Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Blocks & protections 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard | Archives

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

More PD-ineligible requests

None of these images meet the threshold of originality. They are all just simple colored shapes. We are requesting an administrator to mark these images as PD-ineligible. Thank you.

See [1]. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While there's a large gray area here, I suspect that at least some of these images may in fact pass the threshold of originality in some jurisdictions. (Indeed, I'd say that if File:Disambig.svg is ineligible for copyright, then so is most likely File:Commons-logo.svg too.) Also, an additional issue with SVG files is that the source of a vector image may be copyrightable as a computer program even if the final rendered image is ineligible for copyright. (Compare with the case of vector fonts in the U.S.)

Given these issues, and given that their authors have, in fact, explicitly released them under free licenses, I'd rather rely on the explicit releases than the always uncertain claim of uncopyrightability. If, indeed, these files are retagged as {{PD-ineligible}}, I'd strongly suggest taking advantage of the (little-known) optional argument to that template to visibly retain the original license as a fallback, as in e.g. "{{PD-ineligible|cc-by-sa-3.0}}". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI- Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ksd5_marking_various_graphics_PD-ineligible --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think File:Featured_article_star.svg and its derivatives are ineligible. Even File:Disambig.svg has some degree of originality. Only File:Red x.svg is definitely ineligible. Sv1xv (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with others here. To me, only the "red x" images seems to undoubtedly be ineligible for PD. Killiondude (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As do I. Most of these images meet the threshold of originality. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT I'm the originator of the red X SVG. Regardless of the copyright status I'd gladly multi-license that with PD. Though the ones that are widely used are various derivatives and not the one I started with. --Gmaxwell (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, multi-licensing anything with PD doesn't make sense (they're contradicting since one's asserting copyright and one's saying the opposite). Did you mean something like {{PD-ineligible|cc-by-sa-3.0}}? Anyway, I don't think all of these are ineligible. However, I do understand the argument that we should use PD-ineligible for freely licensed stuff, not just non-free stuff, when appropriate. We need to be consistent. Using something like PD-self for ineligible stuff gives out the message even if it doesn't change anything. It's saying if you make something as unoriginal as this, you can claim complete copyright to it. The questionable ones, like the FA star, shouldn't be changed by someone other than the potential copyright holder. It's just too much of a gray area to be doing that. Rocket000 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's true, but then we should start by changing the copyright to {{PD-ineligible}} on the Wikimedia logo. We should apply the same standards to our logos as we do to logos of other companies/websites. Besides, the formulation of {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} only adds to the confusion between trademark and copyright restrictions. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Template:SOlicense

I do not know why, but the template is locked since long times, and all my questions to the locker Gmaxwell remain unanswered. I tried at different pages as Commons talk:Stroke Order Project#3 Categories to get any response, but in vain.

The template contains some errors, and as long as it is locked nobody can repair it. I have a tested version, Template:SOovers, where the errors are fixed. What is the reason that Gmaxwell locked it, and holds it locked all the time? I plead for unlocking. --Sarang (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Done I brought it down to semi-protection. I don't think it should be protected at all, but, well, it's a compromise I guess. Rocket000 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Tt is really a good compromise and everybody should be able to live with that. --Sarang (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Copied from Eusebius's talk page:

"

What can I do now to lift the block on my account User:Trojan? I'd like to upload new images (it are no screenshots but pictures taken with my digital camera and if I had no block, I would upload them) Do I have to start a new account? Or else: could you upload the pictures for me?

