Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image:PD-icon.svg

Full Protection - I request full page protection because it is literally used on hundreds of thousands of files on Commons, the English Wikipedia, Meta, Wikibooks, etc. because it is used on ALL Public Domain Licenses (Pd-Self Pd-US Gov, etc.) here on the commons and on a few other projects. Thanks and All the Best,--Mifter (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is already semi-protected, and is unlikely to be tampered by registered users. If registered users do come along and do some damage, then full-protection would be necessary. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (GMT)

Image:Flag of Western Sahara.svg

The current flag must be renamed to Image:Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.svg, the current name must contain a neutral flag similar to this one image:Flag of None.svg.

See the discussion page for more informations, thanks! --Xiquet 11:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a rather confusing discussion without a clear consensus so far. You perhaps should rephrase your "must" as "should" going forward. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for a while, and it is very confusing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, but there's a clear propaganda in the flag name, please see the article w:Flag of Western Sahara, there's two flag used for WS: Moroccan flag/Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic flag; it's a disputed territory so the flag shouldn't refer to any side. thank you --Xiquet 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "there's a clear propaganda" is (pardon the pun) setting off a warning flag for me. Usually when people say this kind of thing, there is an conflict and bad blood without clear resolution. Perhaps you could come to an agreement together and request the changes together? Patstuart (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Some friendly advice from someone who has gotten wrapped up in nationality conflicts himself: it might be helpful to remember w:WP:MASTADON, and that, well, Wiki(mp)edia is not the UN, and changes here will probably not have much real world effect. Patstuart (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Noia 64 apps wp.png

Please, check history of Image:Noia 64 apps wp.png. It is vandalized by anonymous users. --Vriullop 18:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, semiprotected for six months. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG

Image has been blocked for half a year now, I've tried to contact the person who blocked it but it's taking a long time. Image was blocked after extensive edit warring, but I've never edited it before. Pietervhuis 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected for now. →Christian .И 14:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad name protects

Please protect Image:Picture1.png and Image:Picture 1.jpg. Same like requests here. Both these names: a) have/had different images on en:wikipedia which need protecting as deleted images and b) were replaced here by Image:Expressionpic2.jpg. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock my account and/or review this case

On 2008.06.20, I uploaded an image which would be used in my userpage in es.wikipedia.org, where there is a current affair regarding the inclusion in a SPAM list of a news website, named rebelion.org. I wanted to used this image to state my support regarding the unblocking of this site. On the same date, User:Dodo deleted the image and accused me of using for harassing other es-wikipedians and canvassing. I was not harassing other as he assumes because the image was used in my User Page, in a style similar to that of other wikipedians who graphically (through text or images) state their politica or ideological views on subjects. I assumed that User:Dodo has no more rights to delete the image than I had to upload it; therefore, I uploaded the image again and explained in his user discussion page that I wanted to illustrate my views on the aforesaid topic. He deleted again saying that I wanted the image because of the text since admins cannot delete text inside images. Finally he threated me to block if I uploaded the image again he would block. As I cannot block him for deleting the image, I uploaded again and was blocked for three days. I wrote a denuncia (denunciation) of this on my personal weblog exercising my right to free speech and he decide unilaterally, playing both the judge and party to extend the blocking for a month, without letting me know through wikicommons but through my weblog, because of "Intimidating behaviour/harassment" after my denuncia in my own weblog. Now what I want is that someone other than dodo analyse my block and unblock my account so I can continue contributing in wikicommons. Rgs --164.77.195.22 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC) c/o User:Al2

Dodo more or less is involved in this issue and should have not blocked, instead Dodo should have discussed the issue here.
2nd what the user wroted on that blog topic was off wiki and shouldn't have gained a higher block, blocks are not meant to be used as punishment at all. I indeed want a unblock of this user, this is just not a block which has been given correctly. More or less both of the parties have an issue, and therefore Dodo shouldn't have blocked, instead another admin should have looked at the case. Any suggestions on the case? I can't read spanish so much, so I've got a translating issue regarding the image. If some spanish administrator could help us here that would be great because this seems like a dispute. --Kanonkas_(talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I have done a further investigation, and found that there is currently a discussion regarding the website, of which Dodo did not participate in. However, this discussion is highly unlikely for the block, but is more for Dodo's past activity as an administrator and bureaucrat at the Spanish Wikipedia. According to the block log there, Dodo was blocked indefinitely/banned for "using external means to sabotage Wikipedia and attack users". This behaviour triggered the second block of Al2 here, while the first block was for not following an administrator's instructions. I have unblocked Al2 and left Dodo a stern warning. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:43, 25 June 2008 (GMT)

Hi. I'm explaining my attitude and giving up.

