Original PolicyEdit

  • Support for it to be a policy. There is no reason to have unused images and files on the server. They just make extra work to keep it all clean. Furthermore the number of duplicates and images that are linked to only off Supernatural Wiki is horrible. Personally I think this policy should be expanded to include searching already used images before uploading a new one. There is no reason to have 40+ of the same image uploaded over several years. --ThomasNealy (talk) 19:08, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
  • Note I would like to add that this has already been in effect for awhile now. it just was never added to a policy page or put in writing. It never needed to be as no user has ever objected to needing to use them or have them deleted. Even the ones that wanted to just upload a image and use it off site. --ThomasNealy (talk) 19:17, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It seems reasonable and prevents spam pictures. Dtol (talk)
  • Support - Unused images serve no purpose and create create clutter on the wiki. I support this policy.Rafe Adler (talk) 04:54, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment/Oppose I don't know if regular users get a say in this, but the 24-hour limit is way too short. If you're uploading many images, 24 hours might not even be enough to finish uploading them, given other stuff you have to do (eat, sleep, work/study). If we do get a say in it, then I definitely oppose this policy. Orion (T-B-C) 21:20, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment What time limit would you suggest? Such a policy has a viable use, but we do need to consider what you said and make sure users have enough time. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:25, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment - No less than 72 hours, and even that should be extended to no less than one week once the images are cleaned up. As I see it, the short deadline should serve as a way to keep the clutter more or less contained during the cleanup, and not as a way to prevent it altogether. A permanently short deadline would only make people less likely to upload images in the first place. -- Orion (T-B-C) 21:36, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Orion makes a good point. I'm in favour of making sure that all pictures get used. Dtol (talk) 21:30, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - All it would take would be a reply to who ever left the message on the users page. If I left a notice and someone said they were working on a large project I would make a note to check up on it later and ask how long they thought it would take. There is also the sandbox that can be used to hold the images and work on the page. I do not think any Admin or Mod has deleted images without warning unless there was clear abuse of the wiki involved. the 24 hour period should be long enough for the editor/uploader to contact the person that left the message. It is designed for the good of the wiki not to make everyone work faster or be a burden on them. If the person can not even bother to respond to a message in 24 hours maybe they should wait for a day they have more time. --ThomasNealy (talk) 21:32, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment - Except it doesn't work like that. Sometimes crap happens, and all that work is rendered useless. -- Orion (T-B-C) 21:36, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment The images can be un-deleted if that is the case. I fully understand that sometimes crap happens, that is a fact of life. However in most cases if a person is working on a project or have an account they will see the notice within 24 hours. I have no issue working with people on the issue. If they need more time no problem, if something came up and they missed the deadline no problem I an undelete just as easy as delete. The key here is communication. And I'm not sure what work would be rendered useless... if the images are unused then all they did was upload them which as I said can be rectified if needed, and if they started to place them in page then they would not show up in the unused files page. --ThomasNealy (talk) 21:46, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
        • Comment - So if someone uploads 500 images, then has to take someone to the hospital, you'd both delete the images when they failed to communicate and undelete them afterward? I'd love to see that happen. -- Orion (T-B-C) 21:48, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
        • Comment 500? That would draw attention in of itself, heck it might get the account blocked thinking that it was hacked or a bot. I think even Wiki global would be looking in to that. As an example Reka uploaded 40 images I had no issue un-deleting them. Would it better to say they have 24 hours after the notification of intent to delete to ask for more time? I can't think on any time that a normal page would have more then 100 images on it either, if there are ones correct me.--ThomasNealy (talk) 22:12, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Comment - Although I'm not opposed to a time limit, I am opposed to a 24 hr limit for the same reasons that Orion has presented. It seems like an imposition and a disruption of any project one undertakes to have to keep your eye on a clock, check your message board, or leave messages for someone to inform them of your plans or your progress. It is not something that encourages people to want to participate. Deleting images and then undeleting them are two chores that may not need to be performed at all if images are left as-is for 72 hrs, or even a week, which means less work for the deleter. Also, having to wait for undeletions to happen is discouraging.Reka12452 (talk) 23:25, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I gave it a lot of thought over the day. What if we gave the registered users with a good edit history 3 days (72 hours) and kept the 24 hour limit for unregistered users, new registered, and those without good edit history? That way the ones that are most likely to abuse the images are the ones that are watched the closest, and those that are mostly likely to do big projects and can be trusted get more time, and in both cases a simple message asking for more time would be all that would be needed. Would that be better? I really am against a full week for unknown uploaders, it leaves to much time for abuse. As it is now from what I have been cleaning up somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the images are being used off site, and since we started to actively enforce the use it or its deleted policy that number has vanished from new images as have the unused images sitting around ( from new uploads at least. I still thousands to delete other wise) there is no reason for us to be hosting images for other wikis let alone wattpad and live jurnal. And yes those are the two biggest offenders. They can host their own damn images. --ThomasNealy (talk) 04:27, February 6, 2018 (UTC)
