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
Help desk Village pump
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 instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

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

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)


  • 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.

Review of a protection action[edit]

Could I have some independent views on whether User:Jcb's administrator action to indefinitely protect Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Google Art Project works in Museo Reina Sofia against non-sysop edits in order to ensure the DR could not be categorized with Category:Undelete in 2017, was an appropriate use of sysop rights? The discussion at User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFiles_in_Category:Google_Art_Project_works_in_Museo_Reina_Sofia provides some associated background explaining why the category was added and why photographs need to be reviewed in 2017, 80 years after they were taken by an anonymous photographer. Thanks -- (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You have consumed way too much admin attention in this DR. Regardless of your contribution to the DR, you failed to cause an admin to decide in conflict with copyright regulations. There is no admin decision in favor of undeletion in 2017. Placing the DR in that category will probably lead to undeletion on 1 Jan 2017 and a new DR on 2 Jan 2017 with subsequent redeletion on 10 Jan 2017. Please stop gaming the system. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Please properly read and absorb the case and facts put forward in the DR. The photographer is anonymous, regardless of the word "unknown" appearing in the museum catalogue. Having an undeletion review in 2017 is appropriate as the photographs taken in Spain in 1936 have an excellent case to be demonstrably public domain. Please accept that it is not impossible for you to be wrong, and using your sysop tools to halt discussion, and make future deletion requests impossible to create in the process, is blatant misuse. -- (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not impressed that the discussion consisted almost entirely of Fae and Jcb arguing with each other, but being unimpressed is pretty normal where Fae and Jcb interact these days. I'm really disappointed to see Jcb taking administrative action where they're so clearly involved, and that's yet another step towards their eventual de-admin discussion, which is becoming more inevitable with every passing involved action. The administrator tools are not to be used to gain an advantage in a dispute, and that's what has happened in this case. I would ask that Jcb unprotects the page and then files a request for the page to be protected against further edits at the correct venue (here, in fact). Nick (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not happy to see this kind of behavior at all. I do not mind "is this right" or "could you review" the problem I'm having is with some "go for the jugular" kinds of remarks that are unnecessary in civilized dialog. There is absolutely no reason to be anything less than polite with each other - and supportive of each other - as we are all working on same project together. To lose the believe in the good faith of others results in this sort of thing, and as we all know COM:AGF is required at all times to participate in the project. Accusations of wrong doing (if you believe in and are demonstrating AGF) require the *assumption* good faith at all times, and I don't see that above. It has been quite a while since the last major drama required blocks; let's put our nice behavior back on and keep it that way. And I really mean that last sentence. Parse it however you wish, it's a promise not a threat. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
So, lets be nice to each other, and in order to do so lets forget all about the legal concept of copyright anonimity and lets keep off Commons a wealth of 1930s photography? I’m sure that's not was meant by Ellin, but that’s how it is coming across. The issue here is that someone with access to admin tools neither knows enough about copyright issues nor is using good faith when that matter arises in discussions (see another example pertaining an much less important file). That issue needs to be addressed.
Being nice to each other comes easy when we’re all on the same page about how Commons works and what’s it for. Yet some among us who can only focus on daunting totals about files that “need” to be deleted (and playing games with the concept of copyright anonimity yields formidable numbers of deleted files indeed!) — those need to go, or at least need to be prevented from having free reign over those who are actually working for the curation of a free media repository.
-- Tuválkin 16:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Both Fae and Jcb edit warred at the DR. Per Commons:Blocking policy the admin response, if taken at the time, would be to consider briefly blocking both parties and warn them both against further such behaviour. And yes Jcb deserves further criticism for using his admin tools to settle an edit war he is involved in. Wrt the DR dispute, I don't see how Jim's closing remark has any bearing on whether the DR can be re-opened in 2017, so doesn't prevent the category being added. However not all files should be re-examined, so it might be helpful if a comment were added to the DR to indicate which of the listed files are actually worth re-examining in 2017.
Both parties in this dispute are upset with each other and have lost faith that the other party is always "trying to help the project". But does our COM:AGF policy say "AGF is required at all times to participate in the project", as Ellin claims. No it absolutely does not. Here are the three vital lines in that policy:
  • Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
  • If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
  • If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis.
This final line is vital for this noticeboard and I ask Nick, Ellin, Tuvalkin to consider if their attitude and response to Jcb/Fae reflect that? What have you done to help them resolve the dispute? Are your comments themselves demonstrating a lack of AGF towards one or both parties? Patronising lectures on being nice, or promising to block people for not at all times thinking nice thoughts about one another are not helpful and in fact quite concerning.