Al2 uploaded five banners reclaming the exclusion of rebelion.org of es:'s antispam list. Of course, rebelion.org was added to it because some users had been spamming there. The banner was not to "state [any] politica[l] or ideological views on subjects" but to continue the spamming, now in Wikimedia Commons.
Al2 refused to discuss the issue, asking for good faith assumption and calling my a vandal, and later recurring to the argument of "spam = expressing my political views".
Since its inclusion in es:'s antispam list, rebelion.org undertook a defamation campaign against es:Wikipedia (here, if you can read Spanish --by the way, they are also using the Wikipedia logo without permission). Al2 wrote a denunciation of the banner issue at his blog *and* went to rebelion.org to publicize it (please follow the former link to find his post linked as "Otra denuncia de censura en Wikipedia" ie. 'another denunciation of censorship at Wikipedia'). I consider this, and not the post itself, a nasty harassment and I think Al2's attitude (refusing to discuss and insisting in uploading the banner besides my warnings) was in quest of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Apart from all of this, the banner was itself a {{Derivative}} work unacceptable at Commons, because it included rebelion.org's banner, published under a CC-BY-ND-2.1-ES.
About User:Kanonkas's comment: I didn't have an issue because I retired from es: last March. I do certainly have an issue now, because of Al2's denounce at his blog and rebelion.org's site. The way to ban an user from a conflict is to make her/him an interested party via external denounces? That seems odd to me, please confirm.
I think User:O's above comment is an ad hominem: what does my blocking at es: have to do with my actions here?

Please ask some es:Wikipedia users about the rebelion.org issue: they even wrote a manifest that have signed 97 users so far. Regards. --Dodo (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC) PS. My giving up here. Thank you.

{ec) Can I ask that we look rather more carefully at this than appears the case so far. From an es perspective Dodo looks correct. Whether this should be the case for Commons is less clear but I think discussion should take place. I often deal with deletions on the basis that they have been used to disrupt another wiki. I think that may be the situation in this case. Can we have some more es wiki peoples views please rather than consider this done. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with herby on this, more information about this would be nice. I'm trying to ask some spanish administrators about the issue. --Kanonkas_(talk) 08:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(general, non Spanish speaking, thoughts) The image was a derivative, and in that sense Dodo's deletions were correct. Blocking a user for repeatedly uploading a previously deleted image is fairly common practice. I've looked over the discussion here (please point me to anything else I should be looking at) and I see how one could be confused by this (admin only) being described as harassment. I also think that Dodo could have handled the discussion better—commentary like "Maybe because most es: admins cannot delete it here? Ouch." and "...has a shorter name: canvassing." (both at 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)) aren't really the best way of dealing with things... please everyone remember to chill. At the same time, Al2's repeated uploading of the image was poor form.

I disagree with O's unblock... I think a shortening to the original length would have been justified, but a full unblock is slightly slippery slope-ish. That said, I don't think there would be much point (other than process/formality) in resetting the block now.

Al2: Please consider Dodo's point of view here and ensure you understand why he's deleted and blocked. Please, if an admin deletes and image and you disagree with the deletion, make a request at Commons:Undeletion requests, or post a notice at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard for wider discussion. And if you are blocked and wish to talk, please use {{Unblock}} and ask (reasonably and civilly) if you could be unblocked to discuss what's happened. (I've added a note to MediaWiki:Blockedtext about the unblock template, surprised it wasn't mentioned already...

Dodo: I know it feels a bit unfair what's happened here, but overall you have been a good guy here and it'd be a shame to see you go. As per this comment, I would be willing to resysop without an RfA you should you choose to return.

Those are my thoughts on the situation. giggy _(:O) 08:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec, of course) I don't think User:Al2's actions elsewhere should have affected the user here on Commons. Maybe a block on es.wp would be justified, but his behaviour here did not warrant a block as far as I can tell. Based on Dodo's comments above it appears he is personally involved and it's a case bringing conflicts on other wikis to Commons. If Al2 was harassing users on es.wp, he should have been blocked there. I am not ready to say if Dodo was completely wrong, it's just not what I would have done (not saying I'm always right either :). And I definitely don't think it's a reason to step down from the admin seat. If the images were uploaded with the sole intention of harassing or spamming then they were rightly deleted. Continuously reuploading deleted material is a valid reason for a block, however in this situation, others' input should have been requested first, IMO. Whatever the case, let's all remember to stay mellow and not do anything rash. Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just discussed the issue with Rastrojo and this seems like a big case. I'm advising admins not to block, or unblock without consensus here. The site owners seems to be harassing ES wiki admins, mostly User:Gusgus. The site was blocked because the articles wasn't neutral --Kanonkas_(talk) 09:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked because there would be no point in resetting the original block, of which I do agree with. --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (GMT)

