Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 2

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Blocks and protections
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

Image:VIPlibrary.jpg

This image is on the Did You Know? page on the english Wikipedia. I have protected the image. This protection should only be in place for the duration that this image is on there. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Blockage of user:CommonsJoe

I've blocked User:CommonsJoe for trolling. If anyone has any objection, feel free to undo. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Doko

I don't understand the mention of block on this user page. If I read correctly, this mention was added by User:SillyWillyOnWheels wich is also mentionned blocked on his page? Oxam Hartog 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that and their other edits. Alphax (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fred Chess

Fred is disconcerted with Image:Rouge-Admin.png, which was kept in a previous COM:DEL request. He renominated it recently but went out of his way to prove his point by uploading Special:Undelete/Image:Administrator terrorist 2.png and stated he was doing so to prove a point. He may be a respected user here, but disrupting Commons to make a point isn't on. Personally, I'd rather not have to create COM:POINT to stop this kind of thing happening in future. I've given him a cautionary 1 hour block, there was no reason for this disruption.--Nilfanion 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would necessarily have blocked him for it, just getting him to understand it was wrong and promise to not do it again might have been sufficient. But then I'm a bit personally involved since I was the one who nommed the image in question for deletion. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It may have been overkill, but as the block was very short it wasn't much different in effect from a strongly phrased rebuke. The fact he uploaded an image stating he was uploading it to "prove a point", shows awareness of the en guideline and a disregard for its purpose.--Nilfanion 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't typically overturn the blocks of others and your point is taken. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppet & Template:Protected

I have semi-protected these two templates due to their vulnerability. --Cat out 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:Sin bandera.svg

Please follow up on the 2 requests on Image talk:Sin bandera.svg. Regular users cannot do it as the image description is protected. Thanks, Siebrand 12:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done --Matt314 12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Only warnings

What about blocking users after a certain amount of warnings without response? My first two suggestions would be Solomon and Maksim. What do you think? --Flominator 12:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look the other way for Solomon since my initial impression is that he is a newbie. As for Maksim, he is blocked for a week. If he does not reform by the time block expires and continue to upload copyrighted material...
I'll be using the following structure for this case and similar future cases.
  • 1st block length is one week.
  • 2nd block length is two weeks.
  • 3rd block length is month.
  • 4th block length is three months
  • 5th block length is a year
  • 6th block length is indefinite
--Cat out 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we create a solid rule for such cases? Let's say: x warnings and your're out? --Flominator 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I created my unofficial rule just now. I'll let people discuss it, I wouldn't mind if it becomes official. --Cat out 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We have a (proposed) Blocking policy.
Maksim has not contributed since 9th April. Adding as many useless automatic warnings as everyone likes won't change the facts about his existing uploads, which continue to be found as NSD, etc.
Creating a solid rule seems to me to be exactly the opposite of the flexibility that admins need to deal with individual circumstances. The thing is, blocking is not a punishment for bad behaviour. It's only a brake to put on the mess than unknowing/uncaring users will create before we can catch up with them.
If someone shows a willingness to learn and follow the rules, that's the only important thing. If they don't show that willingness, we don't really have a lot for them to do.
My two main thoughts about blocking are that (A) admins here should do it a lot more readily to slow down copyright violators and (B) admins here should pay a hell of a lot more attention to the fact that a user may not... in fact, to be safe, let's say, PROBABLY DOES NOT speak English as a first language. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
True. Avoid bureaucracy at all costs :)
The language barrier is of course a problem but if the user is creating english summaries he probably knows it. Of course some people copy paste large chunks of text too.
I guess I am confused on what the best course of action is.
--Cat out 22:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:SAJordan

For making threats against Cool Cat and others, despite being a new person to the Commons, I have blocked the above usef for an indefinite period with the reasoning that the community has gone impatient with the above user. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

He is stirring up some additional trouble. Nothing too serious although I am more and more feeling that this person is some sort of a sockpuppet perhaps. --Cat out 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, if he made some indication that he was here to contribute, I'd be in favour of lifting the block. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem with that, but if on the third edit he carries his problems from EN to the Commons,I highly doubt he will contribute anything. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Poland

