Wikimedia Forum

Just like the above policy suggestion that is now approved, which I inevitably opposed, I have a suggestion too.

Since I created a WikiProject in our local Wikipedia (an inequivalent of the Welcoming Committee of the English), I have started on monitoring the Special:Listusers (To know whom I have greeted or not, who are the vandals et cetera). I have noticed that most registed "users" don't even have a single edit. It is like 75% to 90% percent!

My suggestion: Just like in Yahoo, MSN and other emailing sites. They have an expiry time for which the account will last. I suggest that all accounts that has not got any contributions, be it vandalism or not, with in 3 months of registration be deleted.

Why?

1. To give others who wants such name a chance to have the name
2. To clearup space in the Wikimedia servers
3. To make monitoring the ListUsers easier (only having to view users with actual contributions)

Effectivity:

• on accounts that has not got a single edit within 3 months of registration

Remember I suggest that this should only be applied on users without any single edits. -- Felipe Aira 02:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

Hi, in the Venetian Wikipedia the fundraising thanks message ("Thanks to everyone who donated in the Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser! You can still make a contribution, or buy Wikimedia merchandise.") is shown in Italian. Is it possible to replace it with the following message in Venetian: "Grazsie a tuti quei che gà donà durante la racolta fondi de Wikimedia Foundation! Podì ancora dar un contributo o cronpar i nostri gadget."? Many thanks.

Hi everyone. I tried uploading my submission for the Wikibooks logo competition but for some reason Mediawiki doesn't seem to generate the usual thumbnail PNG. The file is working fine in both Firefox and Inkscape. The image is over here. Anyone got a clue what this might be? Husky 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

I think it would be the best to report this bug at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org – probably a bug in the rendering engine...? I have had a similar problem, too. Try to upload the image several times (maybe with an other name (path)), this could work if this should be a singular phenomenon!? --- Best regards, Melancholie 02:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

By the way: Purging the image (?action=purge) does not seem to work here, too! --Melancholie 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

On http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/thumb/1/17/Husky_puzzle_book.svg/640px-Husky_puzzle_book.svg.png (found in HTML source code), you can read:

Error generating thumbnail
Error creating thumbnail:
(process:24546): libgnomevfs-WARNING **: Unable to create ~/.gnome directory: No such file or directory

Melancholie 02:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

Well, thanks to MichaelFrey it's working now. Apparently there were some weird XML tags in the picture. Might have to do with the fact that i used Adobe Illustrator to make the picture (instead of Inkscape). SVG supports still seems to be a bit shaky in Illustrator... Husky 17:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

Dear all. I want to propose a Wikimedia-wide configuration change so that only accounts older than 4 days can upload files (same as for pagemoves). Commons should be opt-out for obvious reasons, and other projects should be able to opt-out per community decision. The reason, why I think that this is necessary, are the many inappropriate uploads by just created useraccounts (just look at the delete log here on Meta). I guess we would save a lot of time (and memory capacity) if those nonsense, unlicensed or off-topic images would not be uploaded. Of course, one can't be sure that those people will not upload these files after 4 days, but if the devs make a MediaWiki message that tells them that they can't upload on the wiki they tried, but they *can* on Commons, they will probably go there and upload their stuff there, where it is not off-topic at least, and where a lot of people know about licenses and so on. Please share your opinion about this. Thank you for your attention. --Thogo (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