That makes sense. —giggy 08:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Admin Advice

I need some advice about a recent problem: I've been blocked on Wikipedia

I know that this may not be the best place to find assistance, but I've been left with little choice and am seeking the objective opinion of administrators who will be more communicative that those that have been involved on Wikipedia. Administrators on Wikipedia have been slow/non-responsive, providing little or no information to address of the situation.

See [1] for more details.

I believe that this block is inappropriate

The block was placed because of an association between my IP address range and that of a vandal "grawp", and abusing multiple accounts

I have not participated in vandalism. See [2]

I have not used multiple accounts. I don't know of how to prove this but I believe there is insufficient reason to believe that this has occurred.

None of the accounts blocked have engaged in "Voting and other shows of support". My account has not participated in any debates. None of the accounts blocked have participated in debate.[3], [4], [5], [6]
None of the accounts blocked have been used in "Circumventing policy". For example, none of the accounts blocked have edited the same articles. See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
None of the accounts blocked have acted as "Meatpuppets". None of the accounts blocked have edited the same articles. [12], [13], [14], [15]

I also believe that Wikipedia Administrators have acted inappropriately in handling the problem

Wikipedia Administrators have taken steps to prevent me from communicating within Wikipedia about the problem

Because of the block I cannot post on the Wikipedia Administrators' Notice Board
My user talk page has been protected so I am unable to use the appeal template [16]

Wikipedia Administrators have failed to follow the letter and the spirit of the blocking policy

No effort was made to "educate the user"
No "reasonable opportunity" was given before blocking.
No administrator had participated in a discussion.
Neither Persian Poet Gal nor Krimpet (blocking administrators) supplied a clear and specific reason for blocking.
"Grawp" does not appear in easily accessible wikipedia pages, it is "jargon"
Neither Persian Poet Gal nor Krimpet notified "users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page". Numerous templates are available for this purpose

Note: since this post was first written Persian Poet Gal has made some attempt to address the issue. Ichthyosis (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons is a media repository used by all Wikimedia projects. Users and admins here have no special influence on other projects and no ability to unblock users on other projects. If you still feel that the matter is not handled properly, you may wish to turn to [:meta:Main Page|Meta-Wiki], the project coordinating all other Wikimedia projects, but please be patient before doing so. As inconvenient and unfair as it may seem, it looks like you've only been blocked for a couple of days, and the duration of the block is only two weeks. Wikipedia won't go anywhere in the meantime. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It's just difficult to be patient when I haven't done anything wrong and the system is working against me. Every moment that passes is like an eternity of violated principle. "Hurry up and wait", you know?Ichthyosis (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. Since you cannot use the unblock template, you may email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or the blocking administrator to appeal. However, Wikimedia Commons is a separate project from Wikipedia, and we cannot help you further. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, forum shopping is frowned-upon. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image:Europe location SRB.png

This is a map showing Serbia. A discussion was already at w:Talk:Serbia suggesting the neutrality of the map. However, User:Bogdan K kept changing (reverting) it to a POV version without discussion in the talk page. When I told him "This is Wikipedia, please keep it NPOV" in edit summary and reverted his change, he said "Good argument, very original" in edit summary and reverted it to his version again. Please protect this image, thanks!--Wengier (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Full protection (of the wrong version I'm sure) for 48 hours. Hope situation is resolved by then. Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

image:Location_Morocco_AW.png

This image was created to show the location of Morocco including Western Sahara, please protect the image. thank you --Xiquet2 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User blocked as puppet of Xiquet. Going to protect the image now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins please unblock me I have a very good reason to be unblocked!!

My computer currently didn't go into lock mode when i tried to and walked away, but while I was away my son got on and thought it would be funny to make a joke page or vandalism page on a person he dislikes. I am so sorry for any problems he may have caused and I assure you it won't happen again. So I please ask you to consider removing the ban on my account and no further harm will be done.

Please log in and add the {{Unblock}} template to your talk page. —Giggy 09:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please block 85.12.64.150.

