Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:AN/B • COM:AN/P • COM:RFPP

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • For page protection requests, please state protection type, file name, and proposed protection time span. See also: Protection Policy.
  • Before proposing a user be blocked, please familiarize yourself with the Commons' Blocking Policy.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/B|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


Block request for User:Lethocerus maximus and sock puppet accounts

  1. Lethocerus maximus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  2. Megadytes ducalis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  3. ÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  4. グルグルピクセル (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  5. Taiwan-taikouti (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

These accounts are strongly believed to belong to the same user, and are repeatedly uploading images including copyright violations about aquatic insects.

  1. 2400:4050:c520:0:c462:509:e4e3:d035 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  2. 61.87.54.147 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  3. 58.89.188.218 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Related anonymous users of these accounts. They are mainly active on the Japanese Wikipedia. 火乃狐 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Maldives.svg

I think they need to change protection settings for File:Flag of Maldives.svg to Semi-protection because other country flags like Flag of the United States, Flag of India also have semi-protection and not full protection. Thank you. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MAL MALDIVE, ✓ Done Kadı Message 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for User:Bukkakesole

Bukkakesole (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Violation of username policy. Block and delete all (mediocre) uploads Ⳑ (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mapriadi

Mapriadi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Continuing to upload copyright violations after having been given a final warning. Marbletan (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for User:Hatomizinko3 and User:Hatomizinko

Users who have been indefinitely blocked from ja.wikipedia as a result of a review of a w:ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Hatomizinko3.During the request, there was an opinion that Commons should also be blocked, so I will report this to you so that it can be blocked. カズマリ (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Japanese. Could you please explain why should they be blocked? Bedivere (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @カズマリ Bedivere (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They added inappropriate description in Japanese to information (e.g. File:ペプチドナイル フェブラリーステークス優勝時.jpg). 火乃狐 (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think "Don't post M4/3 format images on Wiki, it's ridiculous" is appropriate but it's not worth of a block either.  Not done I'm giving the user a warning, though. Bedivere (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While blocking the Hatomizinko3 account as an undisclosed sockpuppet, I noticed a previous discussion you prompted on this same user (without a sanction as a result). They haven't edited for months anyway. I still don't get the point of the request. Bedivere (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

block request

MOHLEAOSONDWN 2300 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

upload several copyright vioed files of Langham Place Actplus.student Outlook Stu Fan (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann also pls report this user to SRG, thanks ! Actplus.student Outlook Stu Fan (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ː Comment user is now globally blocked Gbawden (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Actplus student is globally locked and I closed speedily his/her DR-s as kept, they were baseless. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request for User talk:Drmies

Could an admin consider protection for this talk page for some short time. I've been locking the last accounts as LTA socks, but it is evident that it will not do much (as they keep using new accounts). EPIC (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, just noticed that most of the accounts are already autoconfirmed.  Not done, you can disregard this request. EPIC (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Achim55 autopatrol-protected the page for 1 month. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for User:Bedivere

Short notice: I was edit warring with another user for one of my uploaded files and he reported me in the administrators noticeboard to resolve the dispute. Then i was blocked by User:Bedivere for three days without prior warning. I looked up the Blocking policy and found out that my edit-warring was a disruptive behaviour, and I'm quoting the before blocking section: "For blocks based on disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities, ensure that the user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template." Then in the comment on my talk page justifying on why he blocked me, he wrote: "Edit warring after warnings".

Here are the two counts of serious violation of the blocking policy by him:

  1. Blocking me without using a block warning template as required.
  2. False claiming that he did warn me beforehand.

I had previous disputes like my last one and I always tried to resolve it in a good manner, had he really warned me I would've stepped back. AceDouble (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were reported at this same noticeboard for edit warring, which spanned for several months. You were blocked as a result. The blocking summary could have simply read "edit warring" and it would have not invalidated the motive, which was truly edit warring. Furthermore, you asked to be unblocked saying the block is "Unjustified, unnecessary.. clearly this is a gross violation, it's about solid facts rather than making up the "edit-warring" stuff". You obviously did not get the point of the blocking. Yann did fine too by declining your request, as "unblock needs an understanding of the issue, and a promise not to continue" [1]. Coming here now to request a block against an admin who correctly issued a block against you is disruptive. Bedivere (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note this thread at AceDouble's talk page. I caught them removing copyright tags from files in order to have them deleted. They already did so on 9 June with other six files, which were deleted on 16 June. The thing is that this user attempted to have these images deleted once or more, via deletion requests, without success. I have warned the user not to continue in such disruptive behavior, else they may be blocked. --Bedivere (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AceDouble has previously been explicitly asked not to edit war, and indeed has received many, many (copyvio) notices linking to our blocking policy. The purport that they received no warning is untrue and, even if it were, disingenuous wiki-lawyering. The purpose of a warning (COM:BP does not require a "block warning template" as erroneously claimed) is to ensure the user is aware of the relevant issue, which they demonstrably are ("there is no edit warring"), including even as recent as May 2024, well before the June 2024 block. As someone so familiar and concerned with the letter of our blocking policy, one wonders how AceDouble reconciles making a "Block request for User:Bedivere" with "blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one" (italics in original), or indeed how comments like "Persona non-grata: bidgee, guanaco, jeff g" [2] and "you are unwelcome!" [3] reconcile with "I always tried to resolve it in a good manner" (underline added). Given the history of copyvios, recreation of deleted content, edit warring and incivility, three days was perhaps rather light. Эlcobbola talk 20:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more, Elcobbola. Now, after AceDouble asked to block me for blocking them, they are even accussing me of harassing and threatening with reporting me to the Arbitration Commitee (?) as I caught them removing valid (or at the most, dubious) licenses to have images they apparently dislike, deleted. [4] Bedivere (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the thread of discussion AceDouble removed from their talk page. Bedivere (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have indefinitely blocked AceDouble for intimidation/harassment, disruptive behavior (as explained above, including removing license tags in order to have files deleted as "no license" just after being kept in their own successive deletion requests, something they just done today, keeping up with previous behavior; unwillingness to accept errors, etc.) assuming bad faith openly. This is unacceptable behavior. Bedivere (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of Benoitcostil

I'm not sure exactly what's going on here, but all of the accounts below are re-uploading the deleted files of Benoitcostil (talk · contribs), who was blocked yesterday for spamming.

Marbletan (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done all blocked, files deleted. --Bedivere (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for investigating and taking care of it. Marbletan (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Partyondelivery

see: User talk:Partyondelivery and contributions. advertising. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 22:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Files deleted, indefinitely blocked. Bedivere (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 23:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for User:Fujiwara nastuki

Fujiwara nastuki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Continously uploads copyvio after final warning. — doclys (❀) 10:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doclys, ✓ Done Kadı Message 11:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More socks of Benoitcostil

The accounts below are re-uploading the deleted files of Benoitcostil (talk · contribs) and previous socks who have been blocked for spamming. Marbletan (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marbletan (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, tagged. Thanks. Bedivere (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate username report

Reason: Disruptive username. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7899Solime (talk · contribs)

The user is a long-time copyvio uploader with several warnings, uploading the same image over and over again, using multiple accounts:

The users above upload images of the same subject and add them to corresponding fa.wiki articles. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Main account blocked for a week for copyvios, socks blocked indef. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:10.5.17CarlWeathersByLuigiNovi12b.jpg and File:Carl Weathers (cropped 3 by 4).jpg

An editor took one of my 2017 photos of the late actor Carl Weathers, specifically Photo #12 from that set, or 10.5.17CarlWeathersByLuigiNovi12b.jpg, and created a cropped variant of that pic, which is here. That variant, or Carl_Weathers_(cropped_3_by_4), inappropriately abandoned the naming convention that I use for my photos, thus removing my name from it, despite my preference, which is stated in the licensing information on each pic's page, that use of the photos retain my name.

I have no problem with cropped variants being created to address the specific needs of indiviual articles, and many other editors have respected my naming convention when doing so, so I created a cropped variant, identical to the aforementioned one, 10.5.17CarlWeathersByLuigiNovi12b.jpg, uploaded it, redirected the non-legitimate one to this legit one, and changed many of the other foreign language articles that use the cropped version to the one that respects my license. I gave my reason for this in the edit summary that accompanied my redirect.

However, subsequent to this, an admin named User:Billinghurst reverted this. He then locked both files from editing by non-admins, falsely accusing me of "vandalism" in the process, when he gave as his reason for the lockdown "Excessive vandalism." The Commons page on vandalism does not offer an explicit definition of the term, but the one given on Wikipedia is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." Even if Billinhurst disagreed with my edits, even if he/she thought my reverts violated some policy (and they never indicated this to me), that does not make vandalism, nor does it make it acceptable to accuse an editor of this.

