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

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
114, 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
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
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

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.


Indefblock for Slowking4 (review)

The thread Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems #Slowking4 is closed by Pi.1415926535 with the resolution “I have blocked Slowking4 for a period of three months” (emphasis by Incnis Mrsi). Today the same sysop upgraded the block to indefinite block without user_talk and Email access. While stripping Slowking4 of his user_talk was provoked by edit warring, the other two changes are arbitrary. To me, it seems that Pi.1415926535 treats Slowking4 as a banned user and the new block serves nothing but promotion of sock puppetry. There was no consensus that Slowking4 should be banned from Wikimedia Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This is a pity, but considering the situation, it is an inevitable outcome. Specially, the conditions set by Pi.1415926535 for unblocking seem reasonable to me, so if Slowking4 is not ready to abide by them, I don't see any other solution... Regards, Yann (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an indef removal of talk page and email privileges is extreme, I do not agree that it is the only solution. The order of events was:

  1. diff ArchiverBot archived the block related thread, including the notice and appeal.
  2. diff Pi.1415926535 reverted the bot, with the comment "restore block thread with 90-day sticky", presumably intending for the thread to stay visible for 90 days (the period of the block).
  3. diff Slowking4 reverted the change, apparently preferring the block thread discussion to close and remain archived.
  4. diff Jeff G. re-reverted to restore the block thread, commenting "That doesn't address your block".
  5. diff Slowking4 second reverts, commenting "you want to grave dance, first block talk editing".
  6. diff Pi.1415926535 second reverts, commenting "as you wish".

The Commons norm is to only remove talk page access for extreme cases, such as harassment of other contributors or highly disruptive material. The norm for removing email access is even less often seen, and my understanding is that it should only be done in cases where there are complaints about email misuse, rarely as a precaution and never as a punishment. Examining the above diffs, Slowking4's actions in reverting others was misguided, but Jeff G.'s comment makes little sense either as it was clear that Slowking4 was effectively done with their block appeal by wanting to leave it archived and we are aware that Jeff G. is involved as the primary complainant in the decision to block Slowking4, so actions they take on Slowking4's user talk page are likely to appear confrontational. Pi.1415926535 has made no comment in the block thread about their extension of the block to removing talk page and email access, this seems an error as it does require explanation.