All contributions are vandalism, with the edits since May missed. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-14t09:24z

A total of four files edited, the last being four days ago. Doesn't seem like an immediate threat. Thanks for reverting, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with commons vandalism not fixed is that editors on other projects can't easily revert it because the pages have no history log there. This means users have to escalate it to OTRS, e.g. Template:OTRS ticket about the May vandalism. Isn't it more productive to ban vandalism only IPs? -- Jeandré, 2008-07-14t09:48z

There's no need to go through OTRS. Commons is a wiki; anyone can read the history here and revert vandalism. There's not enough data to determine whether or not that address is a vandalism only IP. It may well be a dynamically allocated address, the blocking of which may have collateral effects. You'll find most Wikimedia projects will not administer lengthy blocks to IP addresses based on four instances of vandalism. See, for example, en:Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Guidelines, whose spirit de facto applies here as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Stupid question, but who is eligible to have some higher level OTRS complaint about trivial vandalism on old public domain images? Seems odd. rootology (T) 06:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS tickets aren't at a higher level than on wiki requests - it's there for people who can't figure out how to fix something so they email for help. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-16t11:54z

Image:Heckert GNU white.svg

Hi everyone, I am requesting full protection of Image:Heckert GNU white.svg because after running a check usage on the Image I see that it is used on over 4900 pages across all WMF projects and as such I am requesting that it be protected as a highly used image across WMF projects. Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right; done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Several images to protect

Please protect the following images:

They're used in several portal pages. Thanks in advance, Korg (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, and Commons logo are already protected in some way (cascading, prior protection). I've semi-protected the others. --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (GMT)

Thank you. Would it be possible to fully protect the others instead? All images included in portal pages should be protected to prevent abuse. Korg (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We at Commons generally fully-protect when there is a high level of tampering and/or edit warring. Doesn't appear to be the case here, so not now. --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:13, 18 July 2008 (GMT)

We also protect high use images in highly visible places. All should be fully protected. Majorly ^talk 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In practice, such images are protected. Besides, I think it is not really different than the images indirectly protected as being transcluded in the Main Page. Korg (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Majorly and Korg I full protected and tagged with {{Protected image}} all those that weren't protected by cascading (either on the Main Page or on {{Sistercommons}}. —Giggy 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Korg (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:PD-icon.svg

Hi everyone, I am requesting full protection of Image:PD-icon.svg because after running a check usage on the Image I see that it is used on at least 11505 pages across all WMF projects and as such I am requesting that it be protected as a highly used image across WMF projects. Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. The image was originally semi-protected, but per the thread above I've gone ahead and bumped it up to full protection. --jonny-m t 03:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect request

Please, unprotect Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png. It was protected on August 2 by User:Lycaon with the absurd reason of "revert warring", despite the fact that the last change of the image occurred two weeks before, and it was a single revert of a misguided edit, not part of any revert war. Currently the image is in need of an update because two new countries recognized Kosovo, which is inhibited by the protection. -- EmilJ (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been unprotected now. -- EmilJ (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The image has a history of revert warring (absurd?) and there is a a general agreement on only updating it when an official policy change is released by a FM of a country. To avoid abuse (there has been a lot in the neighbourhood recently [17]) the images is protected but will be promptly given free on request. Lycaon (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are obvously looking at a different image than I am. There are exactly two reverts in the image's entire edit history, one of which was a correction of a simple mistake. There is no way how you can interpret the remaining one revert as a "history of revert warring". And what "general agreement" are you talking about, can you provide a link to a specific discussion? I do not remember any discussion about map protection on w:Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence or elsewhere, even during the time when the article itself was protected. -- EmilJ (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:JulienPeccoud

I've discussed this with User:Collard, but that didn't get me anywhere. Now I want consensus from other admins to remove the block of User:JulienPeccoud, the vandalism was in july, but Collard blocked the user in August, I don't like that the block was given 1 month later, they are there to prevent, not to be a punishment. --Kanonkas_(talk) 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a bad block. The user could have been given a chance to reform, but lost the chance. Majorly ^talk 12:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Given the vandalism that occurred I see nothing wrong with the block. I would have indef blocked at the time personally. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what Majorly is saying but they did have time to contribute constructively as the block was not placed immediately. Maybe the fact that they did not come back is not such a bad thing. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That was in july, the block was in August, why block someone 1 month later? He could have just watchlisted the account and then blocked if the account did it again. --Kanonkas_(talk) 12:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The block should have been placed immediately, or not at all. It loses its purpose otherwise. Currently the user is doing nothing that requires them to be prevented from editing, so a block is out of place here. Majorly ^talk 12:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The user vandalised his images, then came back almost two months later and vandalised exactly the same images again. Ergo, blocking him a month after his most recent vandalism was not punitive; there is every reason to think that, if he was not blocked, he would have done exactly the same thing again. If he's willing to start contributing in good faith, then he can ask to be unblocked. The time to assume good faith, or at least a willingness to change, is over. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An example of what the account was doing is Image:Croix St Léobon.JPG. He

