Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

Shortcut: COM:VP/P · COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Commons discussion pages (index)

Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?


Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality[edit]

I'm wondering whether Commons should adopt a guideline comparable to en:Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. We certainly have enough of the sort of problem it was intended to address, particularly for gender. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Such a guideline would greatly help in case of disagreement. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose without modification. We don’t have the concept of “non-diffusing“ categories here and I, for one, would oppose its introduction—at least not without separate discussion, and COM:OVERCAT would need modification to accommodate it. Users’ wanting to put things in parent-&-child cats is already a fairly common cause of conflict. On that question in general, I think a solution more natural to the way we usually solve the ‘burial problem’ is instead to have (Topic) by (secondary property) cats, which keep the over-categorization at arm’s length.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    • “non-diffusing“ categories is exactly why we need this policy. Yann (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please write a specific proposal based on past cases on this project. -- (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's a draft. Would anyone like to help hammer it into shape? (Since it is my proposal, currently in my user space, I retain the right to revert what I might consider hostile edits, but help with getting it to be a more appropriate proposal for Commons would be greatly appreciated.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe better to live with the mess for a little longer and hope (I think it should) COM:Structured data will solve some of these issues. This proposal would probably lead to less (specific) categorization which might hurt structured data in the long term. - Alexis Jazz 05:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the draft is not helpful since it is based on the english encyclopedia section that is about writing an article. In commons we discuss media, it does not make sense to request reliable sources to use a category since sources are not used in commons. --Neozoon (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well to comment on "For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since being Catholic, Buddhist, or another religion is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." ehhh... It could happen that someone in a certain sport that is only performed in countries of a certain religion could be controversial because of their (ir)religion, comparatively one could make the exact same argument for ethnicity because it doesn't matter if you're German-American, Irish-Canadian, Russian-Brazilian, or whatever as these things don't influence their ability to perform a sport while discrimination based on race has historically been a very common topic in sports and removing the ethnicity of a sportsperson could ironically remove why they were notable playing thatdd sport (think of negro Vs. white baseball leagues), and race and ethnicity aren't always clearly defined, for example the famous US American actor César Romero was considered to be "White" for most of his career but after the "Hispanic and Latino" race was created in the United States of America during the 1960's or 1970's he became regarded as one at the end of his career winning awards in categories related to "Hispanics and/or Latino's". I'm personally neutral either way, someone's religion could be irrelevant to one context but notable in another. If someone is notable for being an African-American baseball player in the 1930's doesn't mean that an African-American baseball player in the 1980's is notable for anything other than their talent. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Hence "most sportspeople", not "sportspeople". Obviously Jackie Robinson's ethnicity is relevant, and probably so is Sandy Koufax's ethnic/religious background (Jewish, and he chose not to pitch Game 1 of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur), but does it really matter whether a random player is Catholic? - Jmabel ! talk 06:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to include non-CC0 licenses for the Data namespace (Part 2)[edit]

There was previous consensus here to allow CC BY and CC BY SA licenses data in the data namespace.

Legal at the WMF has commented here regarding the final steps required. User:Yurik can you help carry them out? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposals to improve the appeal options for blocked users and making sure they're properly informed[edit]

In light of recent events and many older ones that didn’t get the same level of scrutiny it’s clear that Wikimedia Commons’ possibilities to appeal a block need to be widened and users need to be more informed on how they can appeal. One such solution could be creating a UTRS for Wikimedia Commons, this system should be able to be accessed to all Commonswiki sysops and would eliminate the current issue where users who can’t appeal on-wiki to use an alternative revenue.

Because of the way the block that lead to this was conducted I would suggest an extra layer of scrutiny for both the deciding sysop and the blocked user by not making the readability of the UTRS appeal publicly accessible but with every appeal the appealing person will get the option “Do not make this appeal accessible to non-administrators”, this would also be necessary for appeals that concern private information. Of course as not every blocked user knows that these options exist (and in fact some users only learn of the en-wiki UTRS after their first appeal has been denied), both a full fledged guide to appealing blocks could be created and possibly a template for blocked/banned users’ "Miranda rights" could be left at all currently blocked users’ talk pages.

