Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/B · COM:AN/P

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

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 report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
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 here.


Archives
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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.
  • If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{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.


Super block of Livio removed[edit]

I've removed it. If someone wants to put it back, you'll have to desysop me first. I'm tired of getting stonewalled. He's had 2 appeals, and both have gotten archived. He had a 1-week block. He was then blocked to order by a small gang on FPC. From 1 week he went to a 6-month block. I give Tuvalkin a 1 week block for racist bullshit, and he's off the hook within hours from now. Is that a fair deal? I don't think so. I know it isn't. There's my move. Have at me. lNeverCry 02:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • My message to Livio on Wikipedia:
    “Hi Livio. I just wanted to let you know I've removed your unfair block on Commons. I'm ready to lose my adminship for the principle of it. How can I, as an admin, see an unfair block; see a person appealing a block and being ignored, and just say nothing and do nothing? How can I be an admin and allow something I consider unfair to continue on without doing anything to change it? If I have to do that, then being an admin just isn't worth it to me. My heart has to be free from fear. Fear of losing adminship, fear of the people who blocked you, fear of anything. Why be on Commons, If I have to be afraid of what I do, and the normal ways of appeal are unfairly prescribed. Tuvalkin can say sorry, and his blocklog is way longer than yours, and people say: yeah give him another chance, he's a human being he makes mistakes. And what about you? You're a human being and deserve a second chance too. We'll see how it goes. If they desysop me again, I'll just do some regular stuff, and not worry about it. If you do get a second chance now, it's up to you what you do with it. Whatever you do is all up to you. You're a grown man, and it's all up to you. I just think you should have that chance after 3 months of being blocked. I did this for both of us. Take care.”
    I just wanted to add this here because I'll probably be asleep and unable to respond to anything until late tomorrow. I will keep Livio unblocked as long as I'm an admin and he doesn't re-offend. lNeverCry 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info To avoid confusion, this relates to account Livioandronico2013 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) -- (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record: Symbol keep vote.svg Agree --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington, I noticed in the previous discussion Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 19#User:Livioandronico2013 that you said " I won't oppose unblocking, as long as the blocking admin, in this case INC, agrees." In fact User:A.Savin was the blocking admin and this is very much a long running problem with INC unblocking Livio against community consensus and as part of a feud with A.Savin. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case I redact my archived comment and renew my support. Yikes, gotta be careful whatcha archive here :-) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry, you have my full Symbol support vote.svg Support - Jcb (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see

Livio was blocked by User:A.Savin and this block has previously been undone by User:INeverCry without attempting to gain Community consensus and while making personal attacks on the blocking admin. INC was forced to restore his block after clear community consensus that the block should not have been lifted and strong criticism of INC including the comment by User:Natuur12: "Don't get me wrong, I highly respect INC but unblocking against consensus while being involved is one of the most severe mistakes an admin can make. Forgivable, but still severe". Others involved in that discussion were Benh, Ikan Kekek, Jee, Code, The Photographer, Steinsplitter, Diliff, Jebulon, User:Daniel Case, Christian Ferrer, Elcobbola, User:Nick, and more. These people are described above as "a small gang on FPC" as though we are thugs? It is FPC where Livio caused problems and so FPC regulars who give their opinions.

Livio's appeals were not "stonewalled" (please look up the definition of that word). We had a discussion less than a month ago where there were several contributors and no consensus for unblocking. So this is yet another case where INC has unblocked Livio without attempting first to gain community consensus. If he knew his unblock would have consensus then why all the dramatics above about blackmailing the community with his admin bit. I see nothing to indicate that Livio has accepted what he did was wrong, rather I see him protest (along with INC) about the unfair admin who blocked him. This whole episode is contaminated with INC making personal attacks on A.Savin, and I have no doubt INC would have respected the block if it had been made by someone else who he respects.

We have here a clear case of misuse of tools. INC was clearly "unblocking against consensus": he knew he did not have consensus on 8th November and his comments above show he decided to unblock unilaterally and knowing he was misbehaving. Perhaps the community now does not care about Livio's block and would support it being lifted. If that was the case INC should have asked. And regardless, INC should not be the admin to lift it: he is involved and in dispute with the blocking admin. Above, Nick criticises INC for blocking Tuvalkin while involved, and here INC unblocks while involved and in full knowledge he did not have consensus. I suggest INC restores the block and follows the correct procedure for removing a contentious block: of gaining community consensus first.