I request the un-protection of the files bearing the "new" versions of the Flag of Poland. A small set of users unilaterally decided that the colours of the Polish flag are grey and red, instead of white and red. The upload of new, correct white-red versions of the flag is almost useless, as all Wikipedias use the standard Image:Flag_of_Poland.svg file, and its change is an endorsement of a wrong version.--FlagUploader 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Problem solved - this user is now banned for trolling about Polish flag (he also vandalised article about it on pl.wiki, where he is banned)--WarX 12:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that this is the correct course of action. I am completely new to this situation, so I think I have some neutrality here. There seems to be a content dispute, and a block is not the way to settle it. I am unblocking FlagUploader so that he may discuss this issue further, with the stipulation that he does not aggravate the situation. If he continues to edit war, a reblock would be fine. However, if he continues to upload controversial files, I'd like to see a centralized community discussion so that everyone can understand the disagreement and arrive at a conclusion. ~MDD4696 14:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I should note that FlagUploader contacted me via email with the following:
Hello.
I am writing you because I recently uploaded an image on Commons, File:Correct Flag of Poland.svg, but it was deleted. I re-uploaded it (I tought I made a mistake) but it is still gone. Could you please tell me how to behave in this situation?
The matter might be relevant, as I was recently blockef for 2 weeks, with the motivation "Sorry, but your opinion about Polish flag is useless, couse is not based on any Polish law". I suspect the block is somehow related to the uploaded image, but I can't contact WarX, the blocker. Would you please take a look?
Best regards
~MDD4696 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
My mistake - I've active e-mail now :)--WarX 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to unblock them? Alphax (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked this user. Please don't block users with which you're directly involved. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Scoo

Scoo has requested on IRC that he should be blocked from Commons for a year (to stop it distracting him from his studies). Commons policy provides no real guidance for users/admins on this issue. En.wiki has policy against this and users can use this to enforce a self-break (in preference to blocking). However, I am not aware of other wiki's policy on this issue so I am not going to enforce en rules here against Scoo's wishes. If discussion on this issue is needed I suggest we do it on his talk page (so he can participate whether he is blocked or not). Without guidance on Commons, I intend to respect his wishes and block him. Scoo can you confirm the request here?--Nilfanion 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'm feeling lucky ;) Seriously, please whack me. I hope that when/if I'm back, this is resolved. And don't let paranoia kill the sapling which is quite promising, despite some troubling developments. Scoo 23:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Now blocked. I will not wheel-war to defend this block, but ask that the community develop a consensus on whether this is allowed or not first. Personally I have no real opinion on what Commons policy here should be, but as I have been asked civilly I see no real reason why not to do it.--Nilfanion 23:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Kind of odd. What is enwp's reasoning on requested self-blocks? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No idea, but maybe we could use this instead? Alphax (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Open proxies

Following User:Bobabobabo uploading some copyvio images (he is banned from en.wp for this offence and others), I've blocked him and gone on a rampage against open proxies. Any problem with indeffing them?--Nilfanion 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to contact nl:User:RonaldB. He has developed some magic to automagically do all sorts of stuff with open proxies and blocking. Cheers, Siebrand 12:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
See Open_proxy_fighting for current results on open proxy counter actions. Siebrand 15:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Following some further trolling by this person, I've raised this issue on meta to look towards adding Commons into the established interwiki wikiproject on this issue. Whilst this isn't exactly a major issue for us, I think its time we got ourselves up to speed.--Nilfanion 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just flooded the recent changes here with blocks as you can see. As I said on meta this appears to constitute a lot of the currently blocked IPs in the participating projects in the proxy project. I'd appreciate help in establishing the mirror pages for the Commons project here.--Nilfanion 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nilf, what kind of help do you need (the last time I asked this I seem to recall getting dragged into something but what the heck)? That is, what is it that needs doing to "set up the mirror pages" ?? I am in favour of commonalizing things where ever it makes sense to do so. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we need local copies of some of the subpages of meta:WM:OP, but I'm not entirely sure which ones (which is why I'm asking for help). We basically just have to make a few minor tweaks and copy/paste the needed pages here. Then we would need to tweak the files on the other projects to include the commons linkage. The other aspect of this is due notification to admins of COM:OP being set up.--Nilfanion 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I know exactly what to do, but perhaps some of the multiproject editors or admins listed on m:Meta:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users can help? Also I think maybe you want to get yourself added as a verified admin there? ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User Yann

I was bloked by user Yann, alleging copyright violation. This was untrue because all that I loaded is own work, and I have original vector files to probe it. I posted thousands of images to Commons; even if Yann believe that one (or X) image is violation copyright, the image or images must be deleted, but user can't be bloked when all the remaining are corrects (and in this case 100% of images loaded are corrects)

This user dont send any warning justifying its accusation and when (a posteriori) write me, claimed an untrue copyright violation. Is not adequate to say some like this "this is violation copyright in my opinion and then I block you". If is not a true violation copyright, blockage is unadequate and the decission about that is a real violation copyright can't be take by a single man.

