Commons:Requests and votes/Noodle snacks (2)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 4;  Oppose = 8;  Neutral = 1 - Didn't really count Mike.lifeguard's or Dschwen's comments as votes, but in any case this request for adminship does not pass the 75% threshold and is therefore closed as unsuccessful. Patrícia msg 14:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Noodle snacks

Vote

Links for Noodle snacks: Noodle snacks (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I have contributed 12 featured pictures and have trusted user status. I frequently contribute images that I need help to identify. Currently I use the {{rename}} tag, which is slow and inconvenient. Per Commons:Rename the image renaming function is now available for admins and will only be available for them. In the interests of efficiency and my own limited time, I request the administrator tools principally for that purpose. A bump in the road will come from User_talk:Noodle_snacks#Relicensing, (there is relevant content at Dschwen's talk page as well). Noodle snacks (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

First RfA: Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Noodle snacks --Leyo 10:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question in your last RFA insufficient knowledge of licensing was mentioned and it is also the turning point in the "bump", which I am glad you pointed out. Based on this I would like to ask you how you in the role as an admin would deal with a case, where an experienced user has user defined license templates, which is transcluded on the users image pages, and that user then changes the license to a more restrictive one. What would your actions be if you noticed this change? --Slaunger (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best option would be to create a new template with the licence as a parameter (eg {{User:Noodle snacks/Liscence|GDFL|CC-BY-SA}}. Newer (post the licence change) images from the user can use the new template directly, preventing mass licence changes (without setting someone's watchlist on fire anyway). Old images can still use the old template, which would just transclude the appropriate case of the new template. The old image template *could* be protected from editing, but any changes would appear on the watchlists of whoever cleaned it up, so no real reason to imo. The other option is to subst: the template, but this goes against the reason that many people are using templates, convenience. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not substing however goes against policy. Convenience is not really an argument, there are more convenient alternatives. Ask me on my talk page if you are interested. --Dschwen (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Info The policy is here:Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Regarding licenses and I agree with Dschwen. You can actually still get the (almost full) convenience by subst'ing a user-defined license template, if the user-defined license template is defined as a frame (e.g. a wikitable) containing a valid license template and perhaps a personalized template containing detailed contact information, informing about what a potential user should do if wanting to negotiate other terms than those stated in the license, show the equipment, as long as it does not contain other licensing templates. When that template is subst'ed in, the license template and the user-defined info template are still there as templates since substitution is not recursive (unless you do special tricks). Thereby you will still be able to modify the user-specific informative template concerning equipment, etc., and have the convenience of propagating that to the image pages. Changes to the license hereafter would then require edits on each page, which is A Good Thing, as this is not normally something you do unless you add further possibilities, so users are pinged on their watchlists when this happens. You cannot change the wiki table frame around the license and equipment info template afterwards without doing that on each individual page though, but that is rarely needed either. --Slaunger (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes substing licences is ideal (and what I do), but I was asked how I would deal with an experienced user. Muhammad Mahdi Karim has less than 250 images and has been dealt with by substitution. But fir's case is vastly more complicated and hasn't been fixed. User:Fir0002/400, User:Fir0002/150MT, User:Fir0002/200 1.4, User:Fir0002/200, User:Fir0002/85, User:Fir0002/20D and User:Fir0002/17 are still showing the wrong licences months later. One of his templates was reverted, but this is also a poor solution, since images he uploaded after the change are showing the wrong licence. The method proposed above requires minimal work, gets the right licences on the right dates and prevents changes from going unnoticed in the future. If you had asked me what to do for an "inexperienced" user, the answer would be quite different. It may be possible to meet policy on a technicality by changing the template such that the licence template was a parameter. For example: {{User:Noodle snacks/Liscence|{{self|GDFL|CC-BY-SA}}}}. The template doesn't contain any licensing info at all in that case, it'd be machine readable, and the user would get to keep the template. Its probably gaming the system a bit though. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, Ok, so you would state the license as a parameter to your user license on each image page? I never thought about that solution. That is actually quite clever, and it would mean that a license change would not pass unseen on each image page. But it would be possible to game the system, because you could change the implementation of the user license template such that it ignored the specified license template and replaced it with a hard coded one in the user template. If the change was only subtle, like going from {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL-1.2}} that could pass unnoticed for quite some time. So, that would be a bad idea, although creative;-) An acceptable solution is to have the license and user-defined template side-by-side on the image page. --Slaunger (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, but if the licence was a parameter, and the user did later change the template, it'd only be one revert away from repair (vs a confusing mess) as new images would not be affected. Plus, I doubt you could convince fir to "go through" several thousand images subst:ing. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Concerning Fir0002, I think you were the first one to bring that up in your "bump", and I do not know if you have noticed, but there is an ongiong discussion about this at User talk:Fir0002. --Slaunger (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment User_talk:Dschwen#Re:Relicensing and User_talk:Noodle_snacks#Relicensing are not exactly demo cases of diplomacy, but I did not look into the history before that. --Foroa (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Renaming with the {{Rename}} template is only one option. For the original uploader, the {{Badname}} tag is a much faster way. It only needs a little more effort from the author (re-uploading with the correct name). Lycaon (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a lot of upload bandwidth, being in a country with a relatively low population density. This was the method I was using prior to being able to {{rename}} images. Just an imo, but if Trusted Users can use the {{rename}} tag, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to move things directly. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up moved to my talk page. Lycaon (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Noodle_snacks_(2)&oldid=33083779"