Admins must respect community, not overrule them. I'm very disappointed in INC's actions here. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if the unblock was justified (and I myself think the length was extreme, even though I am not familiar with Livio's history with FPC), INC clearly knew this would be contentious, and did it unilaterally anyhow. It should have been discussed first. Reventtalk 13:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Er... take my agreement with the caveat that I do not think that it is acceptable to speculate on on what someone 'would' do, or their motivations. Colin is still 'right'. Reventtalk 13:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This is another 'involved' action from INeverCry which shows their complete inability to understand and appropriately handle their conflicts of interest or involvement.
Administrators are allowed to disagree with community consensus, but they are not allowed to circumvent or ignore community consensus. It's time for INeverCry's de-RfA request, for which I believe we need to discuss (probably here) first before the formal part of the process - the 'vote'. Nick (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Nick -- is this page the best one for any such community discussion prior to de-RFA. Wouldn't the AN or AN/U be better, since we aren't discussing a block. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I just wondered if this would be sufficient discussion to then lead to the de-RFA, and we wouldn't need to have an extensive discussion prior to the de-RFA. The policy is rather vague, unfortunately, just saying De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible. which could be interpreted in a couple of ways (either way though is fine with me). Nick (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The user livo is an excellent photographer and possibly he was well on his way to correcting his behavior, however, unfortunately INC is encouraging inappropriate user behavior. --The Photographer 13:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I am no longer watching any of AN forums; I was pinged here and all I have to say now is: I would like to thank Colin once again for speaking the inconvenient truth, I fully encourage anyone who wants to initiate a desysop vote against INC, and I would support it at any time for a wide variety of reasons, with this ignorant unblock being just a tiny peak of the LTA iceberg. In case the desysop is started and I missed it, I'd appreciate if someone lets me know. Thanks. --A.Savin 16:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with this decision to unblock Livio after 3 months - and in fact, as I previously indicated, I would have supported a much shorter block (2 weeks) - but the procedure of one admin taking that upon himself, so as to act as if in the role of dictator, or if you prefer, loose cannon, and in the process, attacking all others who took part in previous discussions, is much more important to oppose than the unblocking decision is to support or oppose. I absolutely do not think a person who refuses to operate using normal procedures and consensus should ever be an admin, and I, too, would support de-sysoping INC for this action. Note that he literally asked for it. Please ping me as well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Shame on you! You should have been the one to have lifted this absurd block long before, this 6 month block was way out of proportion. I am very sorry to see that you rather create a hostile environment for one of our best admins, than admitting your own mistakes. Jcb (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Jcb, shame on you for blaming A.Savin for INC's de-admin. This is nothing to do with the block, wise or otherwise, but about respecting community consensus. If you feel the block was "way out of proportion" then you should have raised this and/or commented at the previous community discussions. And I disagree with your comment that A.Savin "created a hostile environment", when this Livio block has in fact resulted in continued hostility from INC to A.Savin, including personal attacks he's been required to retract. This is a mess of INC's own doing, and absolutely no blame is due to A.Savin. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the comments for and against my actions. I've asked to have my sysop bit removed for the last time. I'll leave the situation with Livio in the hands of the community. I don't think I'm fit for adminship anymore. My sincere apologies for any disruption and conflict I've caused. I need to get back to doing the steady everyday work that I enjoy and that helps Commons. This kind of drama obviously isn't helpful for anyone. I wish Livio good luck and I hope to see him around for a long time to come, participating in a relaxed way, which is exactly what I intend to do going forward. If anyone ever sees another RFA from me, please oppose it! Take care, and again my apologies for this mess of mine and others. I've got to step back and take a breath. lNeverCry 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to lNeverCry,Jcb,and Jee but unfortunately if you feel that people like User:A.Savin or Colin are of balanced people that they can be stewards then we are really screwed! I sincerely do not understand this hatred, genuinely an administrator should be a balanced person. boh...--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to understand A.Savin blocked me without telling me, without cause for six months by a block (always his)of a week and this is right? INeverCry releases me after three months when more people said that was too long and this is wrong? Here something is not working right--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:長岡外史[edit]