• Support Support, this is also a wiki-wide vandalism-problem, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support. Yes, this would tremendously help with the "register and spam the wiki with images" type of vandals. --FiLiP ¤ 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support we enabled it on it.wikipedia some time ago, mainly trying to reduce copyvio uploads, and it's working pretty well. --Brownout ^(msg) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support en.wiktionary has not allowed any non-sysop uploads for some time. It seems more reasonable than trying to train sysops on how to catch copyvios (that commons: is very adept at stopping.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support. This seems a good idea. Cowardly Lion 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support Yes, we have a problem with some new users, who just send few pictures without licenses and sources, and return never again... --Slaven Kosanovic 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support — I was ready to oppose until I read the third sentence (the Commons opt-out thing) ;-) This is an excellent idea. --Agüeybaná (hábleme) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support, quoting Brownout. KS1975 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• ... with a caveat, the way it should work for Commons (once SUL is available, and if at all possible) is that to upload, one should have to have a userid somewhere else that is at least 4 days old, even if the user is brand new to Commons. Else all the vandals will go to Commons, forever more, to upload, and then just use the uploaded image on whatever wiki it is they want to vandalise, which shifts a bit of load to Commons, to be sure. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
  • I disagree, what will happen to people whose only account is at Commons? There may not be many but to require them to create a dummy account somewhere else is just silly. pfctdayelise 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
    • If their only account is on commons, they can wait four days to be autoconfirmed, just as they would if they were anywhere else. This will cut down on commons vandalism. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
      • That would be like making people on Wikipedia wait four days before editing. (!) pfctdayelise 07:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
        • Let me pose the obvious heretic question: and why would that be bad? I'm sure it would cut down tremenduously on text vandalism! We're just making the promise that anyone can edit, not that anyone can edit right away... Lupo 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
          • Are there that many people who go straight to commons and start uploading images, without doing at least a few days of work on another project? Mr.Z-man 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
            • Sometimes, it seems like it. There definitly will be many that do this if all projects are directing new users there. Rocket000 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support - this will also cut down on the uploading random copyvio images per Brownout and Slaven Kosanovic. Also echoing Lar's comments for the post-SUL era (though I don't know how relevant that is to a configuration request right now). – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support. Hopefully this will reduce the burden to English Wikipedia with too many improper uploads daily.--Jusjih 02:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Oppose Oppose I hate centralised decisions. Thus we must let communities decide for themselves. -- Felipe Aira 06:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
  • Hi Felipe Aira, please think about it again, this would really help us to reduce copyright violations and vandalism, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 09:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support-great idea! I have seen many un-wanted and bad pictures being uploaded by new user accounts.....--Kushan I.A.K.J 10:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Seems like a good idea that is worth trying out. However, if it leads to people just uploading their crap at the Commons, I would want to see the Commons also adopt this. There are already enough uploaders at the Commons who upload anything without any regard to copyrights. Also, please be aware that the Commons' rules are different from those of other Wikimedia projects. The Commons accepts only images that are freely licensed in at least the source country of the work and in the U.S., or that are in the public domain in both these countries. Which kind of makes sense, but is sometimes a hassle when people upload images that are in the public domain in only one country, especially non-U.S. works that happen to be in the public domain in the U.S. but not in the non-U.S. source country. At the very least, the Commons could maybe implement something that presents commons:COM:L to any newly registered account, and that allows the newly registered account to upload only if the person acknowledges having read it (through a little form at the bottom). Lupo 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
  • Additional comment: has this discussion been announced at the local projects? It has been mentioned at the Commons and at en-WP, but elsewhere? Lupo 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support Good idea. Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support Stop vandalism.--Phoenix - wiki 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support. Makes sense provided there is an opt-out for projects that don't want this restriction on uploads. WjBscribe 16:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• I very much agree with Lupo's comments. Commons should not turn into an alternative to uploaded copyvio rubbish, and if that is the case, we either need a lot more Commons admins, or add the restriction to Commons as well. Majorly (talk ) 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Comment Comment I'm with Majorly/Lupo. Good idea but there is enough junk on Commons now and equally all that would happen would be they would wikilink the junk having uploaded it to commons=problem not solved? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
  • Hi Herby, I disagree that all junk would go to commons then, because I very much doubt that most users that upload junk anywhere know where to go then. But I agree that more Commons admins are needed (imho You can never have enough there), with or without that proposal being accepted, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 00:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support Would cut down on various forms of image abuse, and our attention to copyright can often scare away newbies used to less restrictive sites. Mr.Z-man 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support SPQRobin 22:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support Please! --Carnildo 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Comment Comment I agree all uploads should be set to autoconfirmed, however, I don't think Commons should be an exception. If the purpose of this is to cut down on vandalism/copyvios, why just redirect it? Commons already has enough crap to deal with and not enough people to do it. This proposal seems really unfair to those who call Commons their home wiki (which is not many, but we do exist). Sure, Commons users are generally more knowledgeable with copyrights and can deal with certain issues more efficiently because of their experience, but that does not justify giving them all this additional work simply because other projects are tired of dealing with it themselves. And what about users coming from projects that allow fair-use (the biggest reason for uploading locally)? I can see a huge increase of copyvios as a result. The larger the project, the more vandalism/copyvios it receives, but also the more help they have to deal with it. Directing all new users and drive-by vandals to Commons would create a very unbalanced environment. Like Herby said above, this does not solve the problem. It simply relocates it to a single undeserving project. Rocket000 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

  Commons doesn't need to be excluded in this, it was just the suggestion that many people *want* to upload on Commons, since that's what Commons is for, and this would be barred if people come there who have no account yet. They will probably not come back than. Of course, Commons has a lot of upload vandalism, but that would simply not change. So it would mean no improvement for Commons but for all other wikis. If you think that Commons should not be excluded, this would be no problem, of course. But I don't know if all people working on Commons would agree. --Thogo (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

  "Commons has a lot of upload vandalism, but that would simply not change. So it would mean no improvement for Commons..." – the worry is that it might increase, which would be a definite deterioration. So, the Commons must be prepared to take technical countermeasures if this is implemented on the other projects and it turns out that is does cause problems for the Commons. For the other projects, it is an excellent suggestion, I think. "But I don't know if all people working on Commons would agree." – of course, all people will never agree on anything. But there are already several comments from Commons admins (Lar, myself, Majorly, Herby, and Rocket000) who all see this as a potential problem for the Commons. An implementation of this feature should also include support to make it easy for the Commons to implement countermeasures, should they become necessary. For instance in the way Lar has indicated. (Even without SUL. Who knows when and if at all that is coming!) Lupo 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

  The autoconfirm threshold could be lowered, or if that's not desirable for other reasons, it would be possible, using MediaWiki's autopromote system, to create an implicit "upload" group with different requirements than autoconfirm (not sure what effect, if any, SUL might have with this). Mr.Z-man 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

• Support Support --Djordjes (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support. James F. (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support - emphatically. Will be a benefit, in almost all regards and cases. --Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support, will reduce upload vandalism (not on commons though). feydey 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
• Support Support --Kaster 10:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

• Wikimedia Forum
• Noticeboards
• Communication
• Meta-Wiki organisation
• Multilingualism