I'm some prestige, and as he isultated me publically, I will follow against him a judiciare procedure because he don't apologize; but administrative mesures must be taken by Wikimedia against him, or if is not, you will be complices.--jolle 12:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't threaten other users with your lawyer. Don't call other users "pathethic". Don't call other users "stupid". Thuresson 13:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Before he call me thief. You is silent abou this show your no neutral option. --jolle 14:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see this user blocked. There must be a grave misunderstanding on the blocker's side here. Siebrand 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
He has uploaded copyright violations (deleted two of Norwegian currency myself yesterday), and when asked about this he replies in a very uncivil way; he thinks that only registered trademarks are copyrighted so that he can reproduce any logo he wants, that he can scan any money he owns and license it freely. I can't understand what's so wrong with blocking in such a case. Furthermore, when a conflict arose, he threatened legal action against the blocking admin and Wikimedia, and claimed without any justification that he's being discriminated against because he's a Catalan. Cnyborg 15:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I claimed because he say that I'm violating copyright of images that I contructed taking many hours. You don't asked me NEVER about Norwegian currency, and the user that asked over other currencies (last summer) don't received any answer neither "uncivil" or "civil" way because I was out of my country and I missed the message that I see only yesterday. Furthermore I NEVER loaded Norwegian currency, if any, I loaded an old pictures of publicity about foreign courrencies, without copyright rights. About the logo (you say "any logo that he want") that you quote, is the single logo between 200 images, and is fully correct because I received it with autorization for to publish it, and the image was constructed personally by me, as stated when was loaded, and sureley you, perhaps blinded by the ire, missed, but please delete it because I revoke this autorization and all possibles. About coins, Wikimedia hoist the most great collections of current coins of the world, and as far I know its reproduction is allowed (perhaps some national legislation forbiden it, but this is not valable in other country) but furthermore this may be a bad excuse (You dont found nothing against me, and then has resource to this) because my images of coins are only a few images and loaded in last JULY (and remained for months without to be a problem until yesterday), between the houndreds or thousands I loaded, some of them of high quality and dificulty, created by me, and that I will be very satisfaed if they are all deleted. Last part is not true (was a reference to an historical fact, problems between french and catalans exist from many time, reference that surely you missed because you read without less attention and confused the facts). Legal action is against insult, not against bloking. But is the same, I dont want to discuss you, I don't will come back to wikimedia and wikipedia never again, as happened with others active members by your wrong policy (exact the contrary one of the claimed in the rules) and I will go to other better comunity. Then please dont disturb me any more in any way, neither write here thinks that are not true, and please transmit to the many people that frequently asked me for flags and maps, that after this, they will have not answer.--jolle 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: You were asked about several images of currency on 24 august by User:Thuresson. This included Image:Noruega-observe.jpg and Image:Noruega-reverse.jpg, which you had uploaded on 15 August (now deleted as they were clear copyright violations). You answered Thuresson on 25 December, starting your reply with "I believe that commons is not a media store but a competition to see who is most stupid". It's not the case that they've been here for months without anyone seeing a problem; with the two I've mentioned it took nine days before someone tried to make you aware of the problem. It's also somewhat puzzling that you haven't seen the message before, since you were logged in and uploading images 27 August, three days after it was posted, and again in the following days, so you've certainly been active here in the period of four months that went past before you reacted to the message. Cnyborg 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In general blocking active and big contributors without making extra effort is not the way to go in my opinion. Gaime should and must remove his legal threat. I have also read a recommendation to Gaime on his talk page to take a wiki break. That is probably a sane advice; in the Netherlands we have a saying that's literally translated as the soup is never eaten at the temperature of serving. Let's cool down and start a dialogue instead of talking to each other. The blocking admin should in my opinion have a little patience here. Gaime has done a fabulous job in the flags and coa department. Gaime should invest a little time in Commons policies regarding what is allowed and what is not. Please be aware that we are both dedicating time to a hobby, not to a job. Let's leave fighting wars to the soldiers. Can we work from here? Siebrand 21:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

user:Captain Scarlet

I have unblocked Captain_Scarlet (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Alphax (talk · contribs) blocked him with the reason repeated copyvio uploading; you are blocked until further notice and you are honest about the source of your uploads

But Captain Scarletts copyvios where uploaded a long time ago (it was mostly old images that he incorrectly thought he could use freely), and he was helpful in adding the copyvio template himself to all such images. I do not see any copyvio problems in recent time. So I have unblocked him.

Fred Chess 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Alphax (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef block procedure

So, I just indef-blocked User:Starr as a vandalism account. When I went to the block screen, I left all three options checked (Block anonymous users only, Prevent account creation, Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from). Does this mean that anyone with the IP address Starr was using won't be able to make an account, indefinitely?

