Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN/B or COM:AN/P

Administrator assistance
Vandalism (post | watch)
To report vandalism		 User problems (post | watch)
To report problems with other users you cannot resolve yourself		 Blocks & protections (post | watch)
To discuss blocks and protections		 Other (post | watch)
To post messages that do not fit into any other category
To request an edit to a protected page: Add {{editprotected}} to your request on the talk page. Have an idea or suggestion? Generic community discussion takes place at the Village pump. CheckUser requests → COM:RFCU.
Renames and other bureaucrat requests → COM:BN.		 Other resources: Need help? Try the FAQ, or the Help desk.
Navigation
Administrators' noticeboard
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Vandalism archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Attention archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disputes archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C K
User problems archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Blocks & protections archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Other links
Talk +/-


Important discussion pages (index)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
[graph/hist] Toolserver status
Last update 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
MySQL rosemary up
MySQL daphne up
MySQL yarrow up
Replag s1 0h 0m 0s
Replag s2 0h 0m 6s
Replag s3 0h 0m 0s
Replag s4 0h 0m 0s
Replag s5 0h 0m 0s
More information...


This page is for any user to discuss blocks and protections. Please feel free to add comments. Remember to sign and date all contributions, using "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp. \


Please note: for limited protection like en-wp main page, please state file, reason and time span.


Admins: once you've dealt with a request, please make a note, so that other admins don't waste time responding to it.

Contents


[edit] 119.30.36.40 (talk · contributions)

119.30.36.40 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) appears to be fishing for a block. Please apply the clue-by-four. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done - Huib talk 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The edits continue from 119.30.36.53 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) and 119.30.36.55 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), all in the same C class range belonging to GrameenPhone in Bangladesh. Time for a range block? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the range would be near 119.30.36.32/27, but I'll let a braver admin do it. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover of Gorizont Newspaper was deleted by bot. This is the cover of the publication the article is about. Cover was created by author. Please advise.--Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:India disputed areas map.svg

Please semiprotect File:India disputed areas map.svg, where anonymous users have been abusing the image annotation function to zealously push various points of view back and forth. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Electrostatic loudspeaker.svg

Please protect it. I just uploaded it the day before yesterday, and then a Japanese hacker came and modified it the way that it can't be reverted. (though it actually can, but he also reverts it)

Not done - No need for protection, besides you and the bot there where no other edits on the page. Please be more clear if you are sure it was hacked. Huib talk 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Taxoimagem.png‎

In my opinion, this is a high-risk file, which is used on thousands of pages on Portuguese Wikipedia (see this list). I suggest an indefinite protection of this file to a sysop level. Francisco (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done It is not widely used by various wikis. No protection is needed. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Since that image is used in several thousand images on pt.wiki, I've gone ahead and protected it. With all due respect, I think it's best to use common sense in instances like this, rather than examine what the written policy is (which should be descriptive not proscriptive). Killiondude (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 210.11.188.13 (talk · contributions)

Please impose a more extensive block on 210.11.188.13 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), as vandalism from the address continues after two previous short blocks. More than a dozen blocks on English Wikipedia and indefinitely blocked there since 2007. Also currently blocked on English Wikiquote and previously blocked three times on English Wiktionary and once on Simple English Wikipedia. Has also vandalised at English Wikinews and the French, German and Kurdish Wikipedia editions. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This IP address is used by a proxy of multiple schools. I think that an infinite block is not yet justified, even if all edits have been unconstructive so far. If we block this IP address for some longer limited period, we should IMHO add a notice to the talk page that provides a hint how it is still possible to edit Commons from that IP address using an established account — comparable to the practice at en-wp (see the talk page there). Do we have similar templates? --AFBorchert (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we have {{blocked school}} here, which can be used on the block reason field so that blocked users can see the information provided on it. I too do not think that an indef. block is justified here but I suggest applying short blocks first, then longer ones if the vandalism/disruption continues. Cordially, —Dferg (disputatio) 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to the template. I've blocked the IP address for one week. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page of Wikimedia Commons

Could you please unprotect Wikimedia Commons please because there are a lot of people who wants to edit it now ok. Happy Thanksgiving 75.141.100.115 00:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You may use the talkpage Talk:Main Page to request an edit. Use {{editprotected}} so that an administrator will find your proposal to change the protected page. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Freedom of panorama