Released image 10:51, April 6, 2008, and it's in use now, so its not going to be deleted.
19:53, May 6, 2008 nuked the image
22:45, May 11, 2008 nuked the image
19:08, July 9, 2008 nuked the image

Since all his activity after uploading them was to try to get in-use images that he released altered negatively, almost monthly, I'd say leave him blocked for now, and if he asks to be unblocked we can address these issues then with him along with the block. rootology (T) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was pretty late after the fact. Bad block, but not a big deal. Leave him blocked. Rocket000 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

XxJoshuaxX

Spellcast (talk · contribs), an enwiki administrator, proposed on my talk page that XxJoshuaxX (talk · contribs) be blocked. He identifies XxJoshuaxX as a sock of Rappingwonders2 (talk · contribs), indef-blocked early this year on Commons for abusing multiple accounts.[18][19][20] XxJoshuaxX self-identifies as an indef-blocked user on enwiki.[21][22] I found no evidence of abuse in a review of XxJoshuaxX's contributions to Commons so far, but the information from enwiki suggests to me that an indef block would be appropriate on Commons, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Indef blocked. --Kanonkas_(talk) 12:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also should we block the ip address for a year? --Kanonkas_(talk) 12:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I suggest a long-term block. You can see my reasoning here.[23] Spellcast (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Blocked for a year. --Kanonkas_(talk) 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no evidence of abuse, why are we blocking? We don't block merely because someone is blocked on en:wp, there needs to be another reason, related to behaviour or abuse here. (such as, perhaps, that the user is a sock of an already Commons banned user... perhaps a check should be run to try to correlate with Rappingwonders2?) or perhaps not, perhaps this is open and shut. Thanks for clarifying this. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To lar, there is evidence of sockpuppetry as Spellcast gave. Even then why should the new account "XxJoshuaxX" be a legit sock, while the other sock accounts got blocked? The main account didn't get unblocked so I don't understand how a sock account of an indef blocked account should be allowed to have a new sock account. --Kanonkas_(talk) 12:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I confess as a project CU I am not particularly happy with the IP block. I can see no evidence that this is blocked across wikis nor that it has caused disruption to the extent that a year's block is needed. I have requested information on the CU list. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

XxJoshuaxX said his IP is 24.147.121.145,[24] which is a Comcast IP from Massachusetts, just like his previous IPs. If past evidence shows that literally every sock he creates ends up disruptive and in a checkuser case (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yung6 and Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rappingwonders2), I don't see why his latest sock should be any different. Spellcast (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also Lar, I don't know why you think there's no evidence of abuse despite 24.147.121.145 (talk · contribs) being blocked for a day for edit-warring on the same image as his previous socks. Every IP he's used—71.233.232.243 (talk · contribs) and 71.233.232.196 (talk · contribs)—ends up blocked for long-term edit-warring. The long-term block of 24.147.121.145 has prevented future disruption. It wasn't punitive. Spellcast (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to where Xxj states he is Rappingwonders please? The editing here is not disruptive & the IP address is far removed numerically from the ones used by the users/CU cases above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course he's not going admit he's a sock. 24.147.121.145 is from the same ISP and location as his previous ones. It's obvious it's him from the history of Image:Stop sign MUTCD.svg. Spellcast (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - you said he "self indentifies" I thought there might be something. I have to point out that Xxj has not edited the stop sign one while the IP has. CU work progressing. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

XxJoshuaxX hasn't edited the stop sign because he decided to edit-war using his IP. Spellcast (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

<- Current views as far as Larry & I are concerned & from a CU perspective is that we do not see these blocks can be upheld with any degree of good faith.

The name user has not done anything to warrant an indef block. The IP may or may not be related to previous vandals and certainly the editing warranted a block. However a year is, for now, excessive. There are no other blocks wiki wide.

We would suggest that the IP be unblocked after a week or two (a more normal block for that vandalism) and that the user be unblocked. That is not to say that we do not suggest vigilance. Other view welcome before we do something. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so an indef blocked account makes a new account can just go, just like that and evade a block? I don't agreed with that. I believe you want more evidence that the user is sockpuppeting? --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no CU connection between Xxj & the previously named users. The IP is not the same. The edits are not the same.