I wanted to indef-block the account, and prevent account creation for a period of time... ~MDD4696 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP is blocked for 24 hours after the initial block. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 05:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I prefer to leave the block IP unchecked since I don't see any problem with the user editing from his IP. / Fred Chess 11:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Example

I know things work a little differently here compared to the English Wikipedia. I was attempting to create a template to link to user accounts here, and discovered that there is no User:Example here like there is at Wikipedia. I created a page with that title (not a second account). I also added the {{Protected}} tag to the top of the page (not really expecting it to work), but it seems to have worked after all. Like I said, a little different than Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I did right or not, but I don't want anyone to question why I did this--I wanted to explain it so that someone can fix it (I'll be happy to if you tell me what needs to be done) if it needs fixing. Hopefully it will turn out what I did is something everyone appreciates and finds useful. :-) --Willscrlt 08:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As this seemed like an excellent opportunity for a troll to take advantage, I took the initiative and went ahead and Created the account. So there should never be any edits from User:Example. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't quite sure what to do. I was afraid of sock puppetry, trolls, you name it. I just hoped that I hadn't done anything that would upset someone. Thanks for stepping in and fixing things. :-) --Willscrlt 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Bastique that makes you the example user? :) --Cat out 08:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

High-risk images

Should we preemptively protect high-risk images: obvious examples are Image:Symbol support vote.svg and Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg? If so, how widely used (on Commons and other WM projects) should an image be used for protection?--Nilfanion 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think protection is acceptable of these images. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 17:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh. Those images don't appear on the main page, and they do appear in places where regular editors are likely to see them and also know how to revert them. I think pre-emptive protection should only be used for high visibility images, rather than high risk. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I am semi protecting them. Newbies should not be touching them anyways. We do not need a disaster to protect heavy use images and etc. --Cat out 08:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool Cat: how is that useful? Unregistered editors can't upload images in the first place.
Fred Chess 14:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have fully protected both images. Is there a template to add to images that are protected? / Fred Chess 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I used the en.wp high-risk template as a basis for {{Protected image}} which I made yesterday. Its not perfect but its a fair start (more translations ;) ).--Nilfanion 21:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cariner (talk · contribs)

I am giving Cariner a three day cooling period. Any administrator is welcome to reverse or endorse this action. --Cat out 08:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Block removed. See user talk page. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Self, Template:Self2, and Template:Self3

I suggest fully protect all of these, because they are by now used in so many places. Actually, my itchy fingers might already have protected them by the time you are reading this.

Another thing: because we now have the parser function, it would be sufficient to have one template called {{Self}}. Oh well.

Fred Chess 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A self template using parser functions if located on User:Bryan/Sandbox. Example:
I've also protected the self templates. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Now the question is if one {{Self}} template can be smoothly integrated with the current system?

By the way, please notice that there is also a lesser used template named {{Self4}} so that four argumanents needs to be included as parser functions (I don't think it needs to be protected though; it's not even used 50 times).

Fred Chess 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My template can use up to 6 licenses. And the syntax is just {{self|lic1|lic2|lic3|lic4|lic5|lic6}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Bryan, can you copy/paste your sandbox version over {{Self}} (keeping the category coding on the template)? This will allow your code to be implemented without a GFDL-vio. Otherwise, a history-merge would be needed and deleting a widely used template (even temporarily) is a bad thing.--Nilfanion 14:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
When I have done so, should I redirect self2 and self3 to self ? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep and ideally modify MediaWiki:Licenses (and the language variants) too? :)--Nilfanion 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Hégésippe Cormier

found on Commons:Bistro and transferred here :

Pour des raisons personnelles, je demande le blocage permanent du compte User:Hégésippe Cormier (histoire de décourager toute tentative d'éditer). Merci d'avance. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking permanent block of his count (to discourage himself to edit)

Same request made on fr: here, turn down by sysops because on fr: this demand is coming back several times per years (block/unblock at each crisis)

If someone want do something....... not me. Oxam Hartog 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Hégésippe just has to stay away... Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Juiced lemon.

I've blocked Juiced lemon for one week because he started to do again a cross-edit war with Catalan related categories. If you're administrator, and you strongly disagree with my decision, you can unblock him, I've no problem. For further info see COM:AN/User problems/Juiced lemon, COM:AN/Disputes/Juiced_lemon and Northern Catalonia related things..., and COM:VP/Conflicts Juiced Lemon has been involved in. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Martorell, I strongly disagree with you using any admin action that has anything at all to do with this user. If their actions are worthy of blocking, it will be easy to find another administrator who agrees with you and who will do the blocking. But I really don't think you can do this yourself, I think it is totally wrong. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pfctdayelise, you should not block a user for an edit conflict you are personally involved with. And for both of you, *why* are most of the talk pages of the Catalonian categories empty? Why do you both refuse to talk but rather start revert warring each other? -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I thank the administrators who have read my message with proper attention, in particular Pfctdayelise (she unblocked my account). --Juiced lemon 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

File Upload Bot (jtanzler) (talk · contribs)

I blocked this bot because all uploaded files have no source and licence information. This bot is not useful for commons. --GeorgHH 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion war between Juiced lemon and Evrik

I've protected the following pages:

Because there are too many reversions between users Juiced lemon and Evrik. They are discussing in Category talk:Saint George. Latest reversions were made by JL. It isn't an endorsement of his version, but infinite reverting doesn't solves anything. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Eserna (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

I had blocked Eserna (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for a week for reuploading deleted content. Now he/she used Ligeia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  to evade this ban. I have both blocked them indefinitely. If you see an image uploaded from Javier Sierra (more specifically Image:Javier Sierra.jpg and Image:JavierSierra.jpg) it is very likely a sock of this user. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected Commons:By location category scheme.