You may want to protect this for awhile. There's an ongoing edit war between a user who insists on adding a private opinion and the prior text of the page that included only settled law. -Nard the Bard 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an opinion, just what is written in the law. Pieter Kuiper didn't even bother to read the relevant law. ברוקולי (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You can't even cite this "law". All you cite is one legal scholar. That is not enough to make a work free for Commons to host it. -Nard the Bard 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Article 23 specifically says it is free. ברוקולי (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No, article 23 says applied art, buildings, and sculptures are free. Not 2d artwork. -Nard the Bard 01:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No, the article didn't exclude 2D artwork so it is useful art exactly like sculptures. ברוקולי (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it for 2 weeks, but I think this should be moved from AN now and to somewhere constructive.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You protected the wrong version. Please restore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it is the exact version that should be without your false claims which contradict the law. ברוקולי (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
He protected it at the autoconfirmed level, which won't do much good with any of the involved participants, but hey, might make you think twice before editing... -Nard the Bard 11:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to the full-protection needed (semi is a bit pointless here). Pieter, of course it is on the wrong version :)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
These users are fighting all over the place. I just realized someone must think I've taken sides in some battle; I went to FOP after it entered my watch-list after an uncontroversial edit I'd done, saw this edit battle, and had a 'eureka! moment'. Recently, I was getting weird responses to some pretty chill copyright discussions and what seemed like a low key request, which escalated greatly for little to no (at the time) apparent reason. Now I see that there's a large battle being waged all over the place, and I stepped into this skirmish of this battle accidentally. I don't even understand what this particular edit battle or the larger war is about; seems to be some meta hatred that keeps fuses short. I think I passed by and perhaps stepped into a skirmish in the same war somewhere else. I can't figure out what the ideological stands of either side are, let alone who's right or wrong outside of the little skirmish I found myself in but I feel there's gotta be something generating all the hostility. And I'm not asking the participants to tell me. Rather, I think some bureaucrats need to end this war, not just block edits on individual pages. Is commons like en? Is there an ArbCom? Contributing isn't enjoyable when I know these folks are fighting skirmishes all over the place and I could step on a land mine at any time. - it makes me, and surely other productive editors who get pulled in, unhappy editors. --Elvey (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I know the feeling! I've been looking at the FOP discussion more closely, and it feels more like 2 groups of people who are fundamentally opposed to one another's viewpoint and are attacking each other's methods, and each other, rather than addressing the issues and attempting to reach consensus. There is an underlying dispute here of which this is one element. In answer to your question, commons doesn't have an effective dispute resolution system when things escalate to this level: there is no ArbCom, there isn't even a real equivalent to RFC. We have the disputes noticeboard which IMO should be the RFC analog, however it has ended up being functionally equivalent to the AN. Consolidating the discussion is probably not possible, but I think it is worth establishing where the discussion has been occuring...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've created a page in my userspace to try and consolidate a list of relevant discussions and asked the involved editors for their assistance. Hopefully this will help the rest of us figure out what is going on...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the validation; I was starting to doubt my own judgment. I don't think further discussion is productive until we have a bureaucrat willing to take administrative action. Where can I find a list of bureaucrats? I've looked and found more of the history; I find I'm not neutral; I've accused Pieter Kuiper of personally attacking Deror avi (and had forgotten about it).--Elvey (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The list of bureaucrats is here--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Bureaucrats have no special standing (other than the respect they have from many users) in dispute resolution. Commons does not have an overarching dispute resolution process other than the various noticeboards. So I think letting Nilfanion's process run for a while (in which the dispute is characterised better and a more detailed history is collaboratively constructed) will be a good place to start. At that point perhaps an RfC to gather consensus, and then a few admins working in concert? ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get established on that page. If we can have the history of the dispute and interactions between the users established somewhere it gives the community the ability to work out what's going on. At the moment I've got the basics (links to most discussions), it like to get a timeline done too. Ideally I'd like to resolve the content problem without needing it to go further but I'm not convinced that possible either :(--Nilfanion (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotect File:Brittneylaramee.JPG

Please semiprotect File:Brittneylaramee.JPG, which a cluster of open proxies from Hong Kong is persistently using as an image annotation sandbox and consider blocking the relevant proxies (listed below). This goes back approximately two months, so that may be a good duration for the protection as well. I'd also like to remind all administrators to watchlist Commons:Open proxy detection if you have not already done so.

Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Page semi-protected. NW (Talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 212.121.219.1 (talk · contributions)

Please block 212.121.219.1 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is persistently using image annotations for POV-pushing purposes in maps in spite of warnings. Currently blocked on English Wikipedia, simple English Wikipedia, and simple English Wiktionary. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done by Kanonkas. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OrophinBot (talk · contributions)

Please block the bot for now. See User_talk:Bennylin#Special:Contributions.2FOrophinBot. -- User:Docu at 14:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped the bot now. It was just a run test. Bennylin (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, request withdrawn. -- User:Docu at 14:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. Bennylin (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] file File:Breaking.png , Wikinews logo missing categories

This file is marked having no categories, but it is blocked. Can someone add categories, please ? Best wishes 06:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What category do you propose? Bennylin (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
unprotected, the file is not used in an extent (anymore) that it requires full protection. However, I thought it is possible now to allow editing but forbid reuploads, how? --Martin H. (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Upload protection?. I know it was there, but for some reason it disappeared. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I found your announcement on VP and yes, see File:Wikimedia-button-for-homepage.png, this is upload=sysop proteced. I know it is(was) possible, but ok, my suggestion that the move protection for files is a protection to reupload was wrong. Probieren geht über Studieren ;) --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Added an appropriate cat. Thanks Martin. -Nard the Bard 17:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Parenti93

I am requesting block for this user. He is not only uploading copyrighted photos but intentionally make cropped, mirrored versions of the original images thus making search for originals extremely hard, and at the same time avoiding tineye search --Justass (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Not before a warning. User now warned, and on my watchlist. --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_%26_protections"