This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Ever since we started the image project we've been a lot harder on users that are uploading poorly named, unlicensed and poor quality images, but one issue remains, and that's how to punish them. As it stands I've been banning them for a day on their first offence, after several warnings of course, and then 3 on their 2nd (I've not yet had to go past 2). I feel this is something that needs to be looked into because some users, such as User talk:Andi322 seem to have more warnings then bans, as such I'm proposing that something be added to the guidelines about when to ban a user and how long for. Also note I have spoken to a Wikia member about a "Ban from upload" option, however I got the response "I could do that, but I refuse to" so such an option is not available, we will only be able to ban normally. 19:35, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Support warning a user 3 times and then banning - that should be the same rule when dealing with vandalism as well. Would give a user a few chances in case they don't understand/don't get the message. And continuing after a few warnings should warrant a ban anyways. -- azuris_ 19:41, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Question How long should the first ban be? After all, banning takes away editing privalages as well. Vandalism is a ban for editing, while image uploading is filespace exclusive.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

19:44, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

If it involves licensing, it should be the standard 3 days. Licensing is a rather serious thing, as Cod4 stated below. As for a bad image, then that should just be around 2 days1 hour, as they've been warned to upload better images previously. -- azuris_ 19:47, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting the comment thread, but I think you are making mountains out of molehills. If a user does not add a license to their image, you could, you know, add one yourself. There are lots of malicious things that users can potentially do on wikis, but image licensing is generally not one of them. The vast majority of the time it is a result of forgetfulness or ignorance (the latter not being used pejoratively), which is something a helpful reminder or an educational lesson can remedy. We should strive not to scare off the newcomers by slapping half a dozen warning templates on their talk page because they were unaware or forgetful when uploading an image.

I also find the legal rationale to be a moot point. We have only been contacted by legal authorities once in this wiki's history, and that was for propagating a leaked video which infringed on the content owner's copyright. An inappropriate license or lack thereof for an image has (not yet) gotten us into any trouble, likely due to the fact that such parties do not care about us. That is not to say we should skimp on image licensing, but going after users because we think the law is behind us seems a little bizarre when there is no precedent.

If there is a hypothetical user that is intentionally and maliciously uploading images without a license (and that we know this with certainty), use your discretion and take appropriate action. From what I have observed, most users just need to go through Image Licensing 101 so that they have a better understanding of what to do and what to use. And to be fair, perhaps those who think they know their licenses inside and out should take the course too, since I believe we apply fair use a little too liberally here. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 19:55, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

"If there is a hypothetical user that is intentionally and maliciously uploading images without a license" - User talk:Andi322.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

15:38, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

While I question intentionality, none of those images were of malicious nature, and considering how few screenshots we have of Call of Duty 3 and the DS iterations of the franchise, they were obviously needed. If his lack of regard to multiple reminders/warnings did not rectify a relatively easy to fix issue, then repeatedly using a talk page template is clearly not going to work, and either a more direct and personal warning is needed, or, in an extreme case, a temporary block. And I say an "extreme case" because we want to assume good faith of these contributors in that they are not uploading images without a license to be disruptive. From what I gather, this user, having been here for a few months already, was not intentionally getting in the way of things to incite discord, but instead uploading these images for benign purposes.

Additionally, if we really think that there are people out there trying to troll us by uploading images without a license, I think that is more of a reflection on the overly-bureaucratic way we are addressing the problem than anything else. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 19:47, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Sactage mentions that we need to enforce image licensing for legal reasons (obvious) and such, we should ban those who ignore warnings given to them. However these bans should be very short, like 30 minute-1 hour bans to start with. I agree with what Sactage says.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  19:42, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support- We should give them at least one warning depending on the problem, and then if they do it again, we should do what COD4 said and give them 1 hour of banishment, and then increase how long the ban is the more they do it (ex: 1 hour, a day, 2 days, a week etc etc) until they get a permanent ban. Or we can do what azuris said "If it involves licensing, it should be the standard 3 days. Licensing is a rather serious thing, as Cod4 stated below. As for a bad image, then that should just be around 2 days, as they've been warned to upload better images previously" --Dark as night...the batman  19:48, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

"Banishment" Joe Copp 14:45, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Tis' a word. Dark as night...the batman  00:13, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support- Per Callofduty4 Reznov115^Talk

