FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Crackdown on certain policies
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 May 2008 by Earthere.

I posted this in the forums, but NO ONE'S given me a single suggestion, so I'm placing it here. I want answers. Now. Before I go insane.

"I have been asked no fewer than SEVEN times by (mostly) noobs as to why their "images and pages" were deleted. All of these files, regardless of type, were deleted because:

  • In the case of an image, it was personal, or...
  • In the case of an article, it was worthless trash.

Yet people keep asking me as to why their things are being deleted. It's severely annoying, and I want to put an abrupt end to it. ALL OF IT. If I have one more person that asks me a question like that, I will start handing out blocks for ASKING the damn'd question.

Thus, I am proposing a stricter policy to our article creation, especially image uploading. I suggest that, when a new user registers, they must READ the rules, one-by-one (so they don't feel tempted to skip the whole thing), before being able to complete registration. I also believe we should revise RS:Granularity to include everything that doesn't have an impact on RS. (Currently, I see only non-interactive scenery as part of this policy; Chiafriend made a non-RS related article "Tracy West"; I believe that sort of thing should be included)

Image uploads are beginning to be a problem. I have just recently deleted a user's PERSONAL images. The problem is that people OBVIOUSLY "haven't heard of ImageShack or PhotoBucket" [/sarcasm]. Well, of COURSE they've heard of it! But isn't it much easier (and lazier) to just make it a wiki image? Thus, I believe we need to crack down on it big-time."

OK, now as for such changes...

First off, the rules-before-registration. Is it possible to change the registration process so that a potential user must read the rules one-by-one (so they don't whizz by them and not care) before entering their account data? If so, I suggest we do that. We'll possibly get a lot less new users uploading their personal images. In fact, it might slice down the vandlism more than I'm currently foreseeing.

Another thing I suggested in that forum post is the RS:Granularity policy be revised so that it SPECIFICALLY states what is article-worthy and what is not. I see many not-worthy articles being written anyway, from "Tracy West" to "Winch". We don't really have to do a crackdown on violaters; such articles are few and far between. That reminds me: the current RS:Granularity policy only has ONE ARTICLE in its list. That's it: ONE. We need to update that crap more...

Which brings me to the last problem: Image uploads. They. Are. Misunderstood. We NEED to crack down on that more! I'm seeing too many instances where I they upload images that I delete, only for me to get a torrent of crap on my talk page about "OMFG Y U DLETE MAH ST00F!!!1 I WAZ UZING IT 4 MAH UZER PAJE!!1"...Pathetic. I'm NOT going to tolerate people asking me why I've deleted their stuff. If I have to change my way of doing things, like telling them EVERY time for EVERY personal image that EVERY noob uploads, fine. But until we get somewhere with this, I won't be reminding anyone anymore to not do such crappy things. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