It’s also possible that the same UTRSBot from the English Wikipedia could deliver the templates here or maybe a separate Commons UTRSBot would have to be created. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments and votes (UTRS)[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, obviously as proposer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, this would be a very helpful addition to commons.CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no need. Status quo is perfectly fine. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With the system as is, Rowan Forest was unblocked one hour and twenty-eight minutes after being wrongly blocked, and unblocked without the involvement of or other external (IRC, OTRS, etc.) venues. How will adding an additional layer of bureaucracy, an additional queue to be checked and perhaps become backlogged, improve over the actual outcome we experienced? Are there data on UTRS response times for appeals of bad blocks on To be clear: I'm not necessarily saying an UTRS won't improve outcomes; I'm merely saying that case has not been made. The proposal thus far, and the immediate jump to !voting, is utterly superficial. Эlcobbola talk 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Merely adding new backlog, not convincing. — regards, Revi 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Rather not. The rare cases that want to appeal and have no talk page access could always mail OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • But how do they know that if it's not on a notice?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • By searching the "Contact us" button. It's the same you would have to do when banned on any other website when you don't know how to appeal a block. Natuur12 (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, my biggest issue is the next one about notification. I think there should be some information on the block notice about the {{unblock}} template or the email address if indef'd.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is still possible to contact the support team by email. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per elcobbola and others. AFAIK most blocks on Commons are of drive-by acccounts and LTA socks, very rarely of good-faith/good-standing-users. Removal of talk page access is rarely necessary/justified. --Túrelio (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - There has been a misunderstanding of the blocking templates. No bot places the template on the user page.W:Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Blocks. When an admin blocks an editor, they are required to manually place a template on the blocked user's page. If the blocking includes removal of talk page access, that is part of the template the admin places on the user page. In the case of removal of talk page access, the template has a message of how the user can appeal the block. In the link I provided, see the pink template. Maile66 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The templated block notifications here at Commons are substantially different from the ones at the English Wikipedia. In fact none of them has a hint at how to appeal the block, and there is no special version for blocked users without talk page access either. De728631 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't confusing them. Donald Trung made the comment above, "It’s also possible that the same UTRSBot from the English Wikipedia could deliver the templates here." I was clarifying that the templates on English Wikipedia are not delivered by bot, but manually by the blocking admin. Therefore, whatever you come up with here has to be targeted to the Commons method of blocking. Maile66 (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, that's alright then. And I have to correct myself: {{Promotional user block}} and {{Checkuserblock}} do have unblock instructions. De728631 (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment English Wikipedia has UTRS and Functionaries; but whether they are helpful? Not in my experience. In this case, he contacted Functionaries and they declined with some boilerplate words. He contacted UTRS and a volunteer informed it to the blocking admin; but he rejected it saying he has no OTRS access. Finally it took more than one year to convince him to get unblocked. If it were here, I can achieve it within two days. Jee 06:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Revi and Jee. De728631 (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment as i expected, the admin culture is not ready for a professional standard of practice. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Wiki means "fast". Blocks should be performed quickly when needed, and there are ways to request unblock. --Ruthven (msg) 08:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked users deserve notification of right to appeal[edit]

Due to a current issue where the issue was raised that most users on Wikimedia Commons with no talk page or e-mail access have no right of appeal I have decided to continue with my attempt at creating a standard template that all blocked users should receive on their talk page placed there by a bot similar to User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome. Part of this proposal is that it will be added retroactively to all user talk pages to currently blocked users.

Original English Wikipedia proposal this is based on

The “Blockbox” for blocked users.

It appears that you have been blocked.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks.

* If you are currently unable to access your talk page you may request an unblock via the Unblock Ticket Request System or the #wikipedia-en-unblock chat channel.
* Checkuser and Oversight blocks may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.
* If you were blocked by Jimbo Wales then you may appeal directly to him and/or the Arbitration Committee.
* If this is a Sockpuppet then you should confess your main account (or IP) now so you may receive a reduced penalty.
* If you have been blocked for a username violation then you can simply create or request a new account or request to be renamed here or at #wikimedia-rename, if however the username was made in bad faith then first request a rename and then you may appeal the block; further reading Wikipedia:Changing username.
* If you have been blocked for adding promotional material or spam then please read about our policy on this and our external links policy before requesting an unblock.
** If you continue to violate this policy then the next time the duration of your block will increase. If you believe the link(s) you added aren't spam then you may request for it to be removed from the blacklist.
* If your options are currently still unclear then please read the more technical how to appeal a block.