This user has repeated copyright violations. Please see many deletion records in User talk:長岡外史. --Ralth Galth (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Benzoyl[edit]

This user has repeated copyright violations. Please see many deletion records in User talk:Benzoyl. --Ralth Galth (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Most of the DRs are not because copyright violation, but because scope. And in my opinion most of the photos should be kept. The photos are transferred from Flickr and they have free license. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that at least warning by administrator to User:Benzoyl is necessary. I suggested it at User_problems.--Ralth Galth (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
If you think a warning is warranted, go ahead to issue it. There is no point waiting for admin to do so. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. Many Japanese users think User:Benzoyl is a problematic user. (So he/she became indefinitely blocked user at ja.wikipedia.) But in Wikimedia Commons, we have to tell in English. It is difficult for Japanese to communicate in English. Me too.--Ralth Galth (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to tell you that there are a lot of copyright violations by User:Benzoyl. But I'm en-1 level user. So, I list up.

  • File:Minimal underwear for men designed by porn actor Taka Kato.jpg
  • File:Christian Riese Lassen advertising posters in the Japanese train.jpg
  • File:Tokyo Pro Baseball on Television in 1967.jpg
  • File:Burger King's KURO-NINJA black buns colored by Bamboo Charcoal in 2013.jpg
  • File:Attendance Criterion of Doze.jpg
  • File:TV Program AD Poster at Shinjuku Station Square.jpg
  • File:A small present soshina by Video Research in 2007.jpg
  • File:LUMINE EST in 25 March 2014.jpg
  • File:Cool TA Q BIN (8503026296).jpg
  • File:「注意!街灯周辺ではゆりかもめのフンにご注意ください。」(佃大橋) (3956552421).jpg
  • File:ごはんですよ!入り納豆 (410382292).jpg
  • File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
  • File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
  • File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
  • File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
  • File:FRESHNESS BURGER's Liberation Wrapper printed with female's ochobo mouth.jpg
  • File:The Perfect Vending Machine in 2006.jpg
  • File:カップ麺の棚 (6194953019).jpg
  • File:献花台 (5071132931).jpg
  • File:下痢止め (1205969566).jpg
  • File:Takarakuji Asakusa 2006 (2243959669).jpg
  • File:MORINAGA ICE CREAM (2244540884).jpg

(from User talk:Benzoyl/log1)

These are files uploaded by Benzoil and deleted due to copyright violation (including COM:DW, COM:FOP#Japan, COM:PACKAGING) . These are not all of them. Do you think that these are few? Do I need to write more?--Ralth Galth (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Again. Benzoyl is an established editor, with 180k edits. When uploading material from Flickr, a certain level of problematic images are to be expected, and you cite finer points of copyright law. ANB is for immediate, obvious blocks. You should attempt to educate the editor, through engagement on his talk page, or make a case for systemic abuse at COM:AN/U. Reventtalk 11:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock accounts - AdnanAliAfzal[edit]

Please block:

Sockpuppets of blocked user AdnanAliAfzal (talk · contribs), see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal. Also, repeated copyright violations and misuse as private photo album. GermanJoe (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done nuked and blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:John CS[edit]

Indefed this user as a sockpuppet User:Mission Kashmir III, a user that starts DRs as a form of vandalism. Cf User talk:Srittau#Vandals are back. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For further discussion, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Possible sockpuppets of Mission Kashmir III. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:It's me.jpg[edit]

This file has been created 5 times with outside the Project scope content. Is possible to permanently fully protect this file against creation? Or a better solutionis creating an Abuse filter rule? --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I support protecting the filename, but only after deletion of the file, as I explained in the DR. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
…and ✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 18:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:DanMarcal[edit]

I blocked this user due to continued vandalism on Yann's userpage. Posting this here for review as I am the same person who did the rollback three times. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Good, quite lenient block. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is my review: why only 2 hours? Face-smile.svg Seriously. It seems to be spam/self-promotion/vandalism-only account. Also I can't imagine myself that someone could blame you for this block. --jdx Re: 11:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
lol, feel free to lengthen it if he comes back --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)