達到目的。呢類行為可能會令對象感到唔愉快,削弱、嚇阻、或令到編者冇曬編輯意願。

維琪百科絕唔可以被濫用來騷擾任何人,無論騷擾係咪由於呢度嘅編輯者所致。構成騷擾嘅編輯將酌情還原返,刪除或隱藏,參與騷擾嘅編輯者户口會畀封鎖。

騷擾行為,包括咗被騷擾對象注意到嘅,或者有明顯騷擾嘅徵象而未有直接同騷擾對象溝通過。

目錄

騷擾同瓦解

騷擾具體可包括威脅,恐嚇,不停惹煩人同不必要嘅接觸或關注,以及反復咁人身攻擊,有機會減少被騷擾嘅編輯者對維琪百科嘅喜愛,而導致對應嘅編輯項目中斷。唔允許針對編輯者嘅族群身份、性別、性傾向、年齡或身體殘障等作出騷擾。

騷擾禁制令係適用成個維基空間。騷擾存在欠缺技能或失手造成破壞嘅歷史嘅用戶,同騷擾其他用戶一樣係冇得接受嘅。維基倡議Wikipedia:有禮:人都會犯錯,但係鼓勵佢哋由失誤中吸取經驗同改進方法。騷擾係違背咗呢個精神,並會傷害編輯百科全書嘅工作活動。

維基跟蹤

睇埋:Wikipedia:有禮#Management_of_incivility_during_the_mediation_process

維基跟蹤,意指跟著編輯者後邊到另一篇條目繼續擾亂嘅行為。

維基跟蹤(wiki-hounding)呢個用語製造出來,係形容「喺維基度糾纏著貢獻者,編輯同對象相同嘅條目,意圖令到另一名貢獻者煩惱或憂愁」。呢個定義包括加入某一名或多名編輯者週時编辑嘅条目、主题或者討論話題,喺入邊反复挑剔對象嘅编辑、進行擾亂性嘅編輯、無謂或帶挑釁嘅回退,以達到騷擾、激怒對象令到對方煩惱、苦惱等目的嘅編輯行為。除非做出跟蹤嘅用家嘅一系列編輯係明顯嘅破壞行為,否則任何同特定嘅編輯或編輯習慣相關嘅異議,應當喺用家嘅討論頁或條目討論頁度傾好先,魯莽地回退其他用戶嘅善意編輯(特別係落注心血嘅編輯)容易引起他人嘅反感,亦極易引發進一步嘅編輯戰

唔少用戶會跟踪其他用戶嘅貢獻日誌,儘管通常出於學術或管理行政嘅目的。不過呢啲活動應該始終謹慎進行,並且有充分正當嘅理由同好嘅編輯成果,避免惹起認為某編輯者嘅編輯貢獻正畀用來令對方痛苦,或者為咗輕微嘅報復對方嘅行動。恰當嘅利用貢獻日誌嘅行為包括(但不限於)修正明確到嘅錯誤、違反咗維基方針嘅編輯、改正多個頁面嘅相關問題(而呢類操作多巡視最近修改應對措施)。呢啲紀錄喺充足嘅理由下畀公開。

跟蹤至緊要嘅無可爭辯嘅證明係,傷害咗某個編輯嘅編輯樂趣或一個編輯項目。若「跟著另一個編輯者後邊之後嘅舉動」係伴隨著偏見人身攻擊、屢次無視已達成之共識、或其他擾亂行為,有機會係一件非常嚴重嘅事,可導致騷擾者畀封禁以及限制佢嘅編輯活動。

恐嚇

恐嚇他人係騷擾。包括咗任何喺現實空間嘅威脅,例如威脅傷害另一個人,同埋擾亂佢哋喺維基百科嘅工作,或以其他方式傷害佢哋。正確咁依照維基方針流程作出陳述唔屬於威脅。 不要訴諸法律威脅,呢個無助創建共識,法律威脅係特殊嘅威脅事例,因為呢啲行動有自己嘅一啲既定政策。製造法律威脅嘅用家有機會畀無限期禁止編輯。

法律威脅

維基係有方針,封禁喺平台度展示對其他用家嘅法律威脅嘅用家。避免表述令其他用家有理由懷疑係法律威脅,呢個非常緊要,使用諸如誹謗或中傷等字句,係避免上述理由成立嘅最好方式。處理出現咗嘅法律威脅陣,用家應當尋求疑似威脅人嘅意圖澄清,同對方解釋對應方針,以此促使對方鏟走威脅表述。當法律威脅喺維基度唔再出現,就唔需要封禁呢啲參與法律糾紛嘅用家。

展示個人資料

展示其他用戶嘅個人資料屬於騷擾,除非用戶本人自願提供或連結到呢方面嘅資料。個人資料包括咗真實姓名、生辰日期、身份ID、家庭或工作地址、職稱同工作組織、電話冧、電郵地址、或其他聯繫資料,或相片,無論呢啲資料堅定流)。公開提供展示有其他用戶個人資料嘅站內/站外網頁,係騷擾行為。

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.

Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information are not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing.

If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information, and anyone else who saw the page, feedback on the accuracy of the material. For the same reason, do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.

The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited.

Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy.

Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations (but see also Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment). There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy. Also, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator—but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team. To combat impersonation (an editor claiming falsely to be a particular person), it is permissible to post or link to disavowals from that person, provided that the person has explicitly and in good faith given their consent, and provided that there is a high degree of confidence in the authenticity of the source.

If you have accidentally posted anything that might lead to your being outed (including but not limited to inadvertently editing while logged out, which reveals your IP address, and thus, your approximate location), it is important that you act promptly to have the edit(s) oversighted. Do not otherwise draw attention to the information. Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of an editor to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy. Further information about protecting private information is at Personal security practices, On privacy, and How to not get outed on Wikipedia.

Private correspondence

睇埋:Wikipedia:Emailing users#Reposting emails publicly

There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee once stated as an editing principle that "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki" and in a second principle that "Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee." See related rejected proposals Wikipedia:Private correspondence, Wikipedia:Correspondence off-wiki and Wikipedia:Confidential evidence.

User space harassment

睇埋:Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments

A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space.

User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

Off-wiki harassment

睇埋:Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment

Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.

Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia.

Harassing those outside of the editing community

In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who post such material in any namespace may be indefinitely blocked.

Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy; neither do discussions about sources and authors of sources, unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality. See also WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPCOI, and the associated discretionary sanctions.

Dealing with harassment

睇埋:Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment

If you feel you are being harassed, first and foremost, act calmly (even if difficult). It is hard to over-emphasize this.

If the harassment includes threats of harm to you or others, follow the procedures on dealing with threats of harm.

In serious cases or where privacy and off-wiki aspects are an issue (e.g., where private personal information is a part of the issue, or on-wiki issues spread to email and 'real world' harassment, or similar), you can contact the Arbitration Committee. To have personal information removed from page histories contact the oversight team.

For simpler, on-wiki matters, such as a user with whom you have arguments, see dispute resolution as the usual first step. It makes it easier to identify the problem you are having if there are some specific diffs. For more serious cases where you are willing to address it on-wiki, you may request administrative assistance. (Do not open a discussion about outing on behalf of a third party without the victim's permission, unless the relevant page revisions have already been oversighted. It is important not to make violations of privacy more severe.)

Note: If other editors have concerns over your editing, then you will quite likely gain attention from administrators and other concerned users as a result. Any civil and appropriate comments addressed by them to you would not be considered harassment.

Accusing others of harassment

Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle. At the same time, claims of harassment should be taken seriously and not be summarily dismissed unless it becomes clear the accusations are not well-founded.

Assistance for administrators being harassed

內文: Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

Wikipedia administrators' actions can bring them into direct conflict with difficult users and at times they too are harassed. Typically this happens when an administrator decides to intervene in a dispute with a view to warning or blocking disruptive parties or preventing their continual troublesome behavior.

Administrators are volunteer editors like any other user. They are not obligated any more than any other user to take any specific action beyond expected good conduct and responsiveness, and they are not required or expected to place themselves in an uncomfortable situation, to undertake actions which will diminish their enjoyment of working on Wikipedia or place themselves at risk in any way. Administrators who feel that they may have such a situation are advised to seek advice, discuss privately with other administrators, or pass the matter to another administrator willing to make difficult blocks.

Administrators who are confident they are safe from harassment, or willing to address difficult users and their potential actions, may wish to list themselves on the above page, and add the userbox template {{User difficultblocks}} to their user page, which also adds the user to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks

 This administrator can and will make difficult blocks if needed.
Or use: [[Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks|{{PAGENAME}}]]

In case of problems administrators have exactly the same right as any other user to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to contact the Arbitration Committee if needed.

Reactions to harassment

Some people may find it hard to remain calm and to react constructively in the face of real or perceived harassment. It is important that any allegations of misconduct about someone who is being harassed be considered in this context. Suffering real or perceived harassment does not justify an editor's misconduct, but a more cautious approach to sanctions in such situations is preferred.

Consequences of harassment

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by harassment and/or personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences such as blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a community ban. Harassment negatively affects editor retention.

Blocking for harassment

睇埋:Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks
  • In extreme cases, such as legal threats, threats of violence, or outing, protective blocks may be employed without prior warnings.
  • Incidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours.

What harassment is not

This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings. Like the word stalk, harass carries real-life connotations – from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct – and must be used judiciously and with respect to these connotations.

However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one.

Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.

Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.