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 18:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
MySQL rosemary up
MySQL daphne up
MySQL yarrow up
Replag s1 0h 0m 1s
Replag s2 0h 0m 12s
Replag s3 0h 0m 1s
Replag s4 2h 39m 55s
Replag s5 0h 0m 3s
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] 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.[1] 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)

[edit] Two files by User:Iordanis 777

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[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)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_%26_protections"