In any event, once I created the cropped variant of my file that retained my file name convention, there was no need to revert it, since it satisified both the need for which the original variant (with the incorrect name) was created, and my requirement that it keep a variant of the original name. If there was a motive to revert my edits other than mere tendentiousness or spite, Billinghurst did not make a point of reaching out to me to explain it. This is hardly an example of good faith behavior.

I ask that variants of my photos retain the original naming convention, which includes my name, that the non-legitimate variant of the photo in question be removed in favor of the legitimate one, and that Billinghurst be politely informed that knee-jerk reverts, or ones employing a false accusation as a rationale, are not acceptable. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your preferred name was a duplicate so Billinghurst's actions seem correct to me. Also, as you say, the file naming is a request, not an obligation of the license. @TheLoyalOrder: , would renaming File:Carl Weathers (cropped 3 by 4).jpg to File:Carl Weathers, photo by Luigi Novi (cropped 3 by 4).jpg be acceptable to you? Abzeronow (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The preferred name was a variant, just as the photo itself was a variant, as it had the letter "b" upended to it, so it was not a duplicate of the exact same name. Irrespective of whether it is obligatory, it is a courtesy, and it reasonable for it to be respected rather than ignored. Even if you had failed to notice this request in the licensing info (which is not nececessary a bad faith act), reverting it, as Billinghurst did, was not justifiable.
Renaming it 10.5.17CarlWeathersByLuigiNovi12b would be acceptable. Nightscream (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have stated that the file named 10.5.17CarlWeathersByLuigiNovi12b was a duplicate. Billinghurst followed policy by redirecting your desired file name to the file uploaded by TheLoyalOrder. If Billinghurst had requested full protection of the files because of an edit war, I'd have granted it. I am trying to find an equitable solution to this, as I'm willing to include a credit to you in the file name, but I'm not inclined at this time to enforce your preferred naming convention as a solution to this issue. Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't really care, cheers TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Nightscream: This is Commons and a site inhabited by many of us following the consensus rules of the community. We have consensus guidance about uploads, Commons:Upload. We have consensus guidance on derivatives, Commons:Derivative works. We have consensus guidance on licensing, Commons:Licensing. We have guidance on Commons:Creative Commons. We have the consensus guidance for file naming, Commons:File naming, which we follow, and that allows you to put names on files that you upload. We have consensus guidance about renaming, Commons:File renaming. We even have consensus guidance on duplicates, Commons:Duplicates.

I welcome you bringing issues here where you are addressing the consensus or issues where the administrators are operating outside of the consensus of the community. What I do not welcome is a kid stamping their feet that they want things there way, where you are operating outside of the consensus policies and procedures of the community. [Your repeated edits OUTSIDE of the consensus guidance is akin to edit warring or vandalism, take your pick.] Your uploading a file, and converting an existing file into a redirect to your files is outside the editing guidance of the community.

An administrator has no skin in the game where they act, they should be following the consensus guidance of the community, or seeking that guidance where it is unclear that the request is within an existing consensus. Your ability to make the rules at this site is to start a conversation, and suggest how the rules can be changed, and where the community reaches a consensus that what you promote is better, then we have new policies and guidance. That is the opportunity we all have. I will now return to my general admin duties following the consensus of the community as I understand it, as I have done for the last fourteen years.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing at Commons:File renaming that appears to preclude maintain the naming convention chosen by the original uploader of a file, nor changing it as you have, nor reverting it without a rationale. If I'm mistaken, please quote it. Please explain what specific thing I've done is "outside" consensus, and how.
Nor does it justify falsely accusing another editor of "vandalism" (something that unsurprisingly, you have chosen not to address), nor the incivility you have displayed here with your condescening "kid stamping their feet" remark. But if you can quote what portion of the aforementioned guideline page (and/or any other relevant) calls for either your reverts, your false accusation, or your rather hostile words above, then ball means, please do so. Nightscream (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:MAL MALDIVE

User talk:MAL MALDIVE , keep uploading copyvios despite warnings and blocks. if i were an admin i would give 3 months of block to this user. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Indefinitely blocked. Bedivere (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LiteMindBodyClinic

User talk:LiteMindBodyClinic, promotinal account, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LiteMindBodyClinic modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Uploads deleted, and you have already told them not to spam. Enough for now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AxelHH

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections&oldid=886052440"