As a complainant about Slowking4's behaviour, I would prefer every reasonable step taken to allow Slowking4 return to making collegiate contributions. I recommend that the talk page access and email rights are restored, without others being worried about whether Slowking4 archives the discussion or not. If Slowking4 no longer wishes to appeal the notified 3 month block, that is their call, nobody else has the authority to make appeals on their behalf, and there is nothing in our policies or guidelines that makes letting a block notice on your own talk page remain archived inappropriate. Cutting off communication in the meantime helps nobody. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Usually, the talk page access privilege for blocked users is only permitted to facilitate progress towards unblocking by addressing the block in some way. Slowking4 abused that privilege. Also, block notices are supposed to remain on user talk pages of blocked users for the duration of their blocks. I undid for both reasons, although I regret I forgot to explain the second one.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "talk page access privilege for blocked users is only permitted to facilitate progress towards unblocking", is not the norm on Commons, nor do I agree this being specified in consensus agreed policies or guidelines. We have many cases of blocked users not only discussing their block, but also asking for help responding to other issues while they are blocked, such as commenting on DR notifications left on their page for their own uploads. If you have a Wikimedia Commons policy in mind that you believes supports this rationale for removing talk page access, please provide a link.
Similarly "notices are supposed to remain on user talk pages of blocked users for the duration of their blocks" is new for me. Again I believe we can provide examples where blocked users had the block notices archive away automatically and nobody cared. If you believe this is required by policy, please provide a link. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: The unblock declined English template states "Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked."   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that specific "unblock declined" notice does state that and stated something similar back in 2006 when Nilfanion created it. However block notices do not, neither does the blocking policy. To be honest, this appears to be someone being a bit overzealous in the unblock request template rubric, as it should not overreach what policy states. The block notices are not agreed by community consensus.
In the light of some significant block cases over the last couple of years, including cases where block discussions were blanked as a courtesy, the community could do with revisiting these templates and the process we follow. The community's views on how blocks can be avoided and especially how escalation is to be avoided and reform encouraged, has matured. In particular blocks are not punishments and our wording around them are worth reviewing to ensure people with blocks are treated well and in a non-hostile way. A blocked user having talk page access removed, is getting an equivalent to "you are banned, go away" message, we should take every reasonable step to avoid that happening.
Slowking4 can be sarcastic and at times toxic, they are hardly the worst type of disruptive user we have seen in the last few years and an effective ban at this point is excessive. Let's allow this to play out a bit nicer. --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yann above. It looks like Slowking does not change his behavior, blocks are preventative rather than punitive. Slowking is blocked for a minimum of three months (for that block the unblock requst has been declined), if he wants to contribute again he has to file a unblock request after three months (if he promises not to do so again, etc.). I see no need to take any action now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the thread here was intended as a block review, it was raised in response to the additional removal of talk page and email access this morning. --Fæ (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
… and, importantly, discarding the scheduled unblock (July 4, 23:38 UTC). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I extended the block to indefinite (which I noted in my initial block that I reserved the right to do should he show no interest in changing behavior) and removed talk page access because his sole edits have been to file a ridiculous unblock request that indicates no understanding of why he was blocked, and to edit war to re-remove the block notice from his talk page. (That latter issue came about because his talk page has a one-day bot archive - which he implemented entirely out of spite, as was noted in the AN/U thread.) It is quite clear that he currently has no intention of changing his behavior; if he has an honest change of heart, he can wait out the 90 days or use UTRS, and I will be listening. I would love to have his productive contributions, but only if he changes his highly problematic behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Fæ and others may be interested in what’s going on meta:Steward_requests/Global #Global_lock_for_Slowking4. Commons should indicate that this initiative is staunchly Jeff_G.’s thing and this site is committed to manage the troublesome user with our own devices. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, no way has any of the issues on Commons been worth escalating to a global ban. Disappointing escalation. Call it off please, Slowking4's block has been running for just 3 days, I hope you can put down the stick for the remaining 3 months. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The revocation of the talk page access for the current time being is within reason but indefinably might be too lengthy. Therefor Jeff G.'s actions were too much of a provocation. But we can always re grant talk page access in three months. Natuur12 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds fully reasonable, should he manage to refrain from socking. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Pi.1415926535: Next time using {{subst:DNAU|95}} could be helpful (95 days because for all months excluding February three months are more than 90 days). BTW: Reverting your action as done by Slowking would in my opinion be a cause for automatic block extension. — Speravir – 23:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Just a notification there are another new report against this user m:Steward_requests/Global/2019-04#Global_lock_for_some_accounts, the request itself is invalid as global locking is only used to prevent further disruption, to anybody who want this account to be locked please use m:RFC to start m:global ban process. Thank you.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 16:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Already archived and rejected by Stewards, link fixed.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 04:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think Jeff's AN/U had any merit. Saying something negative about Jcb as a block reason was a few weeks premature for an April Fool. And I am most amused that Fae is concerned about "escalation" when the consequence of Slowking making a joke about Fae not exactly endearing himself to the Wikimania crowd by deleting their furry mascots, was to be subject to accusations of "harassment", "stalking", "creating a threatening hostile atmosphere" and "to make people feel unsafe". Someone should make a Fae × ToU buzzword-bingo card. But seriously, we talk about whether Commons should have a Civility policy, but we allow people to escalate to the language of criminal offences when they find themselves being criticised or mocked. Anyway, I agree with Pi that "Slowking4 has no respect for the Commons community" and in particular that socking is a elemental statement that "blocks are for other people, little people, and I'm not little, so fuck you". I support admins standing up against socks. I would, however, suggest Jeff unwatch Slowking's user/talk page and go find something else to be concerned about. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vimraj Wilfred and User:Ayeesha Nazeem

User:Vimraj Wilfred and User:Ayeesha Nazeem (probable socks) are repeatedly uploading, removing deletion templates, and disruptively CSDing images of Sudarat Keyuraphan. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I warned both users to not upload copyvios. At moment, neither of them needs to be blocked. Taivo (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Albania-exempt

Can you unblock this page Template:PD-Albania-exempt so I can reedit with an improved translation, specifically paragraph b and also change the number of the article corresponding to the link source? Kj1595 (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The template was fully protected to prevent you making undiscussed edits. You must find some consensus and then ask some administrators to make these changes. Taivo (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect my user page

Please protect page User:PlavorSeol as "Allow only administrators". - PlavorSeol (T | C) 10:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there is evidence of vandalism of your userpage. Why did you want it protected? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to prevent other users from editing it. - PlavorSeol (T | C) 16:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You can't prevent other contributors to post messages on your talk page. Protection is only done to prevent vandalism. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: The request was for his user page, not his user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but nobody else has ever edited his/her user page. So I don't see the need either. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:A_ba_gazc

Demonstrative violation of Commons:OVERWRITE, pushing some nationalistic agenda, very likely sock puppetry. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screen of Xvideos login page.PNG

Protection needed: Please semi-protect it. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Protected for 1 month. Jianhui67 T★C 17:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jianhui67: Thank you. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Facebook Messenger 4 Logo.svg

Temporary protection expired. Please extend the protection time!? Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 16:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:JoJo Siwa 2.jpg

Protection needed: Please semi-protect it. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 16:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Seems to have been going on for at least a month so lets start with a month of semi and see what happens from there. --Majora (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Majora: Thank you. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 16:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RajaSaheb PressMedia

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arabic Wikipedia 750,000 blue.svg

Hello, please protect File:Arabic Wikipedia 750,000 blue.svg for 1 week (until 22 April 2019, 00.00 a.m.) on sysop level (probably?!)? This logo now used as arwiki logo per discussion. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 17:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections&oldid=345921088"