I've changed this page to make it clear that's not a Commons policy but a proposal, because here wasn't any voting process by the Commons' community about this issue. I've given the discussion references on this talk page. After that, Juiced lemon started again to revert and re-revert to former version, so I've decided to protect this page, as this is the core of a lot of problems and discussions here in Commons. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Martorell began an edit war to conceal the text regarding place names in the scheme Commons:By location category scheme. That directly regards this dispute: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes/Catalonia. Now, he has used again his administrator abilities about this dispute and protected the page with his non-consensual changes.
I request the restoration of the page to Revision as of 12:29, 26 January 2007 in order to resolve fairly this dispute. Martorell must not edit this page; all proposals have to be done in the talk page. --Juiced lemon 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It conceals only to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes/Catalonia ?? Let me to remember that it also conceals to:
You stated that you work according to wp:en authority expressed in Commons:By location category scheme, and so an article that isn't being Common policy is the core of all these discussions and problems. There's no consensual fact for any criteria purposed there. If you're referring to this talk page, so you've forgotten all other these discussions listed above, and it's very clear that here is no consens. So, if this is not a policy, every user is free to change this page, and you have NO reason to revert any contribution only because you may desagree with another viewpoint. Why don't you discuss the proposals in talk page instead of avoid it reverting the contribs? --Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC) PD: Is an editwar a contrib made in amount of +1,879 Kb. in this page? Please, talk fairly.
If any user is free to change Commons:By location category scheme, I'am free to revert your non-consensual changes, which scorn the current customs and rules. You perfectly know that I have tons of justifiable reasons to revert your changes, which are in the line of your sneaky vandalism. I have conflicts with users which don't apply the Commons rules and work to make the database unusable. That is in the order of things. We have a dispute because you are currently the most harmful user for the Commons organization.
You can write any proposal in the talk page. You made the changes directly in the scheme page in order to conceal the text which don't suit you. --Juiced lemon 11:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't care if they apply or not some Common rules. The fact is there are a lot of discussions and problems because of a specific issue, so the supossed rule that you refer should be more more discussed in order to change it or to make it more clear . So these discussion should be taken also in count in order to the content of Commons:By location category scheme, instead of taking in count only this talk page.
Give first facts that the former version of this page was made under consens. Where's the voting process of the community about this issue?. When a set of criterias was discussed between three or four users in this talk page, but when out there are more than four other users discussing the issue in other pages or they're having conflicts with you because of it, so it shouldn't be considered a consens. I am not giving to understand unfairly that this page is a Commons policy as you made it until now. And no, you aren't free to revert and nth-revert to infinite any page in any case. Please, don't talk about the usefullness of the database, because you're making it usefull only for you, instead for everyone. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No use of any admin powers (moving, deleting, blocking, protecting) to be used on any page or file relating to this topic (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes/Catalonia#Suggested restrictions to be placed on administrators).
That's well clear for anybody, except you, I see. --Juiced lemon 11:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a Catalonia related article, you don't have made any contrib on this article (see history), and so there's no conflict with you. Instead of it, you reverted my contribs, so you have a conflict with me. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Martorell: Why are you using your admin powers to in a dispute which you are involved again? Pfctdayelise warned you about that above. There is a dispute between you and Juiced Lemon on this page, you should never ever use admin abilities yourself in these situations. If protection is warranted a non-involved admin will be happy to do it for you. I'm inclined to unprotect, but suggest you do that first.--Nilfanion 11:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I will unprotect it now, but I request to any other admin to protect it again if JL reverts changes I've made there. Are you agree with this?. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC) PD:   Done.
Protection of a page like this is harmful, as it restricts who can make edits. If Juiced Lemon reverts the changes without prior discussion again, I will block him for a short period. This is not a sanctioning of either viewpoint of the dispute, but asking that this is actually discussed on the talk page. I see two proposals as to how the category scheme should work, but I see no consensus for which should be adopted, please generate it on the talk page (link from the Village Pump to raise attention?)--Nilfanion 12:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to intervention in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes/Catalonia

Please, could any admin to take part in a reversion war started by JL in this page regarding to my proposal about suggested restrictions for both users??. Thanks. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC) PD: I've post a message in talk page about it.

