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 at COM:HMS.


Archives
12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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.


Bandeira e brasão do municipio de Juramento, Minas Gerais, Brasil.[edit]

Eu tenho a bandeira e o brasão do município e gostaria de colocar na pagina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldo Maia (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Decrease protection for User:Glay Liou, User:GlayLiou0308, and User:Rhgrhthrhryhry[edit]

Can’t place {{sockpuppet|Nipponese Dog Calvero}} because of a whimsical sysops-only protection on

Bring to a reasonable level, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I tagged them, but due to vandalism (look userpages history) admin-level protection is needed here. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
First, we see vandalism only in one page among the three. Second, what’s wrong in user: pages of socks serving as honeypots for the sockmaster? Let the master vandalize these—at expense of accounts and/or IPs—rather than content pages or legitimate users’ spaces. Such pages (or, at least, the category containing them) should be watched, not protected. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this rationale. Let's unprotect them. Guanaco (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
All three userpages were repeatedly vandalized, but if somebody wants to watch them, then of course I agree with unprotecting. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll watch them and I encourage any admins reading this to do the same. Unprotecting them now. Guanaco (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

When we raise these requests, can we quote the relevant policy please, just to encourage best practice? In COM:P the relevant bit is at the beginning "... the protection is usually temporary. Some exceptions include heavily used templates and archived user right request pages." It is reasonable to interpret this so that long term protection of user talk pages should be limited to a few months at most, unless there is an equivalent pattern of long term vandalism. Without occasionally removing an "indef" sysop only protection, there can be no evidence that a pattern of vandalism (or harassment) has continued.

Nothing in current policy justifies leaving a user talk page protected as sysop-only forever. If there are realistic scenarios that need protection to apply this way, there should be a proposal to change policy. Thanks -- (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

… and now we see yet another sysop—Rodhullandemu this time—using the privilege to further protection policy of an own design. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! I saw a pattern of vandalism emerging and protected. That's what I'm here for, isn't it??? Please stop interfering groundlessly. 18:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs)
Is it a joke? Indefinite sysops-only as a response to edit warring by LTAs’ puppets in some wretched hole user: page? Again, “the protection is usually temporary”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Deadly serious- this comes from long experience. Some bunch of nitwits is prepared to interrupt the work of serious editors by playing silly games, and sorry, I don't tolerate that for one second. Stamp it out, with extreme prejudice. If that means indefinite (which does not mean "permanent") sysop-only protection, that's appropriate for what you describe as a "wretched user page"- and I'm wondering why actually if that's your description, why are you wasting so much time on it? Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: can you propose a solution—acceptable for the corporation—barring long-time abusers from Commons? I’m sure you cannot. If you like to see less “nitwits prepared to interrupt the work of serious editors by playing silly games”, then avoid their shitty pages and leave the brunt of fighting to people having better skills, greater tolerance, and less inclined to arguments like “you are wasting time on it”. Otherwise read the discussion and, importantly, follow the Commons’ policy anyway. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
It's "fewer" nitwits, not "less". Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
These are userpages of blocked users, in theory nobody will edit them but vandals or sysops, so indefinite sysops-only is adequate. We can also transform that as a general policy as in other wikis. --Ruthven (msg) 17:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: en.Wikipedia protects only high-profile user pages, such as master accounts of notable puppeteers or some puppets renown for longevity. Look at this category – how many protected user: pages do you see there? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Well, it.wiki protects all infinite blocked user pages. --Ruthven (msg) 19:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Luxmoda (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)[edit]

Hi. Each of Luxmoda (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) uploads have been deleted so far but he continues to upload such files after warning. Today he asks me to reveal my indentity and profession. In the contrary, he treats me of legal action for having put his files under DR. Please note that this user has as well accused French Wikipedians there, not mentionning accusing them of falsification. I think this user deserves a stop. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a month. Copyvios are mostly deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

User:墨无痕[edit]

Please block 墨无痕 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user for repeatedly uploading copyvios after final warnings (special:diff/297288858). --Wcam (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wcam: you must specify which previously deleted file is identical to File:华电.jpg (histlogsabuse log). Your speedy tagging is invalid. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Fixed, but this should be obvious given the user's deleted upload history of nothing but this same image. --Wcam (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done One week block for now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Bradshaw Viscera[edit]

The third account of the indefblocked {{own}}-forger Mouauia rafii – compare w:Special:Contributions/Bradshaw Viscera against Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mou3awiya Rafi3i. Global locking was requested, but declined. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done. Upon further consideration, the stewards have locked the account. Guanaco (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Darwish203[edit]

Darwish203 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has continued to upload copyvios here and here after a final warning --Alaa :)..! 15:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ashley Ross[edit]

Ashley Ross looks suspiciously like INC, jumped straight into HotCat on 2nd edit, and is making lots of DRs. See also the history of File:Mochama Nairobi 2018.jpg, File:Moein-Z-Called-Nareye-Chah-e1510045584957.jpg, File:Moeinz1.jpg, File:Moein-z4.png, File:Mohamad bassam elhoussainey.jpg, etc.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done INC. Yann (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Brickegickel-2018-Ffm-0871.jpg[edit]

File put under full protection for 1 day after edit-war by overwriter against 2 other users. --Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The majority of edits by User:Bambimbum, who has been active since 2012, is reverting changes by User:Dontworry. There are a few genuine uploads, but frankly that editing history worries me and reeks of harassment. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Alternativetours[edit]

They have continued to upload copyvios after final warning. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done One week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Bilal Barbon[edit]

They have continued to upload copyvios after final warning (×2). 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done One week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Napolee007[edit]

They have continued to upload copyvios after final warning. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done One week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sztojka kevin3 sockpuppets of the day[edit]

Please block and nuke the uploads of:

Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 18:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ven0m2014[edit]

Removing copyvio template by Ven0m2014 (talk · contributions · Number of edits), BTW. reverting on en iw. --Kacir (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I've given him a warning about copyright and removing tags and reports. If he continues, we'll block him. Guanaco (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Within minutes new user Ariells2 (talk · contribs), an obvious sock-puppet of user:Ven0m2014, re-uploaded the deleted image. User:Ariells2 indef-blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I blocked Ven0m2014 for three days. It will be indefinite if there are more sockpuppets. Guanaco (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Within minutes further new user Korrelln (talk · contribs), an obvious sock-puppet of user:Ven0m2014, re-uploaded the deleted image. User:Korrelln indef-blocked. IMO it's time to indef the sockmaster Ven0m2014. --Túrelio (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done, sockmaster blocked indef. Guanaco (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
SP #3: Sorrento7 (talk · contribs) blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Mediawiki software unfit to recognize near-identical re-uploads[edit]

What this cases also demonstrates how totally unfit the Mediawiki software is for Commons. The same (copyvio-) photo of actress Naomi Watts, with absolutely tiny variations in pixel numbers, can be uploaded 7 times in sequence and the software tolerates this without giving any signal. --Túrelio (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)