Personally I envision this box to be light blue with a red title. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons’ notification of right to appeal[edit]

Someone more familiar with how and why the blocking tools and their appeal works could create it.

Comments and votes (notification of right to appeal)[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, obviously as proposer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, this would be a very helpful addition to commons. For the instructions on how to appeal a block, the email address should be included in the instructions for those who did have their talk pages blocked.CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no need. Status quo is perfectly fine. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as written, but support the general notion that the unblock templates could do with expansion/improvement. "Miranda Rights," however, are a United States legal concept; Commons is a multi-lingual project and, by extension, much more international. I note this as rather implicitly underscoring the lack of familiarity many seem to have with the nature of the Commons, which has been noted elsewhere. Proposals need to understand the Commons is not, and not made for denizens of the US (or UK). Эlcobbola talk 16:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
What would be acceptable language for notification from your perspective?CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The hasty and inappropriate !vote into which we've been carelessly thrust is not a venue for that discussion. Every line of the "box" is inappropriate, including even the patronising false modesty of "It appears that you have been blocked" of the header. I'd be happy to offer input if this were withdrawn for something genuinely thoughtful later to be presented for approval. Эlcobbola talk 18:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Alrighty then, not much helpful information here... other than I'm getting that you don't think that there should be so much information in the block box... nor use of the words "It appears".–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Commons appears to be very resistant to change, even when it's clearly necessary. There's no reason we can't have a discussion on how to improve the above proposal here. I don't know of any better venue than the village pump. clpo13(talk) 18:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While I agree that improvements are needed I disagree with the current proposal. Natuur12 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The existing block templates are woefully inadequate in explaining why a user has been blocked and what they can do to address the situation, especially if their talk page access is revoked. The proposed template can be tweaked as needed, but the status quo is not acceptable. clpo13(talk) 17:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, such info should be available in blocked & unblock templates, as well as COM:BP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as written, Symbol support vote.svg Support improvements per elcobbola. I think the best way to handle this is to make an editable copy of the block message. Mediawiki:Blockedtext is the page. I'll copy it over to Template:Blockedtext, where people can update it. Guanaco (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Rename it. "Miranda Rights" is not correct. Miranda Rights is strictly in American law, and it only refers to the right to remain silent when arrested, and the right to an attorney. Right to a trial by jury is in the US Constitution. But this proposal should not be named after something that is strictly American. Maile66 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and made the change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, absolutely every editor should have the right to appeal, and to be apprised of their rights at the moment a block is applied. Maile66 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as written per Elcobbola, i.e. we are open for proposals in a discussion but this proposal which has been copied in verbatim from en:wp is not appropriate for Commons. This should be obvious for everyone familiar with this project. And, BTW, even outsiders have usually no problem to find contact addresses of our multi-lingual support team that is able to help here. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per AFBorchert. De728631 (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems that the majority of the votes are support, or I oppose this proposal, but would accept a proposal better suited to commons. If I start a draft of something much simpler, would someone that opposed this proposal help me with the draft? To be clear, all that I am asking for is someone to review the draft and make comments to improve it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There are already some boilerplate templates at Commons that could be used as a model. {{Promotional user block}} and {{Copyviouploadindefblock}} have decent instructions on what to do to get unblocked. It should also be noted, that the standard block template being used at the English Wikipedia is nowhere near as comprehensive as the original "Blockbox" shown above. "Keep it simple" is the key. De728631 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree. A Commons-specific page similar to w:Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks (supplemental to Commons:Blocking policy#Appealing a block and more detailed, or maybe just an expansion of that section) would probably be better than a long template left on user talk pages. The block templates could point to that a page for advice on what sort of unblock requests will be seriously considered, with examples of bad requests. One major problem I see is that {{Blocked}}, {{Blocked user}}, and {{Indefblockeduser}} don't mention the possibility of requesting an unblock, only linking to Commons:Blocking policy (and {{Blocked user}} doesn't even do that), which also doesn't have anything to say about what to do if your talk page access and email rights have been revoked. The latter two templates are very impersonal as well. They read like they're meant for reviewing editors, not the one who's blocked. clpo13(talk) 17:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Excellent suggestions and input, Clpo13 and De728631. I will take a look at those and get started on drafts of block notices that I will put in here.CaroleHenson (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Updated the link to the draft - the first one wasn't going to work.CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
              • Ok, I took a shot at it, and there are drafts at link to the draft. Please feel free to post comments there or on the talk page... and feel free to make edits. I have a couple of questions... and I welcome comments and direct edits. The goal is to get them ready for a separate, new proposal.CaroleHenson (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose current wording, but ok for light blue coloring. Words like "confess" sounds either from police investigation or (Western) religion, two concepts that should be far away from a collaborative project. Unblock is mentioned twice. Other issues are arisen above. --Ruthven (msg) 08:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --küñall (nütramyen) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