The ip edits are thought provoking and warrant watching. However they do not warrant a year's block in Larry or my views.--Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Herby here. I looked at the technical evidence and I'm not seeing the connection that you're alleging. You may have better experience of behaviour, but from a CU perspective it's not there. I'm not totally sure I agree that this block should be left in place, and I would support an unblock as Herby outlines. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't believe XxJoshuaxX is Rappingwonders? You say there's no connection solely because XxJoshuaxX's IP starts with 24 and Rappingwonders' starts with 71. But consider the fact that 1) XxJoshuaxX's' IP (which he said was his) edit-warred on Image:Stop sign MUTCD.svg by restoring the same edits that Rappingwonders and his socks have been long-term edit-warring on and 2) The IPs are from the same ISP and geographical location. If a sockpuppet continues the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place, their latest accounts get blocked. Spellcast (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see this [25] page so for me that evidence doesn't connect to this account either but if Lar and Herby could have a look that would be nice. Also see this [26] where the user invoke your "brother". I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, the user knows more and more what to do in these cases. Also please take further looks before we give an unblock that quickly, I'm sorry I took the block so early too without more discussion. --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look. Certainly the en wp page is of interest. No unblock for now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

@Spellcast: To clarify I am saying that I do not see a technical correlation between those two users. That's what CUs evaluate. There is more to correlation of users than geography. You have been told this multiple times by two CUs. I am not going to go into why I don't think there is a correlation, because it is policy not to explain, but my evaluation is that there is not. That is NOT the same as saying they are or are not the same users. You have to evaluate their social/behavioural/style aspects to make that evaluation. As I said, I defer to you on that. But you have to actually do that. You can't assert similarity on technical grounds. If this is not satisfactory I suggest opening a request at COM:RFCU to get other pairs of eyes to take a look at it. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick question: were you and Herby aware of the SSP evidence before Kanonkas gave the link just then? Spellcast (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope - seeing as I don't think it is here anywhere? (before Kanonkas placed it) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh lawd, now I understand why you think XxJoshuaxX was unrelated to Rappingwonders. This whole time, I assumed you were aware of the SSP evidence by looking at his Wikipedia block log or this link, which Wsiegmund gave at the start of this discussion. Spellcast (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the SSP deleted page. Didn't do much for me, too hard to follow. I've seen the en:wp talk page. It also doesn't do much for me, also too hard to follow. I'll repeat, there's no technical connection I could find. if those pages are your case, they're not very clear, and may need improvement. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I added more info at en:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/98E (3rd). Spellcast (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making this page available to non-enwiki administrators.[27] That is good work and I find it persuasive. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, more informative indeed. Appreciated. As I said, no technical reason. As I said, I defer to those with more experience on the contrib correlative reasons. I think we let this stand as is absent compelling new data or arguments. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to prevent further headache from a disruptive user, so I'm glad the evidence holds up. Now, back to the truckloads of images that need categorising. Spellcast (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Coats of arms of None.svg

This SVG is not valid to the W3C-standard. therefore, I want to upload a version which is Ok. Please, unlock that image. I'll tell here, when I'm ready to ensure locking it again. Cäsium137 (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done be sure to leave a note when you're done. --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've protected it again, thanks for the fix. Regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Kleinmarkthalle Frankfurt

Please protect the article/gallery temporarily. User Dontworry permanently tries to put his images in the article, in return he replaces other images. In his comments he implies I'd accept his images as I'd be envious of him and therefore vandalise the article I've designed, cf. [28] and [29]. He's known for personal attacks and edit wars in de-wiki, and it sadly seems he won't do better here. --Eva K. ^{tell me about it} 14:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

see discussion [30], please! dontworry (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit late but I think you both could be a bit more mellow. Perhaps now that a few days have passed this will have blown over and the images can be discussed on merit? ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Block Review Request Image talk:Light Dispelling Darkness Pest 1.JPG

This image is one of a series on the Works Progress Administration fountain "Light Dispelling Darkness" I have added discussion to this image addressing the issues of why I think that this and the rest of the series are valid free images. This image and the entire series were blocked/deletion requested by Cecil (talk · contribs). Please review my comments and send me a message in regard to your decision.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldwei (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add your discussion of why this and the rest of the series are valid free images to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Light Dispelling Darkness Pest 1.JPG. Cecil asks if the photographs of the sculpture are a violation of copyright law and that is helpful. Your discussion is helpful, also. The comments of other editors on the deletion request page will help us resolve this question. In the meantime, you may wish to review the US section of Commons:Freedom of panorama. Your block has expired.[31]