    • How much time would have to pass and/or edits would need to be made before new registered users or registered users without good edit history to graduate to trusted user status?Reka12452 (talk) 15:47, February 6, 2018 (UTC)
  • CommentThe wiki already has a built in time for that. every new registered member is probational. I would have to look it up to be sure but I think the time was week. it is the auto confirmed thing. As for those without good edit history well they would stay untrusted until they start making good edits. That should have been common sense. they are untrusted for a reason after all. but time frames are up for debate if you want to have a set time. But I'm sure we can all tell when someone is trusted enough to believe they are not going to screw us over or start abusing the wiki. Just saying some things need to be fluid.--ThomasNealy (talk) 19:06, February 6, 2018 (UTC)
    • I could not find anything about a probationary one week rule in the Wikia Fandom User Rights policy You’ll see there that ‘Auto-confirmed’ refers to users that have been with the Fandom at least 4 days and describes the number of tools they have rights to and means they no longer have to deal with a captcha; it’s not a probationary process in the sense that you suggest. My questions to you were aimed at trying to frame up a guideline that is agreed upon and that can be referred to with clear confidence. I do have common sense, and realize that there are always bad agents everywhere intent on wreaking havoc, but keeping them out shouldn’t be what we base everything else on.
A main principle in the wikia policy/guidelines is the principle of assuming good faith where contributors are concerned. The point I’m trying to get at is that the atmosphere of “this is our club and you have to prove yourself before you’re deemed worthy” seems to be the opposite of good faith.
A representative scenario that will sound familiar to you: A contributing user is contacted with a message by an admin or affiliate that has a “do this, or else” vibe, and that user’s basic response is, “i’ve read the rules, and what you’re presenting is not there.” If the response back to them is, well, it is a rule and A, B and/or C is going to happen if you don't adhere to it, one needs to be able to support that the rule exists at the time, is one that has not been formulated by only one or a few other users, .i.e without concensus, and leaves no room for further debate. If that's not the case, what can happen is exactly what did happen with the image upload ordeal that we just lived through - the reason we’ve come to have the discussion. I’m just trying to help make sure the policy is as clear and reasonable as possible.Reka12452 (talk) 20:01, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not a rule it is part of the wiki coding and registration process it self. when new user registers they change from unregistered fandom user to registered user. but there is a built in time period that takes place before they change to auto confirmed. When we lock a page it is locked to Autoconfirmed user and up. New Registered users that have not crossed that threshold still can't edit until their account ticks over to Auto confirmed. I thought it was common knowledge, that is a mistake on my part it seems. Also I did say I was not sure if it was a week or not. my point is that we can use that as a guideline for who is new and who is not. if it good enough for wiki it is good enough for me. once they hit auto confirm and they don't end up with a list of horrible edits or ones that abuse or vandilize the wiki then they can have the longer time. I don't see why you have an issue with it. Why do you have such a problem with simply replying to a message. it was what caused the "ordeal" as you put it in the first place. the images are only deleted when no one replies and the the image stays unused.--ThomasNealy (talk) 20:24, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to make this an antagonistic thing or rehash events. I'm just saying that if I am a user that comes here to have fun and participate in good faith, it should not be incumbent upon me to have to reply to any message about my activity unless and until i prove not to be editing in good faith. If i don't want to reply simply because I don't want to, I should not be penalized for that (not to mention if something came up and i didn't find time or i didn't see your message). That's why i have such a problem with it.
I guess i don't understand how it was that i created 2 pages and uploaded images the same day I registered on the SPN wiki and received a 'Welcome!' message, in light of your explanation, and I'm not trying to be obtuse about that. Reka12452 (talk) 21:53, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
  • CommentYou need to go back and read my message better. I said when we lock a page. Further not responding to a message is a problem. It is our job to make sure the wiki continues to function to the best of our ability you ignoring us just because you feel like it makes that a lot harder. and you are being antagonistic and an obstructionist as well. It would not matter what compromises we make on this you just want to cause problems for the sake of doing so. --ThomasNealy (talk) 22:11, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
    • No, I'm really not trying to antagonize or obstruct. I think if you would stay cool you'll see I'm trying to help outline a reasonable policy. Auto-confirm was the standard you introduced to the discussion, all i asked for is clarification because i didn’t understand what locked pages had to do with anything. The name-calling is really not necessary. You obviously have a problem with me, so I’ll wait for others to come to the discussion before i try to participate further in the discussion.Reka12452 (talk) 23:24, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

