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.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Translate this page
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.


Please block Lavrense (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Materialscientist (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Belmaachi spam/hoax again[edit]

Hi all. We have one new sockpuppet of the "Belmaachi Spammer" here: User:PersonalresearchinMoroco. He has only uploaded one image so far but it fits the usual pattern so please block him and delete the image. (The spammer has also been active on the French Wikipedia recently, so any French speakers who feel so inclined might want to keep an eye open for him there. I don't speak French but, using Google Translate, I saw some discussion about trying to work out a range of IP addresses to block. I don't know if they found one, or how effective it would be, but if they did find a viable way to impede him, even if only partially effective, then it might be worth implementing something similar here. ) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Where did you see this discussion? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


Yuri825 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user
Another copyvio after the last warning. Sealle (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Asked a RU-speaking admin to help out. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Alvintom08[edit]

Alvintom08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who is currently blocked for uploading non-free files, has a sockpuppet account, Alvindomondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This is evidenced not only by their username, but by their userpage at English Wikipedia. They have made two edits that effectively by-pass the block set for them in August 2014. I apologize if this is the wrong place to file a report, so please ping me and let me know if I have. Thanks, K6ka (talk | contribs) 11:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Iraq war map.png[edit]

File:Iraq war map.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Highlighted at User:Fæ/SignificantReverts and previously raised at AN/B, this remains a hotly contested political map which is in use on 37 mainspace articles. Could someone please review it for potential longer term protection to avoid revert warring. Thanks -- (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Using some AGF messages first is IMO better, than protecting, etc. Only if these messages are not successful, protection is required. @Michael2552, Banak: Please discuss before making any new changes. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted once and once only for each of the three effected maps: File:Iraq war map.png, File:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png and File:Yemen war detailed map.png. The rest of the reverts on this page appear to have been an attempt to communicate whilst self reverting to the same image. It should be noted that whilst in general on commons maps should not be changed without good reason, this map is the map of a changing current event and a week-long discussion before what I thought was an uncontroversial edit would be bad.
On the issue of what to do longer term, I am not entirely sure. It was, for quite a while, assumed that the maps would reflect their corresponding English wikipedia modules. However, this ceased to be the case as one user used their own sources, which they stated in the edit summaries most of the time, and some took this to mean that other editors had no sources when they uploaded an image per the module, despite the frequent discussions there and sources being required for every edit. I have just edited my user page to try and reduce the risk of a repeat of this, and am not trying to put a banner on my talk page to request people inquiring over maps see my user page before posting. Banak (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
While this issue is raised, I think we do need to have a discussion about the nature of all seven widely used module-template based war maps. Where would be the appropriate place for that? Syria has 26 English links; Syria,Iraq and Lebanon has 17, Yemen 11, Libya 10, Iraq 8, Lebanon 2, and Syria and Iraq 52 (only 6 main-space, though). Banak (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I fully protected to map for now. The history is a wild mess. Not sure what to do either. One thing that comes to mind is to split the map. Either one file per year or a new file every time something bigger happens and then protecting the old one. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
By "hotly", I was obliquely referring to the fact that a comment had previously been suppressed, not that all parties working on the map were at fault, apologies if this put you on the defensive. Refer to AN/B archive where I previously left notes on Wikipedia talk pages, but had no feedback from there as to what action on the images users would like to see. -- (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This... Is not what I was hoping for. The community wants updated maps. If you're going to protect this map you may as well protect the other 6. This protection seems entirely arbitrary, the other maps have roughly the same typical behaviour of occasional reverts, infrequent reverts of those and rare triple reverts.
There are several problems with map splitting. The first is you have to decide what the rules for the existing map are. The second is that then there is the problem of edit warring on wikipedias over which map to use, and the English Wikipedia is under general sanctions so we'd probably have a bunch of RFCs over what maps to use. The third is I have a problem when uploading new files, as it won't let me select a licence for some reason. Therefore I appeal to you, please tell me exactly what can be done to ensure we can actually have updated maps?
As for doing an update after every major change, how would you decide who does them, when they are needed and by what rules they choose what it looks like? It wouldn't solve any problems. Banak (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
, can I request you put a notice on the talkpage of the file that's being discussed next time if you want feedback? I was completely unaware of that notice. My intention wasn't defensive, I want to give all information to bring about a return to normality whereby we have updated maps. One element of that is that this update, like every single one before it to File:Iraq_war_map.png had no stated source, though one in early August 2015 does refer to the module (but not stating that it's source).
Hedwig in Washington please, consider this account of what happened (and note LightandDark2000 is BlueHypercane761's legitimate alternate account if reading the upload log):
The map was uploaded on 22 June 2014. Until at least June 2015 it was based on entirely on the module. Then in early September an edit war broke out over which version was the newest, which Fæ referred to. I stepped in and made a newer version to stop any argument of the newest thus ended the first edit war. BlueHypercane761 added an update soon after, and I make another one a couple of weeks later. Note not a single one of these edits ever have a stated source. Michael2552 then reverts me on this map and two others, strangely enough twice on each (I assumed a double click). I revert referring to the source being the modules' history and talkpage, which was more than any previous upload, and has been for most of the history the assumed source. I revert two of his reverts citing the English Wikipedia modules. At which point he reverts me twice more. So he did 4 reverts and I did 1. I ask him to talk not by reverting for fear of more reverts (him having now done 3 consecutive reverts with the last 2 having no change on Yemen, totally 10 reverts across 3 pages.
So basically, what has happened is we've had a separate mini "edit war" to the first (in which neither of us were involved), in which the statistics of numbers of reverts is misleading because 2 of the 5 reverts weren't really reverts, but a novel attempt to communicate. I clearly am engaging in discussions and clearly was not intending to revert again. I therefore ask, what is the benefit of this permanent protection, and also what do I need to do to be allowed to submit updates to this map again in your eyes? I also ask, what am I meant to do about the other 2 maps with exactly the same "edit war" going on, and also for the other 4 maps. Whilst I believe you are acting in good faith, I believe your page protection is entirely counter productive, and I literally cannot see the logic behind it. Is there any way to solve this on Commons, or do I have to go on English Wikipedia, start a RFC on what we want "the maps in our articles" to be like, upload a new version for each of the seven maps if we decide they have to match the module, and make another RFC to stop them being migrated to commons to avoid users deciding to revert from getting the map designated as an "edit war" and stopping any future updates to them. This is truly ridiculous. Banak (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it would have been good for me to leave a note on the file talk page.
There's no harm in putting up a proposal as an English Wikipedia RFC for better stability and this may help any solution here on Commons stick long term. As for file protection, this is just a way of slowing things down and encouraging a consensus to form. If you have changes you want to make, you only have to raise them with Hedwig, it need not be a barrier to all changes. -- (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That is correct. The rules: There are no rules and how can there be any? My suggestion is to make a new map after a major update. What major is has to be decided by the uploader and/or community.Frankly, I really don't give a dime if enwiki can decide what's what or not. We have to provide our customers a good product to satisfy their needs. Having several maps that can show a timeline might be really useful to some. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to take the protection of the page. For now -IMHO- the protection should stay in place. Waiting for Michael2552 to show up here. @Banak: Could you provide a link to your source? Maybe it'll be a good idea to add at least some proof to the file. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)