Martorell, you are involved in this dispute. Therefore, you are not allowed to edict any rule regarding resolution of this dispute. So, stop your sneaky attacks on various pages. --Juiced lemon 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

please unblock

please unblock

I'm guessing by the fact that you (user:76.169.96.50) were able to write this message, your IP is not in fact blocked. So you'll need to be more specific for us to be able to help you. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Baseball

I think in the baseball article that it should be unprotected. Who would want to mess around with an American Pasttime and whoever does should be ashamed of themselves.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 208.0.206.225 (talk • contribs)

Baseball is not protected...? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the user ment the article on English Wikipedia. / Fred Chess 16:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Insert text

This page has now been created and deleted three times inside one month (the same problem has occurred on Wikibooks). Worth creating and protecting it? Not sure if that is something you do here - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good point about bad pages such as these. It might be an idea to implement cascading protection of such pages - in the style of en wp. An obvious one for this is Image:Wiki.png, which is protected as a non-image. Better the page didn't exist at all imo.--Nilfanion 09:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Done that one - not sure about cascading in this case but for others as you suggests it might be useful housekeeping to both create and use cascading --Herby talk thyme 10:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Pfctdayelise already had created Commons:Protected against recreation, so I suggest that we transclude all protected against recreation pages there. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nilfanion and I brought over the {{Protected title}} template from en:wp ... it adds some nice links to let you look at the logs for the page in one click and some other nice stuff. Not sure it's quite right yet, but it seems to be working so far. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work guys! -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As cascading protection works through MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected, we should create that system message. My suggestions for the links are on its talk page. Should we make the message big and red like the en one?--Nilfanion 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am alomst done with this MW page... not sure i have it just so but am interested in comments. changing it to big and red is already done since I cribbed from EN, I think. I need some pages to test with though. ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Think I AM done, see discussion on testing and expected results at MediaWiki talk:Cascadeprotected. Images need testing yet. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Riva72

I have blocked the user for a day. Despite warnings and a 2 hour "cooling" block, the user is still revert waring with at least two administrators on a number of images re-adding speedy deletion template. --Cat out 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't cooling blocks deprecated? They certainly are on en.W --MichaelMaggs 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
He was revert waring and I had to remove lots of speedy tags. His block had expired by the time I was nearly done with the task I was preforming. --Cat out 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorsing this block. If this user continues to add speedy tags, to images that are not speediable, we will have to protect the images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:GFDL/uk

Does this have a potentially valid use here - it has been deleted three time in three days (iirc) so if not I will protect it - thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:GFDL/ms - this one too? Are they potentially valid? --Herby talk thyme 11:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - answering my own question I see they are - semi protection an option? --Herby talk thyme 11:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I recreated it with some text from uk Wikipedia.... / Fred Chess 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Never even thought of it (that will be why you are a 'crat and I am an admin <g>) - seriously - thanks and much better than keeping on deleting it --Herby talk thyme 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-old/ku

Please protect this template for the future. --Bangin@de@ku ¤ ρø$τ 17:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I don't think this is good idea. The translated templates are not generally protected because they are not used in that many places, so any potential vandalism wouldn't be that disruptful. / Fred Chess 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Image Protection

A slow-motion revert war over Image:Dennis Johnson Lipofsky.jpg involving myself and another user have reverted the image back and forth for several days. I would like protection of the image in the non-watermarked state in accordance with the policies at Commons and Wikipedia until the matter can be resolved. I have been informed by bastique on IRC that it is being handled at a foundation level, but in the meantime, to stop the revert war over the image I am requesting protection. Thank you. --MECU 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected, but with the watermark. I don't know if we have a protection policy here on Commons, so I used en:Wikipedia:Protection policy — "pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in. Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version." Kjetil r 02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I endorse this solution, until the situation is better explained to the uploader regarding attribution and how it works on Wikimedia sites. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The uploader says that he is happy "to have people use my images on their non commercial web sites, so long as they are credited." Does he really know that a GFDL license allows commercial use? Kjetil r 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Perníček

This user basically only uploads unsourced images and copyright violations (full upload history, observe the many red links). I request a long block. Siebrand 10:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the history/contributions/lack of license info, blocked for a month - thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sam Wang

Hi, Sam Wang has been protected in June 2006. Can someone add in a category saying "protected page" or something similar as it is on the "no category" list. Thanks. Deadstar 13:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done It's been deleted and added to Commons:Protected against recreation. Yonatan talk 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Shellabella17

I blocked User:Shellabella17 for three days now. However, all his edits are pure vadalism. Shall we block him indefinitely? --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Has my support - I reverted a few yesterday and a couple of warnings were placed on the user talk page. Strange editing continued --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it is worth rather reminiscent of the edits here Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Tiny_changes_by_Korean_IPs_222.120.74..E2.80.A6 - changing svg to SVG etc --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jedda (talk · contribs)