83.82.233.225 13:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You've been banned. It means you're out, you can't create a new account, you can't contribute anymore. You had it coming, and for a long time. If you have good reasons to request for a block lift, go to COM:AN. But I see no reason why you should be allowed to come back. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it was wrong, but please forget it. I have a reason to come back. I have very nice pictures which I want to upload so that they can be used on Wikimedia projects worldwide. Could you please give me some time to let me prove I'm a good user on Commons? 83.82.233.225 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't get me. For me, you have spoiled your last chance and I WILL NOT UNBLOCK YOU. I don't trust you, and many admins won't either. For me, you've been nothing but disruptive to the community and you're banned, full stop. Ask at COM:AN, dont ask me, you have absolutely no chance. --Eusebius (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, but how can I upload my pictures now? 83.82.233.225 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

YOU CAN'T, YOU'RE BANNED. --Eusebius (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"

Info: I've indefblocked this user, I've refused to unblock him and I've stated my reasons on his talk page. I've suggested him to come here because there were no chance that I would take myself the decision to unblock him. --Eusebius (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you were already once unblocked with the note "promised to behave, no more chances after this". I hope you can understand why people might be reluctant to unblock you again now that you've apparently wasted that last chance?

If you'd sincerely like to show your willingness to contribute useful content to Commons, I'd suggest letting someone else review those pictures and, if they indeed find them useful and legit, upload them to Commons on your behalf. One option would be for you to upload your pictures to Wikipedia, since you don't seem to be blocked there, and let other users transfer them to Commons. More generally, you're a lot more likely to succeed in eventually getting your ban lifted here if you can point to some other Wikimedia project where you've consistently been a good contributor. Of course, it goes both ways — if you misbehave on Wikipedia, having already been banned from Commons, you're a lot more likely to get permanently blocked there too. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But how do you know it are my pictures? The pictures I'd like to upload are find useful and legit (because I've taked them with my digital camera), so I will upload them on a wikipedia.

If my pictures are good, could you lift my block? 83.82.233.225 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Asking someone else upload pictures to Commons for you may be viewed as ban evasion and meat puppetry; I would discourage that approach. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, simply publishing some free images somewhere outside Commons and letting people know that they may be uploaded to Commons can hardly be considered ban evasion. After all, we can't actually forbid banned users from, say, posting their images on Flickr under a free license, can we? Certainly I don't believe that's the intent of the relevant policies: a real case of ban evasion by "meatpuppetry" would involve asking your friend to upload the pictures for you because you've been banned, and indeed the rule mainly exists because it's often hard to tell if your "friend" is actually real or just imaginary.

Also, one should consider, case by case, when a particular rule should be enforced and when it's more productive not to. Technically, Mr. 83.82.233.225 is engaged in ban evasion just by posting here, and ought to be blocked for it. As long as he limits his edits to rational discussion here, though, I at least have no particular inclination to do so. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If I upload my pictures somewhere outside Commons, how do you know it is me? 83.82.233.225 14:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are interested in whether they are from "you" (the User here on Commons) or not as we can not forbid you, like Ilmari said, to publish your work elsewhere. We will attribute the pseudonym or clearname you selected outside and we will review the images if they are likely own work or not as we usually do with images transferred from outside. --Martin H. (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And if it are good images, could you lift my block then? 74.38.117.18 03:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (I'm on another computer now)

The issue at hand are not the good images you uploaded but rather the bad ones. You uploaded loads of copyright violations and abused the project as your own private image scaler. In total, you probably did more damage to the project than you helped it. So unless you are willing to change this behaviour, the quality of the images is only a secondary matter. As you have been unblocked before and demonstrated the same problematic behaviour you had promised to change, there's not much good faith left for you right now. My suggestion would be to contribute constructively to another project and not get in trouble there. If you demonstrate that you can be involved in a project over a longer course of time without generating trouble, maybe someone will unblock you. This will take some time, so I wouldn't hope for an unblock in the next half year or so. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 04:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually I think it is a good idea to give him at least one more chance. I know the man from this account and I talked with him after I saw his User-page with the message he is blocked. He said he was not using this site to fill it with vandalism, he needs the smaller images for a special site he is working on, about station identifications.

I have the following reasons for his unblock.

He promised he will stop.
He also uploaded good images. He told me he uses the account Trojanbackoncommons on the Dutch Wikipedia to upload good images.
He just uploaded the copyright images to make them smaller. With Paint the quality is bad, but with the Wikimedia software he can get high quality. He also wrote that the images can be deleted after he finished with them.