Awesome idea, I hate seeing some personal or crappy page on the namespace.
  1. REDIRECT User:C Teng/sig 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Dude you did that like 5 times with your image... ChristineTalkFlickr 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if he did, after you learn how to do it properly, watching someone else do it wrong can piss you off, and don't tell me that isn't the case. Bandos godswordJmoDragon platebody, 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (i did it too now it pisses me off :P)
Noobs will never read the rules and so proposing such a change will create almost no difference from what it was initially. paracropolisTALK 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with personal images. The kind of articles you were mentioning, I understand why. Though for images, I see only one reason why not to allow them. What reason? "It uses up server space.". There is no limit to server space. "Using up server space" uses up an unlimited resource. I don't really see a problem with that. I do understand why non-RuneScape images would be deleted. Being off topic, and all. But for personal images, like an image of your character, an image of you getting a certain level, they are on the topic of the wiki: RuneScape.
Tracy West has the same connection to RuneScape that Jagex does. Jagex wrote the code to RuneScape. Tracy wrote the official book. If "Tracy West" is a "non-RS related article", the "Jagex" is too. Dragon helmChiafriend12Granite body (old)Loon is best buttlord 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Moving past how bad of an analogy that was, and how fallacious an argument it was that you just made, there is more than one reason not to allow personal images. This site aims to be a professional, wikified alternative to guide sites such as runehq and tip.it. It is not a forum, and it is not a fan sandbox. Everything that gets added to the Image repository belongs to this wiki and we're therefore putting our brand on it. What does it look like when somebody puts some non-relevant, silly image on the site, and the admins don't delete it? It reflects on the character of the site itself. Furthermore, everything has a limit, especially server space. Just because there may not be a published limit, that doesn't mean Wikia couldn't shut us down for not being responsible with the free space they give us. We owe it to them to be good stewards of the resources they give us. Endasil (Talk) @ 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, there are plenty of free alternative image hosting sites available - if someone isn't able take the time and effort to upload the image and refer to that url from here, what's the chance that they'll bother adding the meta-information we want for images here, like categories, copyright usage, transparency and using correct file formats? The "proper" images we have already need a lot of work to clean up, let alone adding to the problem with hundreds of user images. Pointy 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue here is to add "color" to a user's personal page, and if some additional image ought to be allowed or not. I've run into edit wars with admins over allowing any image that is not directly copied or somehow extracted from the Jagex webpages... which IMHO is perhaps going a little over the top. I tried to add an image of the New York Stock Exchange to the GEMW page stictly for some atmosphere, and it was not only deleted, but the deletion reverted and then deleted again. Most other wikis, noting in particular even Wikipedia, have allowed images a more personal nature on their user pages without getting hyper paranoid about suitability. This isn't to say that a whole gallery of images ought to be permitted, but I fail to see the harm in allowing some sort of personal image as long as it is tasteful (aka not pornographic) and kept at very low numbers, like at most one or two... and used on user pages. Allowing this isn't going to kill wikia and overload the servers... nor do I see Wikia complaining here to eliminate this sort of incidental image uploading. Wikipedia's main issue is copyright status... which is something that should be of concern here as well even as most of the images are copyrighted by Jagex and go way beyond even United States fair use legal concepts. If we were really paranoid about copyright issues, 99.99% of all of the images currently on this project would have to be deleted.--Robert Horning 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's against allowing people to put (appropriate) personal images on their user pages. The issue is more about where those images are stored - whether it's on the wiki or whether we ask people to host them elsewhere and then link to them. The concern I have is with having to wade through large numbers of personal images to try and work with the 'legitimate' images - things like adding transparency, categorising images, finding unused files and so on will all be made harder by having to work around large numbers of personal images that would clutter up the wiki. Pointy 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the problem with storing a "limited number" of personal images like this? To "sort" through the images, all that would really be needed is some sort of tag or category to label the image for "personal use" or something that is used on a user page. While whole galleries should be prohibited, a modest number certainly could be used and uploaded to the wiki itself... copyright issues notwithstanding. It does get into copyright issues, which is something this project should be worried about anyway. Most of the images on this website can claim fair-use authority due to the fact that it is derived from screen shots of the game itself. My question would then be raised here.... in your opinion what would be some examples of acceptable images that aren't copyrighted by Jagex? --Robert Horning 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that users should read the rules. However, just asking once why their image was deleted doesn't warrant an instant block. If they're being rude, like doing that "OMFG Y U DLETE MAH ST00F!!!1 I WAZ UZING IT 4 MAH UZER PAJE!!1" thing you mentioned above, then yes, that should get a block, and if asked repeatedly, then yes it should, but not just for asking once. That might be considered abuse of admin power. Butterman62 (talk) Ice Barrage 00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Starting new indent) I agree with having users read the rules (if possible). However, I dont' quite understand your argument. You want us to make it so users can be blocked for asking why their images were deleted? If that's what you're asking, then no, they shouldn't, unless they repeat it to the level where it becomes spam. Or are you asking for us to make policies more strict so users can't even create articles or upload images that aren't DIRECTLY related (like Chia said about the article he created)? In that case, I wouldn't agree. We already have a policy about having fakes/personal images (whether IRL or just ingame images of you pwning your friends). It doesn't need to be any stricter than that, although I agree that someone uploading an image of their uncle, who works for Jagex and isn't really that noteable (they have hundreds of employees) would be wrong. Still, I don't see what you want done... There isn't much to be done.Yellow partyhat Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I haven't been too active in a while, but here's my slant on it all. I don't think that it would be conceivable to think that even attempting to force people to read the rules would result in them actually reading them. I don't feel like going through all the rules and agreements that every single website makes you check when you join them. I also think that it wouldn't be possible to force them to do so. Also, blocking them for not understanding the rules isn't really a good reason either, just be patient and show them the right way to do things. If you're not willing to be helpful, especially as a Sysop, maybe you shouldn't be one. At the same time, I think that since images are really the issue, if it's possible to prevent anyone from uploading images except those who have either had an acocunt for a certain amount of time, or people that hte sysops have "unlocked" the privilege for, that would be a better situation. I don't know if that would be possible, but it would be a suggestion. The issue in the past was that suddenly we weren't allowed to have personal images (RuneScape related even, characters, etc), when before we could. A replacement solution was given, we can use free image servers, like imageshack, photobucket, etc. So that problem has been solved. NO images uploaded on the wiki servers that are not RS related and used in an article. All other images on the site need to be loaded through an outside source (Photobucket, etc). We are not opposed to having those other images (although they need to only be on a personal page, and within our image guidelines, no porn, etc.). If it's possible to let sysops determine who is able to upload images (maybe with the exception of those personal images, since they aren't uploaded anyways), I think that would be an ideal solution. Herblore TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.