I warned this user. He is providing fair use images from en.wiki with wrong licences. Also, i blocked the sock puppets Djeddah (talk · contribs) and Jeddah (talk · contribs). --GeorgHH 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If they are socks (CU?) should they be indefinite blocks? --Herby talk thyme 13:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

144.140.22.190 (talk · contribs)

The above IP address is an open proxy, and is vandalizing my userpage. Already had been blocked at en and ja wikipedia. Please block it. --Calvero 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked --Herby talk thyme 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Indefinite blocking IPs that are not open proxies

I was wondering what the opinions here are of blocking IPs that are not open proxies. I think it is not good to have IPs blocked indefinitely. Static IPs are almost always "quasi static": they do not change over a very long period, but they are likely to eventually change owner. This means that and indefinite block on an IP may eventually lead to a block on a totally legitimate user. Moreover, I see no real disadvantage over blocking an IP for a year instead of indefinitely. Any opinions? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Samulili 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. --MichaelMaggs 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a network administrator at a high school. Our IPs will likely remain with us as long as they remain useful to this 75 year old institution. A few of our students have found amusement editing pages on wikipedia. We are able to block wikipedia from our network but do not wish to do so. The simple and efficient solution is to indefinitely block editing privileges on our IPs. --jk@ahastars.org 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

DieBucheBot

I have blocked DieBucheBot (talk · contribs)for a month, for (as I said on the user talk page) "improper and undiscussed use of bot, exactly how NOT to use bots". The reasons can be seen at User_talk:DieBuche#DieBucheBot_changing_vector_templates.

Comments to the block are appreciated.

Fred Chess 16:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dennis Johnson Lipofsky.jpg protection

I've had an edit-protected request at Image talk:Dennis Johnson Lipofsky.jpg to remove the protection for over a week now with no comments or the protection removed. Could an admin please un-protect this image? MECU≈talk 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

24.34.77.145 and NOPLEASE

Hello,

IP 24.34.77.145 and User:NOPLEASE have been blocked for vandalism. This IP is also used by User:Artaxiad. Yann 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reblocked User:NOPLEASE for a time period of indefinite. Disruptive sockpuppets/vandalism only accounts are not welcome. IP block of 1 month by Yann should not be affected. -- Cat chi? 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

IP 84.56.196.249

84.56.196.249 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has vandalised at a template. --Bangin@de@ku ¤ ρø$τ 10:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New templates

Please protect all these [new] templates:

Thanks. --Bangin@de@ku ¤ ρø$τ 10:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

When will anyone protect these templates? I have written my request 3 weeks ago! --Bangin@de@ku ¤ ρø$τ 14:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no sign that these are particular targets for vandalism - {{GFDL/ku}} was blanked once, but that's it. None of the other translations (e.g. {{GFDL/de}}) are protected; only the English versions are, as they're the ones directly included on thousands of pages. --Davepape 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Sorry, I didn't know that only the English templates are protected. --Bangin@de@ku ¤ ρø$τ 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection on Image:Freeculturalworks-pdbutton.svg

Would somebody please un & re-protect fore mentioned image? Because of the way it is protected, I can't change the {{PD-author/lang}}, instead I am greeted with:

This page has been protected from editing, because it is included in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option turned on:
  • Image:Freeculturalworks-pdbutton.svg
You can view and copy the source of this page:

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection request

Please protect Image:Stop x nuvola.svg, it is a high-risk image on the English Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 talk 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)

I blocked this user being an impersonator of a living person. I know that we don't have a formal policy on this, and that we cannot be sure that the user actually really isn't w:Avril Lavigne, but I think that it is not good to have a user under the name of a famous person. Especially if that user is uploading copyvios. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this kind of block. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request

You may want to block User:Jessicalynn1996 (Special:Contributions/Jessicalynn1996, only contribution is vandalism on admin user page), as per User:Jessicalynn1997, User:Belginusanl and other known sock puppets. PatríciaR discussão 10:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Done & thanks for the heads up --Herby talk thyme 10:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Clear

Please protect the page Crystal Clear. It has been linked from Digg and is being vandalized heavily (see the page history). Utcursch 11:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. /odder 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

legal threat

It is quite unfortunate that censorship of the lowest class is taking place at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is also being used by some people for political propaganda and when criticism arises they either block your IP, censor you or even persecute you. This is the case of the page of "Elisa Carrio" in Spanish. This is a controversial Argentine politicial whose folowers are using wikipedia for political purposes. A friend of mine from Argentina dared criticize them, she was blocked inmediately and her questions erased, then I started to post her comments thinking that perhaps being based in California they won't do anything to me. To no avail, I blocked, insulted and threaten by the sicaris. I must warn you that freedom of speech might be of no importance to you since the original comment was issued from Argentina, but I am based in California and freedom of speech is a serious matter to this administration and if i don't see either the article removed from wikipedia or the discussion from my friend restored I am thinking on going to the San Francisco Cronicle and tell the guys there that censorship is a policy for the Wikipedia Webmasters. I want you to become aware of the activities of the wikipedia great inquisitors under the fantasy name of: muro de aguas and his activities cohersing the freedom of speech. Please, your intervention is appreciated.