I know the man who has the account Trojan, he is a very good friend of mine. I'm really sure he won't do it again, so please give him one more chance! He don't deserve this block, so please end it immediately! 68.228.89.136 03:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Point 1: He has already made and broken such promises several times. Point 3: This is one of the core reasons why he has been blocked. Commons is not his personal imaging software. When he was explained that and told to stop, he didn't listen and did it again. --Eusebius (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Point 1. That doesn't mean he will break it once again. Maybe he really won't do it again and I'm optimistic about it. I think one more chance is enough to let him proof he also can be a great user.

Point 3. I think he knew he was wrong, but he also wrote you can delete it after he finished, so he really thought about it.

I also think it will discourage users if you don't unblock Trojan. A fourth reason to unblock him. Just do it! Please do not doubt anymore, give it just one more go. If need temporarily.

65.203.133.151 21:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 65.203.133.151. 65.203.133.147 00:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Per Eusebius correct decision and ChrisiPKs forecast on a possible future unblock. This also applies for any new accounts created by this user, e.g. the mentioned User "Trojanbackoncommons", or any older accounts he maybe operate on nl.wiki or another project. --Martin H. (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done --Martin H. (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU HAVE TO UNBLOCK TROJAN RIGHT NOW. I think he started the account Trojanbackoncommons to show he really can be a good user. He did what ChrisiPK suggested: he contributed to another project by uploading images on other wiki-sites. 67.153.152.98 00:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please please please, give him one more chance on Commons! He don't deserve this block, so please lift it! 67.153.152.98 04:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I really think it's better to lift his block once. It is better for him (he should now understand what he did wrong), so he can upload his good images. And I also think it will be better for you all, because you don't have to be angry anymore on Trojan. It's a human you know, humans make mistakes and I think it was just a mistake from Trojan, no vandalism, but a mistake. 67.153.152.98 04:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

68.228.89.136, 65.203.133.151, 65.203.133.147 and 67.153.152.98, thanks for your help and empathy!

Well: Eusebius said I have absolutely no chance. But now there are already 4 people who demand to lift my block on my account User:Trojan. It are no admins, but they are really not less than admins, we are all important for Commons, because we can all help to construct Commons. I really want to rejoin those people! I ready for a brand new start on Commons! No more station identification-screenshots, but only photos I've taken on my travels! Please give me that chance and in the next few months I'll show I'm a really good user! Maybe an idea to give me some sort of limited account? I mean: I'm only able to do a few things on Commons, and if it goes well, lift this account and then I can upload again! 83.82.233.210 10:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Eusebius's talk page:

" Dear Sir/Madam

I'm the father of Trojan and I discovered he is blocked. After I've discovered it, I talked with him and told him I will tell my opinion to you and I didn't tell him what I think.

Something has gone wrong in the communication with Trojan and he did not get a fair block. Those are my words. Trojan is no vandalism-person. He is innocent. He didn't lie against me. I don't believe he did that. He did not understand why it was wrong to upload TV-screenshots, until I told him about fair use which is not permitted on Commons. But when you blocked him he didn't know why it was wrong to upload TV-screenshots. He assumed he was joked. That's what I mean when I say innocent.

In real life Trojan is a very kind man. And I promised him he wouldn't be blocked forever. I will help him out of this block. Until last man stand. I'm optimistic, if I was pessimistic, I would have a hard time helping Trojan the way he deserves.

If you don't forgive him, - I pray you will, but IF you don't - he is looking out of a block while he actually didn't knew why he did it wrong. And I ensure you that is bad. Trojan has a serious sleep deprivation because of this block.

I really hope you can lift his block.