Done Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the talk page comments to the deletion discussion. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block

I'd like to request an indefinite username block from commons. I want to part ways with the community but I seemingly keep forgetting. My bot would still run here just like how it runs on any other random wiki. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 22:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Please don't do this. And to any admin passing by, please don't fulfil this request, we don't block on request... Majorly ^talk 22:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider it an enforced wikivacation for my sanity. I really am not the kind that wants to harm the project you know. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done I did 3 months instead of indef. If at that time you still can't stay away, I'll extend it. (To all the admins that are displeased with my action. Sorry, but 'Cat is making a valid request for wikivacation - if it was anyone else - you would have done it) --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else thinking this is silly, or is it just me (and Majorly)? Patrícia ^msg 11:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Most wikis don't typically condone "vacation blocks" as a routine matter. Given that Cat was last month asking for his sysop bit back, this change of heart is... well I don't know what it is. I wouldn't call it "silly", but it's not routine... To Sha... actually, if it was anyone else I wouldn't have done it. But I've long realised Cat isn't anyone else. I say let it stand. But not as a precedent. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm firmly with Lar and Patricia. I should point out that I decline requests for vacation blocks as a matter of course - this isn't about White Cat, though both you and he may believe otherwise. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say I agree here, I am sorry, but I would not block anyone who asked me to block him for leaving the project. Also I am sad what seems to happen here, from what I could see White Cat was doing a lot of admin work and seems to have done it good. While I don't like the 'laying the bits down and then asking them back' at all (and personally think that flags cannot be changed like underwear, if You lay something back it is final and You will have to ask the community), I believe that if such applies it should apply for all! As this had not happened in the past, and people seem not to get the same treatment here, that is disappointing. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, due to the clear opposition here. White Cat doesn't need a block to stop him editing. Not that he needs stopping. Majorly ^talk 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been easier to just use one of those vacation scripts on a timer? =/ rootology (T) 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why honoring someone's request would be a bad thing... silly, yes, but wrong? It's better than making them do something to get blocked. I don't see why it's such a big deal. Maybe someone can fill me in? Rocket000(talk) 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Blocking policy. Blocking serves very specific ends, and "by request" is not between them. Spacebirdy: the issue was thoroughly discussed between bureaucrats, I'm sorry if it disappoints you, but we're using bureaucrat discretion to turn on the bit again. I'm also disappointed that White Cat one day asks for the bit back and some days later decides Commons is not the place at all for him, and asks to be blocked indefinitely. And I'm sorry that he feels things got to a point he doesn't feel well here any longer. I'm always sorry to see productive people stopping to collaborate. Patrícia ^msg 22:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Patrícia, this might not be the right place, and I don't want to make troubles, I just give You to think about, that if someone for expample quits a job, can't just come back some weeks later and say, well here I am again, I thought about it. He will have to ask for the job is still open and if he is still good for the job (eg. because such sudden leaving makes them unpredictable and unrelyable workers). If You are making exceptions for some and not for others, You will imho certainly achieve that envy or frustration grows between or in people. I just wanted to express that I don't like the different treatment for whatever reason. But the community seems to be fine with these "granting back of the flags" without votings, so I am quiet already. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There might be some confusion (or it might be me) but we (the 'crats) didn't allow him back into "the job", and instead suggested he go to RfA, or else we would revisit the issue in a few months. I wouldn't consider this making an exception for White Cat. We certainly didn't give him his flag back. —Giggy 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but others were allowed back... that's what I meant, I don't think it is good, as of course some might then feel left out, threated bad, not wanted, whatever. And also people might think, it is not big deal to lay back the rights because they can get it back easily... Just human reactions imho. Not the best to do this differently, also imho, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I understand your point and would agree with it in some contexts, so I think this sort of situation should be looked at on a case by case basis. (IMHO!) —Giggy 23:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Birdy, the difference here is White Cat isn't being paid, as are none of us. It's a volunteer job. He should be allowed to quit and return if he wants to without an issue. It's not like he's contracted to work for Commons. Majorly ^talk 00:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I worked 8 years as not paid paramedic. I don't think that You can just quit and(!) return without consequences. Everyone has a responability, payed or not. I believe the tools might not a big deal, but they are definitly no toys. I appologize for bringing this too much off topic and won't add any more here. Please feel free to use my talkpage. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So... anyone want to answer my question? Because some page says so isn't a good reason. No one follows policies here anyway, like Commons:Page protection. Things happen first, then policy is rewritten. For example, when was it decided that's it's entirely up to bureaucrats to make someone an admin or not? White Cat was made a sysop by the community, it should be the community's decision to desysop. Rocket000(talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll not enter the +/-sysop argument here. However people have been blocked at their own request on Commons in the past with none of this drama at all. I am pretty sure I have blocked somewhere on that basis but I cannot recall where at present. If someone wants an enforced wikibreak I really cannot see what all the fuss is about. I was happy with the block - I just had more interesting things to do than comment. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My only fussing is about using admin tools for something they're not supposed to be used for. And I'd love to see how are other policies not being followed, because instead of thinking that's no big deal, I actually think it's a very serious issue. Are we writing policies for the fun of it? How can we point people to policy pages when they're doing something wrong and not respect ourselves other policies? I'm honestly confused.