Concentrating on the tone and language used by someone who is upset and complaining is harmful and unprofessional yet occurs so often on our noticeboards. Professionals who have people-facing-administrative roles in real life are trained to deal with how upset people express themselves and to handle it. And it isn't by lecturing an upset person . Our COM:AGF policy absolutely does permit one to stop assuming good faith about specific actions, but only in exceptional cases and where clear evidence is presented. So a correct admin response would be to indicate specific cases (quotes, diffs) where folk are "accusing others of harmful motives" without clear evidence being presented or where that evidence is unconvincing. If this is done repeatedly, where "accusing others of harmful motives" appears more designed to smear rather than out of any factual rational basis, then action should be taken or specific warnings given that it must not be repeated. Ellin, you need to get much more specific and indicate you have done more than glance at the pages and gone "tut". As an admin you should be helping rather than rely on making generally disapproving remarks followed by block threats/promises. Edit summaries like "Go back to work, stop the drama, assume good faith or else. (no kidding)" are painfully embarrassingly unprofessional.
But most importantly, I see that Tuválkin links to obsessive–compulsive disorder when clearly talking about Jcb. Accusing another editor of a mental disorder to explain their motivation on this project, breaks COM:AGF so badly a block is absolutely required here.. -- Colin (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(Ah, Colin… Nice of you to show up.) Concerning my mention of OCD, that was not a attempt of practising forensic psychiatry. For what’s worth, I do consider that some degree of obsession/compulsion is present in most of us, me included, and merely regret that while some of us obsess over the huge number of uncategorized files, others (with just too many admins among them) chose to us obsess over the huge number of possible offscope files instead (and, worse, chose to reduce those numbers by prioritizing the deletion of “easy targets”, which are not necessarily the most eggregious cases). So, the accusation you want me tried for is one of Deletionism, which is not, I believe, a malady recognized by the medical profession. -- Tuválkin 13:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It is terribly nice of Colin to show up. It's a great pity that Jcb won't do likewise and indulge us with his presence, to answer the concerns raised about his use of administrative tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Colin points to this sentence If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis. but I don't understand how Colin can expect us to assume good faith for the intentions of others, or how he expects us to help resolve disputes when Jcb is ignoring any and all discussion about his actions. When concerns are being raised by multiple editors and those concerns are being ignored behind a wall of silence, AGF can be safely discontinued, even if it doesn't mean one has to assume bad faith. Nick (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Nick, unlike Ellin, I didn't give you all a lecture on AGF at all times. So I didn't "expect [you] to assume good faith...." as you claim: that's Ellin. I agree that there comes a point where such an assumption is naive and unsupportable by the evidence. And it is unhelpful that Jcb is not engaging. But our policy requires you to be specific in your allegations and to provide evidence, not to just generally make disparaging comments about how unimpressed you are. What kind of constructive response do you expect from that? And your opening sentence to me here? Is such sarcastic nastiness necessary? The rest of your post is fine, unlike Ellin's which is completely problematic and unhelpful. And unlike Tuvalkin's comments which are offensive towards people with a serious and distressing mental illness, trivialising it to become simply an insult to throw at a user he does not get along with. Several admins are present on this page, naturally, and yet Tuvalkin remains unblocked and without any warning. This is completely unacceptable to suggest a user "need[s] to go" because of a claim they are mentally ill. -- Colin (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
And Nick, if you are serious about Jcb participating in a discussion on this DR/protection, then you should be joining with me in requiring the Jcb is mentally ill insult by Tuválkin retracted and an admin response taken against Tuválkin. You can't seriously expect anyone to participate when someone is verbally kicking them in the kidneys. You say "Jcb is ignoring any and all discussion about his actions". Yet in a previous discussion about Jcb's actions, he was accused of now being legally liable for another person's upload copyright violations. There comes a point where the accusers are behaving worse than the accused, and I remind you of DefendEachOther. -- Colin (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You're the one who is twisting what Tuvalkin has said, Colin. Tuválkin has never said Jcb is mentally ill and judging by their response, did not intend for you to read their initial comments in the way you have done. The correct course of action here is for you, Colin, to communicate with Tuválkin, and probably, given such a mis-communication has occurred, for Tuválkin to remove the comment. Blocks, need I remind you, are preventative and not punitive. We do not block someone as a punishment for saying something you don't like, we only block users if it is necessary to prevent damage or to stop any continuation of disruptive behaviour.
I notice you have not engaged with Tuválkin on their talk page as yet, Colin, so that's where you need to head to first, to try and resolve your concerns. I need not remind you of your comment earlier.
  • Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
  • If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
  • If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis.
I would therefore recommend you assume Tuválkin is trying to help the project, you avoid accusing Tuválkin of harmful motives without clear evidence, that you assume good faith (or rather, stop immediately assuming bad faith) and you try to resolve your dispute with them on the basis that they're trying to help. I hope that helps, Colin. Nick (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Tuválkin didn't complain that Jcb was a bit obsessive, or a bit compulsive. He directly linked to the Wikipedia article en:Obsessive–compulsive disorder which describes a serious disabling mental disorder. It absolutely isn't acceptable to call people OCD, or autistic, or schizophrenic, or many other medical conditions when what you mean some slight obsession, awkwardness or inconsistency in their behaviour. Such language has no place on this project and users who do so given no encouragement <redacted>. And I don't remember Denniss engaging with me when he misused his tools to block me, or Ellin engaging with me when she blocked me without apparently even familiarising herself with blocking policy. You know fine well that serious misbehaviour warrants an immediate block. And our blocking policy requires it to be of a suitable duration "proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour". Which is required here as it certainly appears Tuválkin is still unaware that using mental illness as an insult is way across the line. And neither it seems do you. I shall take this to AN/U later, then, as it is a distraction from this topic. -- Colin (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