Yours faithfully,

83.82.233.210 09:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC) "

I'm really fed up with this guy and his "supporting IPs". Trojan: if your activity or lack or activity on Commons causes you distress or health problems, I suggest you seek professional help. This is not ironical, you may just need it. --Eusebius (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I already did that, but also our psychiatrist said it would be better if I can make a new start. He also said I haven't abused my last chance, according to him (and also to my and my father) it was just miscommunication. 83.82.233.210 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not done per above. Feel free to re-request in about six months after you have shown good contributions somewhere else, but please stop bugging people or your IPs will also be blocked. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Request for unblock by IP:99.226.115.81

I received the following request on my en.wiki talk page. This is the address that filed deletion requests for lots of historical maps and did not stop when requested, see Special:Contributions/99.226.115.81. Currently it is blocked until 2010-08-18 by another admin (initially I had indefed it) and I would not like to overrule him:

This IP address is used on 3 different computers in a home and has been blocked on the Wikimedia Commons because one of the people using another of the computers linked to the address got a little over their head. They tried to do something about it and make an apology but nothing has gone through. Could you or another administrator who has access to the Commons unblock the IP Address there? It would be much appriciated by me! 99.226.115.81 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not leave anything on the talk page for this IP Address! Leave any feedback you have HERE or on the COMMONS! Thanks again! 99.226.115.81 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we take any action? Sv1xv (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the user creates an account and participates with that. This makes it possible to distinguish between the different users of the IP adress and only block the disruptive ones. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No objection, but then an admin must uncheck "Prevent account creation" in the blocking options. Should I do it? Sv1xv (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - unchecked - Huib talk 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Un-protection

Please unprotect File:Five Presidents Oval Office.jpg. There isn't really much vandalism, just a few test edits on a frequently viewed image. -- User:Docu at 05:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not unprotect as the image has seen many test edits in the past. Those should not happen on actual images, especially since most users do not revert their test after they are done. The current semi-protection seems like a good compromise to me. It will expire in about a month, we will see about it then. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy that warrants protection in the absence of vandalism. While some wikis exclude all IP from editing, this does not apply to commons and was rejected elsewhere. If the page is protected, this should be inline with current protection policy. We don't just protect all frequently viewed pages. -- User:Docu at 13:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but we protect pages which are frequently vandalized; this includes test edits. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do you take this definition of "vandalism" from? -- User:Docu at 10:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a borderline case and honestly don't have a policy about this at hand right now. I fail to see how test edits on a frequently used image further the Wikimedia Foundation's goal, thus I will not remove the protection; maybe someone else will. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Please can someone protect this file File:Map Serbia Blank .png because it's used as map on bs.wikipedia, and it's always reverted and vandalised by user from Serbia. It seem to be contoversial, but it's needed to explain current status.--CERminator (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done It is protected for one month. Nikola Smolenski (talk · contributions) should discuss this matter on the file talk page or upload his preferred version under a different name. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Block on IP:24.184.37.0

I blocked this IP address for 1 day for repeated vandalism on policy page Commons:Email templates. See Special:Contributions/24.184.37.0 I also semi-protected this page, just in case he returns from another IP addrees. Sv1xv (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Protect File:Bellary Fort3.jpg

Hey, could someone protect File:Bellary Fort3.jpg? It is scheduled it to appear on the Main Page of en-wiki soon. Regards So Why 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - Protected for 24 hours. - Huib talk 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Would you please provide more information about the time span in which the image will be on the main page? I browsed to DYK, anniversaries and POTD queues and could not find it in the entries for the next few days. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with ChrisiPK, I ran a Checkusage and found it on this page, but it would be more easy for us when we have a link and a time span. Huib talk 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but a time span still seems like a good idea as I haven't figured out how and when the DYK is updated. I doubt the current 24 hours protection will cover the time when this image is on the main page. BTW: This is an awful image, you might consider using another one. ;) Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the enwiki process is that Commons images that appear on the Main Page are temporarily moved to enwiki and protected there. Has that changed? Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That or the image gets protected here for 24 or 48 hours. Usually one of the enwp users drop by at #wikimedia-commons to ask for protection. Multichill (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The DYK template rotates every 6 hours, so a 24 hour protection would be more than enough. You can tell if the image is going to be soon, because it will be in one of the DYK "Queues" on en.wiki. Killiondude (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a bot that copied files to en and protected the page while it was appearing on the main page. Gnan garra 13:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There used to be, but if I recall correctly, there were too many errors/bugs to justify it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

look like its still current Protected main page images Gnan garra 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on who's setting up the DYK. Some people prefer to upload it to enwiki temporarily, and others just go protect it at Commons/ask an admin to protect it at Commons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Rukshanawahab