#commons-unblock IRC channel[edit]

Also while we're discussing unblock options wouldn’t it also be better if there was a separate IRC channel for users to appeal their blocks? Similar to the one used by the English Wikipedia or the Japanese Wikipedia and the same rules would apply, but as it’s open to sysop-abuse where the same sysop could follow a user and ban them from all channels have this channel be publicly logged so both the appeal and the users being appealed to can be scrutinised. Of course there are some blocks that in fact can’t be discussed in the open and for that a separate #Commons-unblock-private could be created which would not be publicly logged. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments and votes (IRC)[edit]

Withdraw my vote, per Fae. Yes, it is really annoying to come to channels and find noone there. There are likely better options than this.CaroleHenson (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no need. Status quo is perfectly fine. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The use of IRC is philosophically abhorrent on a collaborative project. Openness and transparency are important; no wiki business should be conducted offsite or out-of-view unless of a genuinely private nature. It's embarrassing that IRC is used at all, and so too a proposal to expand or encourage its use. Эlcobbola talk 16:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need to have a dedicated channel for such thing. — regards, Revi 17:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No secret IRC-unblock cabal please. Natuur12 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per elcobbola. Storkk (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per this analysis of IRC. Unblock requests need to be verifiable but if IRC is not logged, that's not going to work. De728631 (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm a little leery of this for two reasons above. Donald Trung says it's open to stalking by the blocking admin. And it looks like it's not a permanent record. Too iffy to be effective. Maile66 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral If you want to go ahead and create an IRC channel like this, there is nothing stopping you. However those of us who have been around Wikimedia IRC channels for a long time, are aware that there are a lot of nearly dead channels that are so unwatched that a comment there is likely to permanently go without a reply. Such a channel is likely to be unusably quiet. In practice a user that does not understand a block of their account, or is looking for someone to post an unblock request, they can go to #wikimedia-commons anonymously and ask to have a private chat with an admin without saying anything specific in the public channel. This is probably the most practical advice to give to anyone. As they will not be cloaked they should be advised that someone may be able to find their IP address, but if that concerns them they could log in to IRC at a library or cafe as a simple work-around. Note that administrators should never be asked to do anything that may appear to work around a WMF Office action. -- (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Elcobbola and Natuur12. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Natuur12. --Ruthven (msg) 08:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment #wikimedia-commons is not a very active channel, so I don't see the need to create a separate one anyway. Yann (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Upload-only accounts[edit]

Wikimedia Commons is unlike any other Wikimedia project, first of the “mainspace” isn’t even the mainspace, in fact “File:” is, as most users who come to Wikimedia Commons come here to upload images, books, audio files, Etc. it would make sense that if a user were to be a problem in another respect such as starting a lot of bad deletion requests or beaches of civility then these users are blocked even if all of their uploads were generally good. It’s probably best not to name any examples but it’s not uncommon, but from the top of my head I would name Pieter Kuiper, Vert, and Amitie 10g. For that reason I would like to suggest an amendment to the blocking tools where if a user were to start for example request a lot of bad faith deletion requests and get blocked indefinitely but didn't upload any bad files then it’s simply not a preventative measure to block them from uploading files and editing “File:” and “File talk” spaces. As these users might be very active on other projects and uploading images (all projects) or uploading books (Wikisource) are often paramount to their ability to edit there it would simply be unfair to ban someone from uploading images if their continued participation would not only benefit this project but other projects as well (and likely even non-Wikimedia projects as files here can be used anywhere). For that reason I would like to propose Upload-only accounts that can exclusively upload images and other files to Wikimedia Commons and unless abused edit their talk pages. As categorisation is also important if their upload privileges aren’t abused after let’s say a week or month (or maybe after 100 uploads since their block, but if those 100 uploads happened in one or two days then 100 uploads + 7 days) they could also edit and create “Category:” and “Category talk:” spaces. As this is a mostly technical proposal I’m also requesting feedback from users experienced with the technical side of Wikimedia Commons if this is plausible.