Support- Per cod4 pls The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 21:18, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support- I think this is the best way to help regulate the improper licensings with images, and will help educate new users on how uploading should be done. Argorrath _{おしゃべり}22:56, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I suppose I'd have to agree with Cod4 on this one. An addition to COD:BG to standardize bannings of this sort would do us good. Joe Copp 14:45, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Support - i support because I'm one of them that always forget to licensing the image and giving crappy name on the image so yes i agree too Sam and Cod4. XSCX surprise!!!! 14:45, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I agree with CoD4 and Azuris, where an im-properly named images deserve a 30 minute or hour block while an im-properly licensed images deserve a 3 day block. ^Smilular Talk 21:00, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

The point of 30-60 minute blocks is slaps on the wrist to get people to read the warnings on their talk page. Since both naming and licensing warnings are minor warnings regarding images I feel it doesn't matter what the image warning is for so there should be no discrepency between block lengths.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  21:02, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying after multiple warnings. A 30-60 minute block is great to let somebody know they made a not-so-serious mistake, but licensing is a pretty serious thing, as Azuris and Sactage stated. ^Smilular Talk 20:53, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Suppport - This seems to be the best way. Madnessfan34537           22:11, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - So I'm assuming these are all focused on image licensing, does the 3-warning concept still follow if, let's say, someone uploads explicit images/porn or just uploads images with bad names? As far as I can tell, the intensity of such offenses can vary, under different circumstances.   ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 15:12, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

If somebody uploads porn, they will be blocked for a substantially longer amount of time. Naming, however, I would think to be the same. Joe Copp 19:16, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Porn is a permanent banishment right? --Dark as night...the batman  20:30, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Shock images are already in the blocking guidelines, this is regarding images of poor quality, no license and poorly named images.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

20:57, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support - If a user still doesn't take the hint after several warnings, there really isn't anything else we can do with them. 222 ^talk 07:12, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Per Brains... Wait, Brains edits here? Rift Cyra Puppysmiles 07:37, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Warnings are given to notify a user of violating a policy. The consequence of violating policies are blocks. Per Azuris, 3 warnings of violations and a block should be issued. DarkMetroid567^okay 19:00, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Bit of a shame we can't tell if people are doing it intentially or not. This, however, looks like the best way to go. LellowYucario ^Hi!  19:49, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral changed to oppose - I thought we started deleting the images if said user doesn't license their images. I kind of find it a tad too overboard to block someone over such a simple matter, not only would it hypothetically deter said user away from editing again, It could almost be considered as biting the newcomer. Most of the time a big ass grey template plastered all over a new users talk page will be very confusing, they wont have a clue what it is. Getting blocked can also effect a user negatively, when their only wish is to help out with some images. I prefer Special:Block to be used only if the user has either vandalized/harassed a user/etc --KλT 08:21, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, it can be counterproductive to delete such images if they are needed in a certain article. Just add the proper license and move on. With QuickLicense (not sure if the tool still works, but it's worth mentioning) it only takes a dropdown and a click, and without it, still only a small amount of effort. Deletion of unlicensed images should only occur when they have yet to be used anywhere for a good amount of time. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 16:49, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

QuickLicense does work actually, and its very easy to license said images. And I also agree with you. --KλT 17:15, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

If a user continually made bad edits, would we ban them or just keep warning them for as long as we can?

Crazy sam10 • Talk

17:39, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Bad edits ≠ Uploading an image without a license. The images themselves could be good, but according to this proposed policy you'd have to ban him anyway. which is Isn't fair and, honestly, isn't something I would do if it passed anyway. --KλT 17:53, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think common sense has something to say here. This policy should only be applied if the hurdles of several prior warnings as well as being appropriate under common sense are cleared (well, at least that's what I thought I was supporting). 222 ^talk 09:28, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

If "common sense" should be applied, then we really do not need any new policy or guideline. Administrators should be using their discretion in dealing with these relatively uncommon cases (in comparison to demonstrable, intentional vandalism) and taking appropriate action. This is not a rampant problem as far as I am aware, which makes setting new rules appear to be an unnecessary procedure. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 18:04, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

But it's the same principle Kat, if a user keeps doing a bad edit you warn them for as long as you can until it eventually becomes vandalism. It's the same with images, we warn the user as much as we can but if users are just expecting us to fix their images then we're not actually doing anything to deter users doing it. I'm not fully for a full-on ban but "ban from upload", an option I'd prefer, can't be done.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

13:08, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Just so people get an understanding of the why I raised this issue:

• 12:42 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:COD MW2 2012 AUG RANDOM GAMEPLAY" ‎(created video)
• 12:41 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded a new version of "File:COD MW3 Aug 2012 StrikeForce Clan" ‎(created video)
• 12:40 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded a new version of "File:FEEDING MADNESS PART 1 WITH Sniping NationZ" ‎(created video)
• 12:40 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded a new version of "File:COD MW2 2012 Aug RBN Alliance" ‎(created video)
• 12:39 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded a new version of "File:SICK FEEDS COD MW3 FACT CLAN AUG 2012" ‎(created video)
• 12:30 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded a new version of "File:DubstabbinG.jpg" ‎
• 12:27 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:Tommyfly123.jpg" ‎
• 12:27 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:DubstabbinG.jpg" ‎
• 12:27 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:SUBXTRA NEW BG88888.jpg" ‎
• 12:26 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:Plazzmagam3ing background.jpg" ‎
• 12:25 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:Minecraft packground.jpg" ‎
• 12:20 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:Background yt.jpg" ‎
• 12:19 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:SUBXTRA GIVEAWAY1.jpg" ‎
• 12:11 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:SICK FEEDS COD MW3 FACT CLAN AUG 2012" ‎(created video)
• 12:10 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:COD MW3 Aug 2012 StrikeForce Clan" ‎(created video)
• 12:10 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:FEEDING MADNESS PART 1 WITH Sniping NationZ" ‎(created video)
• 12:09 . . SUBXTRAgfx (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:COD MW2 2012 Aug RBN Alliance" ‎(created video)

All of these files have broken policy in some way, bad names, unlicensed, and personal videos. No one intervened for the full 40 minutes that this was going on. 12:12, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

So? It is not as if we enter Wiki DEFCON 1 whenever, Science forbid, someone names their uploaded file incorrectly, or has no prior experience with image licensing. This is still not a case of clear and obvious bad faith, which is a precedent we would be looking for in establishing a new policy for blocking this kind of behavior.

Additionally, the fact that a Wikia Staff member would not implement a "ban from upload" option is probably deeper than sheer laziness, and perhaps a signal that we are making an issue out of something that is not. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 13:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

"So? It is not as if we enter Wiki DEFCON 1 whenever, Science forbid, someone names their uploaded file incorrectly, or has no prior experience with image licensing. This is still not a case of clear and obvious bad faith, which is a precedent we would be looking for in establishing a new policy for blocking this kind of behavior." My point is for 40 minutes no one stopped him and told him he had to name them or license them. I'm all for AGF, but when a user makes a bad edit you tell them, in the case of filespace it's simply ignored.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

16:29, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Its not ignored. Its not like the whole wiki will break in half if someone forgets to license an image for an hour. its just not that big of a priority. Like I said before, Someone uploading files who doesn't know anything about the file rules is not going to know what a big template slapped on their talk page is. they'll most likely ignore it and regard it as spam or something like that. You have to understand that the only motives these people have is to help the wiki, and by doing this you'd be punishing them for trying to help. Which is just a poor way to run things. If this does pass I can tell you right now that I wouldn't block anyone for something as simple as not licensing an image. Its not as big of a problem as you make it out to be, it takes less the 5 seconds to license an image, and hell, maybe we ought to actually leave a more personal message so a new user doesn't just disregard it. --KλT 03:40, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

And for 40 minutes what was stopping a user giving a personal warning then?

Crazy sam10 • Talk

03:43, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

How the hell would i know. --KλT 03:48, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wiki was dead? Like Kat said, it isn't really a big deal if a person doesn't license their image with no warning for 40 minutes. When the person is warned, the person is warned. 40 mere minutes isn't that long anyways. DarkMetroid567^Talk 03:54, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Keeping in line with the new Warning guideline I feel we should give two warnings that are premade (often in my case I will batch these together, so if a badly named unlicensed image is uploaded I consider posting {{Licensing Images}} and {{Bad Image Title}} as one warning) then the 3rd warning is written out by the user giving the warning to ensure the user is in fact using the Image Policy. If after these 3 warnings the user is still not correctly uploading images we can start with the bans. 23:03, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not see what is such a huge problem that it must be solved with a forum. If a user continuously ignores warnings, simply block them for a short while. Image licensing can easily be added. In my opinion, nothing needs to change. DarkMetroid567^Talk 03:58, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Consensus is to give bans for ignored warnings (which is normally standard procedure for ignored/unfollowed warnings anyway) and try to use personal warnings if you can when the premade warnings are not producing results.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  08:36, August 26, 2012 (UTC)