How about you take the time to explain your concerns to Tuválkin instead of demanding some sort of block ? I don't know if you've checked or if you've forgotten, but Tuválkin states "This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of English." so perhaps you could take time out and explain the difference between OCD and "some slight obsession, awkwardness or inconsistency in their behaviour" and how their comments have been perceived by you. Oh, and you can strike your comment saying I'm encouraging this sort of behaviour, since I don't like that. Get it sorted, Colin. Thank you kindly. Nick (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the comment you asked me to strike. You have misjudged the offensiveness of Tuvlkin's comment; defended him by trying to downplay it as a miscommunication or me twisting words; suggested it was merely "saying something [I]don't like", stood alongside Tuvalkin by parroting his sarcastic opening remarks; claimed that one should assume Tuvalkin deliberately linking to the OCD wikipedia article when explaining why Jcb's motivations on the project are so awful he must go was actually Tuvalkin "trying to help the project". I don't think you were on the right balance between condemnation and encouragement, and quite possible to end up condoning others through inaction [or blocking action]. I sincerely hope in future you will be swifter to criticise anyone using mental illness as an insult rather than rising up as an advocate for them. -- Colin (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Nick, do you seriously think I am welcome on Tuválkin's talk page? Tuválkin has previously been blocked by User:A.Savin for grossly insulting me, and I don't remember that time anyone taking the time to explain to Tuvalkin or consider his "intermediate level of English" might be a mitigating factor, before reaching for the block button. There's nothing "English" about using mental illness as an insult. You are throwing unreasonable and hypocritical obstacles in my path [Are you currently on Jcb's talk page to explain to him nicely how he's in danger of losing his admin bit, or do you prefer instead to post threats here?]. Your parroting of Tuvalkin's sarcastic opening remarks of course place you along side him here, when in fact you should be distancing yourself from this behaviour. Shame on you. -- Colin (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Colin, I was unaware of the clash you've had in the past with Tuvalkin. I would ask that in the interests of the project, you do try and engage again with Tuválkin - clean slate and all of that. I really don't think it's helpful that you're here now demanding Tuválkin be blocked, in light of your past history with the user, similarly, I would hope that Tuválkin would take on board the important concerns you've raised, modify their comment and moderate their comments in future.
Yes, I'm doing things differently to my fellow administrators - partially, I'm not keen on blocking users to enforce behaviour policies, coming from an en.wp background, civility blocks are almost always counter-productive, and partially, I'm unconvinced the previous block was effective, and I feel a different approach might be more useful. Nick (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Nick, this is getting to become a tangent from the topic and I have created an AN/U for the issue. I reject the idea that I cannot complain about Tuválkin because in the past he grossly insulted me. That's a weird get-out-of-jail card for anyone trying to censor criticism. Too many AN pages focused on "who said what to whom" which is fundamentally not AGF, and instead on simple "what they said". Does my criticism of Tuválkin have merit yes/no, not should I be the one to criticise him. If you are determined to do things differently then perhaps you should be the one explaining to Tuválkin what he has done wrong and that it must never be repeated on Commons, rather than inventing all sorts of hoops to jump through, or appearing to condone Tuválkin's actions by investing your time vigorously attacking his critic. Whether blocks are effective or not varies with the person, but it is more than just giving a user time to reflect, it is also the community making a clear and strong statement about what sort of behaviour and language it tolerates. Anyway, AN/U is that away. -- Colin (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Indefinitely full-protecting the page over a short edit war is a clear violation of the protection policy, and for Jcb to do so when he was one of the warring parties is highly inappropriate. Reventtalk 13:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Except in case of an archived discussion which has a red letter warning: "Please do not make any edits to this archive." It is a closed discussion. Period. If anybody need to edit it, it is only Jim. (Moreover an undeletion date need to be added encase the closing admin says so for all the files in that DR. Here even Fae claimed "quite a few are about to have expired". Hmmm, what's it.) Jee 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
No, the protection policy allows for 'temporary' full protection in the case of edit disputes, and Jcb should not be using his admin bit to win an edit war. Reventtalk 14:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I've nothing more to add than what Jim commented below. People can ask the closing admin for clarification, if their comment/action is vague. But making actions interpreting in their own way (as happened here) is not wise. Here many of you (including three admins) wasted a lot of energy without asking him. My single ping changed the situation. Let me know if you are in short of wise admins. ;) Jee 15:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Diff informing the closing admin/bureaucrat, who appears to have no concern with my edit. -- (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Having been dragged into this dog fight, I reluctantly say:

(a) The addition of the Undelete in 2017 template was not correct. The template should be used only in cases where it is clear that the images all go out from under copyright on 1/1/2017. I have no expectation that those of us who act on the Undelete templates every January take more than a cursory look at the files. We usually would use that template only if the pma period had expired the previous year. In this case, we know that the images must be after the beginning of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, but the war lasted three years and I don't think we know when some/many of these were made. (Note that the rule we are dealing with here is 80 years after creation).

(b) With that understood, I think that the page protection was iffy -- I might have removed the Undelete template, with the reasoning given above, and then protected the page only if the template had been added again. However, since the undelete template was inappropriate and we don't have a template that says, "Take a hard look at these again on 1/1/2017", the protection did not prevent any legitimate additions to the page because I don't think there are any. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the points being made. At the time the category addition was reverted without explanation. After this was given in a second revert edit comment, I added as text to the DR, as that seemed the obvious way to make it clear that a review is required in 2017, not an unthinking undeletion. This was then called disruption by Jcb and the page indef protected.
We do know the precise year of creation, this was on the image text pages and should be in the date fields of the information templates.
In the absence of any workable Commons process, such as the 2017 category, I can diarize to ask for an undeletion review in 2017, at which time an admin with access to the deleted files can produce a list of 1936 photographs, and someone (perhaps me if I'm available) can point out the wealth of books and articles about the history of photojournalism and the importance of anonymity being used in these specific Spanish Civil War photographs (they are literally not 'Unknown' as the agencies were stamped on the back of the photographs, it was the photographers' names that were withheld). I have contacted the Google Cultural Institute asking for a correction to their wording in the catalogue, though I believe that anyone checking all the facts would conclude there are sufficient external reliable sources for the word "Unknown" to be less of an obstacle to assessing these as both anonymous and public domain under the Spanish 80 year rule, even if Google or the Museum remain unresponsive.
Alternatively, I could raise the undeletion request now, and ask for the images taken in 1936 to be added to the category Undelete in 2017, if the discussion about it can have a location where they will be noticed by interested volunteers and those with some awareness of the subject, and remain open long enough for all the facts to be brought out. -- (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


VikiLaikeR199 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user – copyvios --DCB (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@DCB: Everything's either speedied or at DR now.. Worth seeing if the warnings stick, IMO... hasn't been 'persistent' yet. Reventtalk 15:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Убить, нельзя помиловать!=Удалить нельзя, блокировать![edit]

Заблокируйте меня пожалуйста пожизненно, а так же удалите все мои загрузки, истории правок и комментариев, одним словом всё во всех проектах Википедии, не вынуждайте меня нарушать все возможные правила пользования сайтом для достижения этой цели.Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Сделано. --A.Savin 17:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

City flags[edit]

Previous one month long semi-protection was not long enough. The vandal is back. I am pretty sure that it is Szm020730. --jdx Re: 10:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)