Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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 → COM:CHU. 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 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Blocks & protections archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Other links Talk +/-

Important discussion pages (index) Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Graphics: Graphics discussion Ask for image improvement Categories discussion Copyright questions OTRS noticeboard Contact administrators: Vandalism reports User problems Blocks & protections General (none of the above) CheckUser requests Disputes noticeboard IRC Mailing list

[graph/hist] Toolserver status Last update 04:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC) MySQL rosemary up MySQL daphne up MySQL yarrow up Replag s1 0h 0m 0s Replag s2 0h 0m 9s Replag s3 0h 0m 4s Replag s4 0h 0m 2s Replag s5 0h 0m 1s Replag s6 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 1 Portada 2 Edit of File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit2.jpg 3 File:Karte Deutschland.png 4 Template:Edit/doc 5 photo permissions 6 Proposed guideline to unprotect 7 212.121.219.1 (talk · contributions) again

[edit] Portada

Please unprotect portada because I want to edit Portada please. Please unprotect it please ok. 75.141.100.115 06:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: What do you want to do there? --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Portada is Common's main page when choosing spanish as the default languaje. It should remain fully protected indefinitely, just like Main Page, and changes requested at the talk page and performed by admins. Belgrano (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not done, please propose your changes in Talk:Portada. —Dferg ^(disputatio) 14:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit2.jpg

Hi. Can an admin please edit the picture for 2 things:

1. Changing the link [[:fr:Champs Élysées|Champs Élysées]] by [[:fr:Avenue des Champs-Élysées|Champs Élysées]] in the French description
2. Adding the Category:Avenue des Champs-Élysées in the 1940s

Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Karte Deutschland.png

Please unporotect and/or at least move to Category:Blank maps of Germany--TUBS 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Germany moved to Category:Blank maps of Germany. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy. Thx. --TUBS 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Edit/doc

Please semi-protect the above. It seems to keep getting edits from new users that are on the wrong page. -- User:Docu at 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] photo permissions

Hi, I am working on a bio with the subject of the bio and we have used photos that are his personal property. The photos were uploaded in wikimedia and he used the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. All of the photos were taken off of the site by a bot. I am not sure what we have to do to get approval to use his personal property. Can you please advise?

Thanks. I have searched through the documentation and I thought we were doing it correctly. The site is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenio_Advincula "Katagwa (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)"

You are required to provide permission from the copyright holder of the photographs. The copyright holder is not necessarily the physical owner of a (copy of the) photograph who is also the subject of the photos here but the photographer or publisher. The first requirement is to provide at least correct source and author information and not upload photographs someone else created under the here wrong "own work" option as you are not the creator of the photographs nor the copyright holder. If the source and author information is corrected you can proceed providing a written permission from those copyright holders to COM:OTRS, the permission must allow everyone to reuse the image everywhere for every purpose under the terms of a free license, see Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. All of the photographs and pictures are original, not copies. Arcenio Advincula is the owner of all of them with one exception. The pictures that he is in were taken with his camera. He has asked that these be included in his bio. The one exception is "AJA_and_first_patch1961.jpg" which was taken by a close friend of his and I will request written permission from that individual and submit same. If Arcenio Advincula is the owner of the original, not copies, and the photos were taken by him of with his camera, I am not sure who else to ask for permission. He told me that he sent in an official letter claiming ownership and granting permission for use. I have asked him to resend the document."Katagwa (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"

[edit] Proposed guideline to unprotect

Would an administrator please unprotect Commons:Categories (introductory text) and Commons:Naming categories (proposed guideline), this in order to improve the text. There isn't much use in protecting it as the person reverting is an administrator ignoring that "references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." -- User:Docu at 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Unprotected. I think ŠJů's edits are not policy change. And Commons:Naming categories is just a proposal. Kwj2772 (msg) 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: historically, there have been never a category naming rule (execept that "all categories should be in English) and this guideline in Commons:Naming categories contained the current naming rule, so the current policy. The proposed changes by ŠJů is just too ambiguous and too wide an opens de door for any name. So, widening category naming rules must be discussed on the talk pages and reach a consensus before it becomes a proposal. --Foroa (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your method. I believe protection should be avoided when you are in dispute and it is not an obvious abuse. I believe you should at least have ask decision by another administrator. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it concerns a fundamental change of the currently applicable commons category naming rule since 5 years. When a user keeps chaning it in a fundamental way without any form of consensus (see the talk page), and the user keeps changing it, the protection of the page is justified. If you want to allow anyone to change current naming rules without any sort of consensus, then you have to ask at least the decision of another administrator before unblocking it. --Foroa (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Foroa, you are who enfroces steadily your own opinion despite of current practices and without a concensus (you e. g. deleted many category redirects and many replaced categories repeatedly in despite of rules). You are deleted even the sentence "terms which don't exist in English should be used in original language or in the most widespread form" What reasonable could be expressed by this your act? You ignore all opionions and arguments of others in discussions. An irrational negativism isn't a good way of constructive cooperation. --ŠJů (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For all disputed changes, the rule on commons is that one reaches first a consensus on the talk pages before changing the main pages. This is even more so on sensistive pages that contains the Commons rules. --Foroa (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

See above for reply. Btw., now you abused your sysop rights to enforcement of your pointless edit of Commons:Naming categories once again. You ignored the objection at the discussion page. --ŠJů (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Foroa protected Commons:Naming categories again. Kwj2772 (msg) 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please guys, discus the text at the talk page without name calling. When that's finished and consensus is reached, the page is unprotected.

Unprotecting it now would only resort in unhelpful edits. Multichill (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The only way to know that is to unprotect it. The edit warring admin should obviously avoid to protect it. Some already improved it while it was protected and Commons:Categories didn't have any problems since it was unprotected.

Is there anyone that actually disagrees with SJu's change? Obviously some just veto it because SJu added it, but that doesn't seem to prevent them from applying it in practice. -- User:Docu at 11:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 212.121.219.1 (talk · contributions) again

212.121.219.1 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) was previously blocked per my request. Currently subject long-term blocks on other projects, including one-year blocks at both English Wikipedia and simple English Wikipedia, and I think a longer block is in order here too, since the current disruptive edits have been going on since September and continued after the previous one-week block expired. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, looks like a roadrunner IP, but inactive for 10 days now - so watch out for such disrutpive use of image annotations related to kashmir from 212.121.219.0/19 (212.121.192.0 - 212.121.223.255). --Martin H. (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I watchlisted a bunch of files edited by this anon. Also looked through the contributions of other anons that had edited those same files and watchlisted a few more files as a result. I can't really tell who is pushing what view, but it looks like there are several sides trying to settle international boundary disputes by edit warring on Commons over image annotations on any map that happens to include the Indian subcontinent. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)