This is a bumpto put it back in view ThomasNealy (talk) 21:51, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

Amended PolicyEdit

This is what I wrote up. Does this work for everyone. I found out that unregistered users can not upload to the wiki. So that is reflected in this.

Proposed Image Policy

  • I. All Images must meet the Fandom Terms of Use.
    • A. Any image that violates the Terms of Use will result in minimum one month block to indefinite block depending on the violation. This to protect the wiki.
      • 1. Block time is at the discretion of the blocking Admin.
  • II. All Images Must be used on the English Supernatural Wiki for the English Supernatural Wiki. ( hereafter referred to as wiki.)
    • A. No image may uploaded to the Wiki for the purpose of hosting the image for off wiki use.
    • B. No fanart images are permitted without community consensus.
    • C. No personal images are permitted. ( see Section II.)
  • III. All Registered Users who have passed the auto confirmed time of 4 days have 72 hours to use an uploaded image on the wiki or have it deleted.
    • A. The uploader will be notified by an Admin or Mod if it there is intent to delete the image.
    • B. No new image will be deleted without prior notice of intent. Ignoring the message is considered consent to delete the image.
    • C. If an extension is needed the uploader must reply to the Admin or Mod that notified them.
    • D. An uploaded image may be restored after it was removed if extenuating circumstances have occurred.
    • E. All users that have been previously warned or blocked for violating the image policy will lose their 72 hour grace period and will have 24 hours to use the image.
      • 1. This also will apply to any user within the 4 day auto confirm time. This is protect the wiki from potental abuse.
      • 2. This will also apply to users that have been warned for vandalism or inserting false information or removing information.
      • 3. Section III. Subsections A-E still apply.
      • 4. Good standing may be regained if the uploader demonstrates good habit and regains the trust of the community.
  • IIII. No uploader should overwrite a image with something fundamentally different from the original. Ex. Replacing a image of one character with another.
  • IV. Enforcement will be in the form of a Warning or a Block and at the discretion of the blocking admin. Not to exceed 3 days for first violation, 2 weeks for the second, or a month for the third. Further Violations or Grose Abuse will be handled on a case by case basis.
    • A. Exception to this is Section I.
  • V. The is Policy os subject to change through the consensus processes.

--ThomasNealy (talk) 02:49, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.