The use of the power of censorship made by some Wikipedia inquisitors goes against our civil rights. A friend of mine in Argentina was trying to post her opinion on Elisa Carrio, she was blocked many times and persecuted. In order to protect her i started to post her opinions using my IP address in California. That didn't deter them and they blocked me without hesitation. I believe the use of their power of blocking is rather arbitrary cause they allow their friends to modify the page and even changed the pict of the controversial politician. I believe our civil rights might not apply in Argentina but they do apply here in the US and I will fight for their defense. Freedom of Speech is mentioned in the US Consitution and Wikipedia will abide to it. I shall request your intervention on this matter cause i do take my civil rights seriously. i hope you do take seriously too, don't you?—the preceding unsigned comment is by 75.6.143.105 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 April 2007

  • See es:Elisa Carrió.
  • This is Commons, here, we have no authority on the spanish wikipedia.
  • Freedom of speech does not mean the right to do anything you want: You must respect the local rules. Any post that does not respect the netrality of point of view must be reverted, this is perfectly normal. Michelet-密是力 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus the freedom of speech you refer to does not apply to us: [12] -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the most interesting answer i could have gotten, freedom of speech i refer to does not apply to whom? Let me remind you that the Bill of Rights applies everywhere. The site in spanish uses censorship, the main article has no references and is far away from the truth. They are using it for political propaganda, i am trying to put there some facts with the references and they are continously erased. Your arrogant answer really worries me, i wonder if kids can read this and learn that somebody can put a limit to your freedom. Are you in the US? In US territory? I also heard that many of our schools in the state of California do not recommend the use of wikipedia as a source of information. Do you wonder why? You consider my request for respect of my civil rights a legal threat? I think you need a sensitivity training class. I wonder if my minority status plays a role here. Instead of this behind the desk answer you should have gotten involved in the problem and do some research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.206.180.74 (talk • contribs) at 15:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So you think El presidente estuvo detenido durante la dictadura y sabe muy bien de que habla. is neutral? If you feel you're really oppressed, you can complain to es:Wikipedia:Comité de resolución de conflictos BTW, source of Image:Carrioelisa.jpg seems bogus. Platonides 13:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking - uploads only?

I assume I would have noticed this on the blocking form if it existed, but I'll ask anyway. Is it possible to block someone just from uploading, and still allow them to edit? Having temporarily blocked people a couple times for uploading numerous images without any source or license (after warning), I've thought that really I should only block their uploads, so that they could still go back and add the missing info on their existing images. I'm sure that most problem users wouldn't bother to do so, but some might, and it just seems more appropriate. --Davepape 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

bugzilla:4995. (see commons:bugs.) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection request

Please protect Image:Symbol opinion vote.svg, a highly used image on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. Majorly (hot!) 13:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection Commons:Deletion requests/Image:

This page is used by users when they push the Create the subpage button on Commons:Deletion requests without filled in a filename. I have protected this page and wrote a message for the user. The problem now is: If the button is pushed and the page Commons:Deletion requests/Image: is shown, it is the edit window, and so the message is not displayd at first. Anyone knows a better way to shows users the rigth way? Or is it possible to check the inputfield on the deletion requests page and reload the page (or give out a message) if nothing is filled in? --GeorgHH 18:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikki Hornsby

Sending a protection request for data submitted regarding Nikki Hornsby. Submitted last year and all data was removed. Also verification jpegs sent to place on the information page not showing up. Need help there:) Thank you, CJP Staff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.134.42.231 (talk • contribs) at 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, can you please provide the link to the page you meant? -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Supposedly it was Nikki Hornsby, it's entry in the deletion log is 02:22, 11 December 2006 JeremyA deleted "Nikki Hornsby" (not a gallery). Please see Commons:Project scope why we are not accepting these kind of pages. --Matt314 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crystal personal.svg

There was a protection request at w:WP:RFPP on this image, which is located here. It's very highly used on the English Wikipedia, so I thought I'd pass the request onto here. -Royalguard11(Talk·@en) 03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 07:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! -Royalguard11(Talk·@en) 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism in progress

Hi, we have some ongoing goatseing from Special:Contributions/Kazoo_the_Magnificent, can someone deal please? Thanks. --Klork 03:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Image deleted (twice), user warned... I had given him a vandalism warning before looking at the image but he has a final warning now and will be blocked if he does anything further. -- Editor at Large • talk 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_2&oldid=182343889"