Also note that the status of Upload-only accounts should not be given to Vandalism-only accounts or users who posted legal threats because of others modifying their images. It just makes sense for a project that’s globally so important to not hamper the development of these other projects by issuing full-site bans over non-upload related things.

Comments and votes (upload-only account)[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, as proposer. I actually wanted to propose this either December last year or February this year but forgot due to some time constraints, don't worry I won't add any more proposals here for months so don't think that I'll "spam" this page with more proposals, this is my last one. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: if someone's conduct is lousy, let's just be rid of them. If they are uploading, inevitably people will have to deal with them on something. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this is a non-starter. If someone wants to be unblocked on the basis that they will avoid all noticeboard or talk page discussions for a period, that can be a social agreement without having to invent new project groups and rights. By the way, there is nothing to stop someone who is blocked from following a true clean start process and doing the equivalent, so long as they avoid previous patterns of problematic behaviour and stick to remaining a positive content contributor. -- (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I believe the WMF is already working on namespace specific blocks. So this proposal is a rendered a little moot. GMGtalk 11:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there a phab task for it? -- (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Quite a few. See m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Admins and stewards#Allow further user block options ("can edit XY" etc.). --Majora (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Are there enough admins to handle a change in the process[edit]

As of today's date, English Wilipedia has 527 active admins: W:Wikipedia:List of administrators. That count in and of itself is not an indication of quantity of admin work being done by the active admins, just that they are still active. Commons:Administrators number 224. Does Commons have enough admins to handle the work load, if a new method of blocking is instituted here? Maile66 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Obviously depends on the method that is put in place but I doubt it. 224 is a wildly inaccurate measurement of the actual count of administrators that would handle such requests. It is a wildly inaccurate measurement period as most of the work here is done by a much smaller group of people. There are 224 admins on Commons total. Only 28 of them have green flags (extremely active) on Commons:List of administrators by recent activity and only 87 have done more than 20 admins actions in the last 31 days. --Majora (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Based upon the votes above, there should be no worries. The only thing that is getting any traction at all is changes to the templates, which I am working on. It would be the same templates, but with some additional verbiage. I'm just waiting for a little more time for feedback before I post them, but right now they are here.CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
That is a fair point. I was basing my response on if something like UTRS or the IRC channel came to be. I understand that they probably aren't but I still wanted to make the point that we have substantially less admins actually doing the bulk of the work than that 224 number appears to indicate. --Majora (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Just have in mind, that, unlike the English Wikipedia, we are not required to add templates to the talk pages of blocked users (and often I agree that we do not need to, like obvious LTA cases). That templates have been amended (which is absolutely a good thing) does not yet mean that admins suddenly start using them much more than usual.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to add additional language to existing block templates[edit]

The current templates, such as the {{Blocked}} template, do not provide information about how to appeal a block. In addition, the {{Blocked user}} and the {{Indefblockeduser}} templates look as if they are written for administrators, rather than users. So, the following versions of the templates have been revised to be more user-friendly and provide information about how to request an unblock, should they believe they were blocked in error. The indef block also provides an email address, should the user's talk page also be blocked. This is an alternative to the above proposal for a universal block template. CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

1. {{Blocked}}: You have been blocked for a duration of {{{1}}} heading

Blocked user.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of {{{1}}} for the following reason: {{{2}}}. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Azərbaycanca - Български - বাংলা - Català - Česky - Dansk - Deutsch - Deutsch (Sie-Form) - Zazaki - Ελληνικά - English - Esperanto - Español - Euskara - فارسی - Suomi - Français - Gaeilge - Galego - עברית - हिन्दी - Hrvatski - Magyar - Italiano - 日本語 - 한국어 - Македонски - മലയാളം - မြန်မာဘာသာ - Plattdüütsch - Nederlands - Norsk bokmål - Occitan - Polski - Português - Română - Русский - Simple English - Slovenščina - Svenska - ไทย - Türkçe - Українська - 中文(简体)‎ - 中文(繁體)‎ - +/−