ResolvedResults can be found at the RFCU, Tiptoety ^talk 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This user was blocked on September 7 for continually uploading images with no licensing, even after being told to do so. Once the block expired, the user continued to carry out the same actions, which led to a longer block on September 15. The user is now evading their block by editing as an IP; see Special:Contributions/203.211.71.25. The contribution targets and edit summaries (specifically the overuse of "categories have been checked") exactly match those of the blocked user. I ask that the IP be blocked and the block of the user be extended. Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More recent IP activity: Special:Contributions/203.211.76.3 --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a request for CheckUser here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be pointless to block the IP's as it is clearly a dynamic IP range that would need to be blocked but it would affect other editors. Though if the CU find it to be the blocked editor then it would be likely that the editor's block would be increased. Bidgee (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and depending on how many IPs he is using a range block may be appropriate. Tiptoety ^talk 03:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

True. Going by the two IP's the range could be 203.211.7x.xx. Also the IP's could be Mmyers1031 (The userpage was created by 203.211.71.25). Bidgee (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Mmyers1031 (talk · contributions) is without a doubt a sock, and as such I have blocked that account (as well as added it to the RFCU). Good work! Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That user's stale, isn't it? last edit in Aug 08. See the CU case, I've suggested a rangeblock. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg

Please fully protect this file. It is used thousands of times and 1) recently someone reverted it three times just to see what different versions looked like (doubtless creating tons of lag) and 2) an anon recently vandalized the description. -Nard the Bard 00:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done - Tiptoety ^talk 00:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Evrik (talk · contributions)

Resolved

Is 3RR a policy at commons?

seem to violate this. -- User:Docu at 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disruptive. Those edits were part of trying to flesh out the entire page. Evrik (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then undo them and participate in the discussion on talk. -- User:Docu at 16:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
umm I have been. You know there have been 64 edits in the last three days. Most of those have been mine. So calling me out like is is really uncalled for. Evrik (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Move along people, nothing to see here ;-). Join the fun discussion at Commons talk:Language policy. Multichill (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  - :-D Evrik (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok I will restore the section as it was before your 4:25 edit. -- User:Docu at 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just read on my talk page "that exists as I am writing it and I am encouraging everyone to consider the "static" page until everything gets sorted out.". I think you are contradicting yourself. -- User:Docu at 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  - No contradiction. Just trying to move this whole thing forward and keep everyone on the same page. Evrik (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    - I haven't seen you undo your fourth edit that violates 3RR. -- User:Docu at 17:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      - I don't know if I could revert it at this point without violating the non-existent policy. Also, there were typos that needed to be fixed because of all of the reversions. This is the version I am sticking with. I think it is comprehensive, relatively neutral, and it looks pretty darn good. Can we now focus on the policy discussion? Evrik (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a short note, 3RR isn't a policy on Commons so it cant be broken. Huib talk 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. However, to elaborate on that, we expect people to be reasonable people, to edit cooperatively and in a spirit of harmony, and the like. If someone is continually edit warring for no good reason that may be considered disruptive. In this case I hope the parties can work through the issues on the page without casting aspersions on each other, bringing up charges of edit warring if they're not warranted, and the like. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I'm not too fond of 3RR anyway, as it gives edit warriors a false sense of security if they don't violate the arbitrary limit. (Not necessarily suggesting Evrik is guilty of this, just a general opinion.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nod. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. That's true at en:wp. Here, it's not even a bright line. If you edit war, and you're doing it to be disruptive... or if you report others for allegedly edit warring, and you're doing it to be disruptive, you may find yourself blocked. 1, 2, 3, 4R, whatever... it's not about counting Rs. It's about working together harmoniously. Which this thread isn't showing much of so far. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to keep your ink for the 'fun discussion' Multichill invited you to join (see above). The previous one was closed in a somewhat sudden way (Commons talk:Galleries#Naming convention) -- User:Docu at 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could summarize, neutrally and succinctly, what is at issue here? I see a lot of talk on that page and not a clear understanding of what is problematic. Having a language policy or guideline seems goodness. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really any issue here. There were 3 reverts and Abigor answered the question, that's all. -- User:Docu at 02:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Then what is it you're asking people to keep their ink for? That's what I would like to see summarized... the issues at the "fun discussion". NOT this particular so called edit war. ++Lar: t/c 10:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On the issue I agree with the comments by Multichill and Evrik above. I wonder who started calling it an edit war. -- User:Docu at 10:58, 2009 October 12

