This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was: User image and user page policies amended per Mauser's proposal with Imperialles's wording, with an inactivity time of 12 months. Closed early under snowball clause per administrative consensus. Get cracking, patrollers! -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this idea gathered a surprising amount of support voices on SH, here is a proper CT vote for it.

Suggesttion: make the following additions to the Userpage and User Image policy.

• For the Userpage policy - Rule 11: Per a consensus decision on XX/OX/2009, all users with no contributions for more than 18 months are labelled as Inactive and are ineligible for the 3 user images. Their userpages thus should be replaced with Template:Inactive to inform other users of their status and allow their images to be deleted.

• For the Image policy - Rule 7: Users with no contributions for more than 18 months are labelled as Inactive and are ineligible for 3 user images.

The main purpose of the addition: to get rid of hundreds of stupid images uploaded by long inactive users. Details at Forum:SH:They've been gone for too long!. Mauser^Comlink 05:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

SupportEdit

1. Mauser^Comlink 05:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
2. I'd rather see 6 months instead of 18, but otherwise it's a great idea. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 05:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Definitely. Grunny ^(Talk) 05:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
4. I had to think a while about this, but I've made up my mind. Personally though Master Jonathan, I think 6 months is way too little. Cyfiero 06:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
5. - Esjs^(Talk) 06:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
6. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 06:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
7. --Eyrezer 06:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
8. A necessary evil in this case in the name of economics. Andykatib 06:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Though the wording should be improved. --Imperialles 09:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
   • You're welcome to try in comments. Mauser^Comlink 09:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 15:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
11. --Darth tom (Imperial Intelligence) 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support; specifically, support Imperialles's wording, below. jSarek 08:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support, with Imp's wording and template. Additionally, does anyone object to adding a simple plurality vote on the specific length of the inactivity timeout at the bottom of this page, with options from 6 to 18 months in 3 month increments? -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 15:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Not I, Culator. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Definitely support. Culator, please do. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 16:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Too many useless images. Use Photobucket or something like that instead. Wookieepedia isn't an art gallery. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
20. CC7567 ^(talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
21. JangFett ^Talk 21:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
22. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 06:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 13:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Graestan^(Talk) 15:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
25. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 15:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Cylka^-talk- 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Now, if we could cut inactive users from Wookieepedia:Wookieepedians, life would be good. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 11:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • If not for the number of pages linking to it, I would put that one for deletion on sight anyway. Mauser^Comlink 11:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
28. ToRsO bOy 18:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
29. As if my vote is needed, at this point....Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 04:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
30. –Victor ^{(talk page)} 06:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 10:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DeclineEdit

CommentsEdit

Please leave any suggestions here instead of the original SH thread. Also, please do not add any additional vote-splitting options. Mauser^Comlink 05:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the interest of fairness, should there be a grace period (say 3 days) after a user's page is marked as inactive before their images are deleted? If a user has his/her user page or talk page marked as "watch", they should get an email notification that their page has been updated - enough warning for them to come check out what's going on and become active again. Just trying to allow as much "benefit of doubt" as possible. - Esjs^(Talk) 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. You can't delete them without a warning first, though I wonder how many times that will reset the time for those that just check one thing every 18 months.. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't work quite like that. Once the image is no longer used on any page, within the day it appears on the Unused Files page. Since that day, it takes mote than a week to delete the image - a period long enough for any who want to actually use the image. Mauser^Comlink 06:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Well I'm all for recycling images if people want to use them for other means, although I agree that a very specific picture of something non-Star Wars would have difficulty surviving past that period. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording should be changed to something like:

• For the Userpage policy - Rule 11: All users with no contributions for more than 18 months are considered inactive and lose their privileges in regards to user images. Their userpages should be replaced with Template:Inactive to inform other users of their status and allow their images to be deleted.
• For the Image policy - Rule 7: Users with no contributions for more than 18 months are considered inactive and lose their privileges in regards to user images.

Also, the proposed Inactive template should probably be made more lightweight. Something like User:Imperialles/Sandbox#Template:Inactive, perhaps? --Imperialles 09:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me to either of those. Mauser^Comlink 09:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I foresee a slight issue with deleting the user images, unless we are going to do it through the Unused Images category. I bring this up because of the possibility of user images used in signatures: if they're deleted, we're left with a block of ugly redlink anywhere the signature is. Of course, if we're doing it through the Unused Images category thing, than it'll be fine, since they won't be considered "unused". Also, does this apply for any subpages as well? Or do those get bahleeted? ^Jorrel_Fraajic 15:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason we're doing it this way is to cause the images to show up on Special:UnusedFiles. With the possible exception of obvious non-Star Wars images, they'd go through the usual weekly roundup. Sig images wouldn't become unused. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 15:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright, that's what I figured from reading above. Just thought I'd ask the specifics. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 15:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity duration voteEdit

This is a related vote to determine the length of inactivity required to replace a userpage with the proposed inactivity template and delete user images that become unused. The initial options available will run from a minimum of 6 months (which even I think is unreasonably short) to the original proposal of 18 months. Due to the number of options, this will be decided by a simple plurality, and if there is a tie at the end of two weeks, the tied options will be subject to a short runoff vote. Additional options may be added, as this vote is explicitly not requiring a majority or any particular proportion for consensus. Simply, per the discussion above, the option with the highest number of votes will be implemented. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 20:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

6 monthsEdit

1. Never let it be said that Culator is always crueler than I. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 21:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
2. However, if a user leaves a note on their userpage such as {{Vacation}} explaining their lengthy absence and when they expect to return, they should be given a month or two after when they say they will return, even if that puts them over six months. This is to allow for extended forced absences such as possibly military service. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 05:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
4. I do agree that vacation messages get leeway though, per above. -Thunderforge 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

9 monthsEdit

12 monthsEdit

1. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 20:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Imperialles 20:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
3. More than enough; besides, users can always restore their pages if they return. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
6. As you wish. Mauser^Comlink 02:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Grunny ^(Talk) 05:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 13:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Graestan^(Talk) 15:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Per CC ^Jorrel_Fraajic 15:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
11. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Cylka^-talk- 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Per CC. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 11:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Much better. –Victor ^{(talk page)} 06:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 10:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 11:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Nice round number. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

15 monthsEdit

18 monthsEdit

1. - Esjs^(Talk) 06:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. I think this will serve our purposes sufficiently. Remember, this is mostly about clearing user images, not punishing our users. jSarek 10:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Building off of what Master Jonathan has said, I believe that users who at least say that they're going to leave deserve some leeway. It's rather disrespectful to their intentions if we enforce this policy just because they're not back when they say they are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression that this policy is supposed to be directed (at least) at users who leave without any sort of notice. CC7567 ^(talk) 06:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)