2. {{Blocked user}} template

3. {{Indefblockeduser}} template

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Azərbaycanca - Български - বাংলা - Català - Česky - Dansk - Deutsch - Deutsch (Sie-Form) - Zazaki - Ελληνικά - English - Esperanto - Español - Euskara - فارسی - Suomi - Français - Gaeilge - Galego - עברית - हिन्दी - Hrvatski - Magyar - Italiano - 日本語 - 한국어 - Македонски - മലയാളം - မြန်မာဘာသာ - Plattdüütsch - Nederlands - Norsk bokmål - Occitan - Polski - Português - Română - Русский - Simple English - Slovenščina - Svenska - ไทย - Türkçe - Українська - 中文(简体)‎ - 中文(繁體)‎ - +/−

Comments and votes (block message modification)[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as I propose these templates. Thanks to De728631, Maile66, and Clpo13 for your help with approach, content input, and formatting. CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as a good start toward rectifying a gap in the current blocking process. Maile66 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The actual blocking text, not the template that is slapped on the talk page, can be found here: MediaWiki:Blockedtext. In case anyone also wants to take a look at that. --Majora (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, seems good, see however my comment in the above topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This means, however, that the numerous subpages with translations will have to be updated too. This may take some time. De728631 (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no need at all to change the current templates. Status quo is perfectly fine. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above and my previous comments on the subject. This is a good step towards making the blocking and appeal process clearer to blocked users. clpo13(talk) 15:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the first two. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strongly oppose the last one due to the use of OTRS for this purpose. The use of OTRS for standard unblock requests is out of the remit for the volunteer response team. The only unblock requests we generally handle are those that could potentially involve personally identifiable information (such as impersonation of a real person blocks). I see no indication whatsoever that the OTRS team was even aware of this request to drastically change our remit posted to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard or anywhere else that would allow people whose job you are changing to comment. Second, while there are 96 agents with access to the info-commons queue there are relatively few admins who have access. This proposal would invariable inundate that queue with requests that the majority of agents there would simply not be able to answer leaving actual requests they can answer buried amongst the others. Third, UTRS access is granted without question to all enwiki sysops automatically via OAuth. No request required. OTRS not only requires a request but the signing of a confidentiality agreement that I could very much imagine admins here that would otherwise process unblock requests would not want to do. If you are requesting that all admins get this access for processing these requests that would require a whole additional process and a changing of the very foundation upon which OTRS runs. Fourth, the revocation of talk page access and email that would require another method should be extremely rare anyways. Here, it is used for LTAs and (should be used only for) confirmed socks. At least in my opinion. The way forward here should not be to shove all the work for probable bad actors on the unsuspecting volunteers of OTRS who are probably not even aware of this discussion to begin with but to change the way Commons applies these blocks so that the revocation of normal unblock channels is done much more rarely. --Majora (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Majora: based on the comments above at #Comments and votes (UTRS), some Commons users seem to think OTRS is already used for this purpose. clpo13(talk) 20:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The email is included in the standard block text but only mentions appealing an autoblock. Again, this is a rare occurrence and would involve private information such as IP addresses. Using OTRS for standard unblock appeals is out of our remit. --Majora (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
        • The support team is able to contact the blocking admin or to post a notice at one of the administrative boards. Of course, the support team does not handle the appeal itself but it can serve as messenger. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
          • And say what exactly? You have an unblock request but sorry we can't tell you anything about it? The confidentially agreement is a legally binding document that forbids agents from discussing the details of private conversations held inside of OTRS. Unless that admin is also OTRS with the proper access, which again see point two above, they can't be told any details. This is the way OTRS is set up to run. Any changes to this would require changing that. It is not our job to act as a messenger or a go between. That is putting an unnecessary extra burden on volunteers who give their time to answering these tickets in the first place. --Majora (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
            • @Majora: Again, the member of the OTRS support team can notify one of the administrative boards or the blocking admin. This is common practice at de:wp where indef'd accounts are closed and have no option to appeal on-wiki. In the reply, the OTRS member can provide a link to the opened discussion. Then we have at Commons the option to review the decision to remove talk page access. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
          • What is far more likely to happen, to be honest, is that these tickets will fall into a black hole never to be answered or looked at except by the few agents in that queue who actually want to deal with the extra steps that are being forced upon them. Or to deal with the screaming LTAs that are now aware of and encouraged to appeal towards that method (which we have no way to block their email addresses unless we get an OTRS admin involved). For working the permission queues I can tell you that the moment even the smallest amount of challenge arises in a ticket it goes dormant. Never to be looked at for months. If you are so concerned with getting these problems resolved in a timely manner and you picked OTRS to do that you don't know OTRS. --Majora (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