OK, but that doesn't answer my question. You brought this here in the first place. It may be helpful to say what you really mean. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

From your edit summary ("confused"), is there a specific part that leaves you confused or that you don't understand? It seems that you aren't that active at commons so I don't really know which parts you follow or comment on. It seems that you just joined this random thread after it was already over. -- User:Docu at 08:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you always this difficult to communicate with, or is it just me? You said "save your ink" to comment on the substantive issues around creating a language policy. I asked you if you could summarise what you see those issues are. 4 back and forths later you're asking me what I'm confused about. That's confusing. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here it goes: Docu brought the matter here asking if there excisted an 3RR policy at Commons, was told none such excisted and thus the matter is resolved (as fas as Blocks&Protections is concerned). The part about language-issues originates from Multichil trying to close this discussion early saying "Move along people, nothing to see here ;-). Join the fun discussion at Commons talk:Language policy". Lar explained what how we tend to do things at Commons without the 3 revert rule.

The rest of this discussion really seem to be just confusion, and would probably be better off left into eternal obscurity. I'm sure there are plenty of issues regarding the language policy that still needs attention, but none which presently requires any blocks or protections. I considered writing this attempt at clarification in Norwegian just to make things really clear, but I somehow think that would be against our Commons:Language policy. Happy editing! Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> Thanks for your summary Finnrind and helping us keeping this focused. You might have wanted to point out that everybody seems to agree that the language policy itself is not the issue to be discussed here. I don't quite understand why Lar seems to disagree with this. -- User:Docu at 23:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect File:Copyright-problem.svg

Can you please fully protect File:Copyright-problem.svg? It's a high risk image, which is widely used on Wikipedia. --68.192.158.195 23:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect File:Wikis Take Manhattan.png

Can you please fully protect File:Wikis Take Manhattan.png? highrisk widely used on commons. when done, add {{protected image}} to the top --Newyorkmets2000 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 22:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Block on 68.192.158.195

can you unblock 68.192.158.195? --Newyorkmets2000 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done. --Martin H. (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please unprotect File:Blank map europe.svg

File:Blank map europe.svg has been protected since April because of some edit-warring. Can this be unprotected please? I'd like to upload an update unrelated to the edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect User talk:I-210

Another change requested. --75.47.129.92 03:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done - Also I have blocked the IP as a sockpuppet. Tiptoety ^talk 03:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just of note, anything related to I-210 that posts in the 75.47 range is usually him again.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 13:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Category:Statue of Liberty

Please protect the above page. I closed the debate as it was opened more than two weeks ago and there was no new input in almost a month. -- User:Docu at 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Foroa is an administrator. Protection will bring no effect. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It will, because she can't use her tools to override it. -- User:Docu at 15:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes she (Foroa is a "she"?) can. If you're trying to silence that discussion, COM:AN is probably a better course of action, not ineffective protection. Wknight94 ^talk 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to reopen the discussion, announce it on COM:AN and Village pump and see if a broader consensus cannot be reached. Foroa doesn't appear to see a strong consensus at this point. If one exists, broadening the discussion may elicit it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

She can override it, but it would lead to her being de-admined. Anyways, if anybody wants to re-open the discussion, he/she can re-open it.

BTW, we are already on a subpage of AN and the Category question isn't really admin specific. Simply, we shouldn't be undoing closings in the way she did and clearly there was no consensus in favor of the proposal she expressed her support for. -- User:Docu at 16:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Foroa disputes the result of that discussion.[2] She cites guidelines/policies ("a basic rule of the commons category system") trumping a deletion discussion. While some may agree with her, I think others are going to be upset, and it would be better to have the discussion before that occurs. I don't want to see anyone de-admined, blocked or leaving Commons in frustration. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you add a note that you re-opened the discussion? Not that Foroa really participated in the discussion, she just "voted". -- User:Docu at 17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a note that credits you with having closed it previously. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I re-added the note too. Hopefully we can get a bot to close these in the future. -- User:Docu at 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have several problems with that cfd:

Closing a discussion by just saying that it is undecided makes not much sense
normally, an (non-involved) administrator closes such cfd, not a user, especially if there is some disagreement
normally, a bot cleans up, protects and archives closed cfd's
the fundamental problem I do have is that for some names that exist currently in 13 places, but in practise in 20 or 30 places, augmented with various "Liberty Enlightening the World" variants, we disambiguate. I am really stunned if we have such series of categories and for one of them, we say, in our world (Western and US), we have a special rule that you have to know/guess: the category without disambiguation is the one from New York (I could live with a redirect to the New York one, but it contains already many images that are not in their right category). I can understand that for capitals with a very long history, we don't disambiguate but I think that can be the only exceptions. There is no rule in Commons that gives a priority for a name over another in case of disambiguation, and I see no reason to make exceptions on that because for each of the 700 projects Commons is serving, the priorities might change. The en:wikipedia is not necessarily the reference, because it is very much US/UK/Western world oriented (in that order) and it provides 3 million articles out of the 14 million wikipedia articles. I am moving almost daily such categories to avoid disambiguity without asking any questions (and I am spending a lot of time explaining to users why we cannot give priority to "their" item name). --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Two files by User:Iordanis 777

This user has repeatedly disruptively edited the description pages of these two images, which he has uploaded himself:

File:Seal of Premier Grand Lodge of England.JPG ([3] log)
File:Grand Lodge of Greece 480 640.jpg ([4] log )

It seems this user tries to trick an administrator in deleting them. I propose to restore them in the version before his latest edits and protect them. Sv1xv (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar problem with File:ALL SEEING EYE.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I found this unsigned message by User:Iordanis 777 on my talk page:

	" I cant understand what i did.I havent done or vadalised anything.whats mine is mine.i added in the past some staff and now i learned that i shouldent have due to copywrite.so.dont YOU vadalise my conversation page.i dont like you so don't speak to me again because you dont have any authority to me. "

It seems that he does not want his name linked with these images. I explained to him that {{PD-self}} is not revocable and if he has good reason to delete these images, he should file a deletion request. I have protected the files for one month but I believe they can be semi-protected after I receive a reasonable reply by User:Iordanis 777. Sv1xv (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of New Town (Prague)

Please restore the move request and protect the page. This was interested parties can discuss the move request. -- User:Docu at 11:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:MediaBot

Unauthorized bot. Please block. -- User:Docu at 10:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Might be a member of staff, see User talk:MediaBot -- User:Docu at 10:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Because this bot is not identified. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having no operator is nonsense, Please see "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, who must be prominently identifiable on its user page." on COM:BOT. I wouldn't believe his statement. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bryan unblocked it, although I think it should have stayed blocked until a proper request got filed and accepted. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Bryan can explain. -- User:Docu at 15:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We needed the bot for some tasks at the Wikimedia France Multimedia Meeting for some tasks that I deemed not harmful. I do agree that that does not stop the requirement that for further tasks the bot should go through a proper request. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you add a short note in regards to the approval process to Commons:Bots and explain who operates it and what it does at Commons:Bots/Requests/MediaBot? Thanks. -- User:Docu at 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)