            • Is it better to leave off the email address?CaroleHenson (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
              • @CaroleHenson: No, it is already in {{Blockedtext}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
                • @Jeff G.: It seems to be in the blockedtext template only for the purpose of autoblocks, which is described there as a block of an IP address, not a user specifically. Could including it here be considered as expanding the scope of that avenue of appeal to all sorts of blocks, not just autoblocks? I share the concerns about OTRS not being the best avenue for this sort of thing, though if it's the only alternative, then possibly it's OK for now. But the email address was not in the templates being updated, nor the direct links from those templates, unless I'm missing something. They mention emails to administrators, but not OTRS. I'm not sure it's a good idea to include that address here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
              • (Edit conflict) In my opinion? Yes, at this time. If you really want to allow for email communications as an alternate there are potential alternative methods. Either create a private mailing list such as those that are used by Enwiki's Arbcom or Commons's oversight team. Or ask for a separate queue to be created inside of OTRS to handle these requests and change the rules so that that queue access is granted automatically to all Commons sysops. This would be equal to Enwiki's UTRS and would segregate the tasks from the info-commons due to the problems I outlined above to a different queue that is more regimented as to its purpose. --Majora (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
                • I don't have a problem with that, since the appealing a block link is on the template. If that's ok with others, too, do I just strike it out of the mock-up above?CaroleHenson (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
                  • I mean, I'm apparently in the minority here so you can do whatever you wish. But I can foresee the numerous problems with doing this. OTRS is not the proper method to deal with standard unblock appeals like this and it doesn't, and won't, improve communication as has been alluded to by other people. OTRS is a black hole for any problematic tickets. All unblock requests are problematic tickets. This is the opposite of improved communication. --Majora (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
                    • @Majora: I agree with what you're saying about permissions-commons, but info-commons tickets are answered quickly and effectively. I'm confident we can handle an increase in volume on this queue. Guanaco (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
                      • I have my doubts as I've worked with OTRS for long enough to know what happens there. But like I said, I'm clearly in the minority here so if you wish to reinstate the email address that is completely up to you. I'm perfectly ok with the first two. I'm even ok with MediaWiki:Blockedtext having the email address for appealing specific circumstances (like autoblock). I just don't think that OTRS should be used for a standard unblock appeal process. --Majora (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Explaining how to appeal seams appropriate. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, to improve communication. I am about to add a dot.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, though I share the OTRS email address concerns. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the first two. Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose the last one with the reference to OTRS (like Majora basically). OTRS is there to provide information about the block and its reasons, not a way to unblock. The actual wording is ambiguous. Maybe the Commons ML is the correct place to contact sysops and/or the community. However, it's ok to me if we rewrite the OTRS part, saying that further information –if needed– can be obtained there (where an agent will probably tell the user to write to the sysop that performed the block). --Ruthven (msg) 08:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed the email address from the third template due to the expressed concerns. As long as the steps for appealing a block remains, I don't think it is necessary and I understand the process issues.CaroleHenson (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you CaroleHenson. I struck out my oppose above. As mentioned previously there are alternatives to using OTRS for this purpose. Mailing lists, private queues, even IRC can be logged if need be and there are bots that do just that for certain wikimedia channels right now (that seemed to be the major complaint of using IRC above). There are alternatives here that I truly believe would make for a far better alternative method to appealing blocks. --Majora (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 14:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Giving blocked users information on unblock options seems like a good thing, but on en. what often happens is that a new user responds rapidly with an unblock template that is perfectly reasonably worded from a typical angry-customer point of view (i.e. "X is an asshole and here's why") and the whole thing is on to an indef with no talk page access before the user even has a clue what the rules are. I think a better block template should make it clearer the user should calm down, read the rules first, be suitably obsequious and contrite, and only then try to make use of what may well be their one unblock opportunity before the whole thing turns into a hammer of humiliations from a jaded audience. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in how this plays out at English Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia: Category:Requests for unblock. Click on any user name to see the progress of their unblock request. Maile66 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as others above. More information doesn't hurt. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The proposed updated text for {{Indefblockeduser}} includes " may add {{unblock}} below this message explaining....". However, the documentation for {{Indefblockeduser}} says this variant is only used on the User: page, not the User_talk: page. It should be directing any unblock request to the the user's talk page, not to their main user page. —RP88 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)