This is not about White Cat, or his request in particular, this is about our responsabilities as "maintenance workers" of this project.

Rootology, those scripts are easy to go around, they wouldn't work. To get away from a project, you need courage (or someone blocking you indef). I will not spend more bandwith with this, there's a lot of stuff to clean around here. Indeed, no need for drama, just for some thinking. Patrícia ^msg 10:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I merely requested a soft block that would remind me that I was on a wikivacarion to you know... have a little peace and quiet (indefinite as in until I feel I had enough of a vacation). The block would only serve as a friendly reminder. I am on a dynamic IP range. It is easy for me to avoid an actual hard IP block let alone a soft block. I guess I was asking for too much. I certainly didn't need more "drama". I echo Herbythyme. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 09:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, you never know on Commons. Usually, we're pretty cool about things. Yes, I echo Herby too. Anyway, what Patrícia said. Better things to do. Rocket000(talk) 02:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review request for User_talk:75.105.13.17

ResolvedElcobbola unblocked the ip. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fellow admins: Please see the subject talk and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 3rd nomination ... ~~Kanonkas~~ Rama blocked this IP for being disruptive in that discussion. I popped in to review the discussion, then to review the unblock request there. I declined it. The anon is not happy. I would invite other admins to take a look and if they think Kanonkas erred in the block or I erred in not lifting it, to discuss here and or lift themselves as they see fit. This IP is that of a long established user elsewhere who chooses not to use their already established identity here, for whatever reason. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not block that ip Lar, see the block log before saying such things. It was Rama who did it. --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Kanonkas blocked this IP" isn't an accusation, it's an honest mistake. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Mike, it was sloppy of me not to check first. I should have and I goofed. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, but not critical. So then Rama blocked, and you and I declined to lift. (you implicitly, and me explicitly)... Thanks for correcting that. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mbox images need re-protection

I just noticed that the images Image:Ambox content.png and Image:Imbox content.png have been unprotected. They need to be protected again.

Those images are high-risk since they are used in the ambox and imbox message box meta-templates on 9 respectively 18 different Wikipedias so far, and used on a lot of pages on several of those Wikipedias. (The templates are used on literally over a million pages, but we don't know how many pages use the images since the templates has several image options.) Unfortunately the images are not locally uploaded and protected on all those Wikipedias. And since MediaWiki now shows when local copies are "duplicates" with images on Commons we now have a problem with inexperienced trigger happy admins that delete the local copies, even if they are locally protected. So even when we have locally protected versions then the versions here on Commons become visible every now and then.

With the risk of rambling, but since we get these questions every time these images are mentioned:

Yes, these images have exact or almost exact duplicates under other names here on Commons. That's on purpose. Each of the mbox templates has their own naming and set of images for technical reasons. And yes sometimes that means the images are duplicates. We need to have them here on Commons so those templates work "right out of the box" when people copy the templates to other Wikipedias. And most of the images already exist as svg versions, so they don't need to be "remade to svg". But for technical reasons we prefer to use the png versions in the mboxes. (The png versions have manually tweaked transparent backgrounds that make them look good in older web browsers, something which MediaWiki can not do when rendering the svg versions. Such manual tweaking is only worth the effort for high-use images like these.)

Thanks in advance.

--Davidgothberg (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected. But those wikis should really have a local version. I also suggest choosing one name to go with instead of having exact duplicates laying around. Local projects are suppose to rename their files, not Commons. If we had to cater to even single projects' protection/naming policies things would be unmanageable. Rocket000(talk) 04:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just ask the unprotecting admin next time. Rocket000(talk) 04:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sarah Palin.jpg

Could this be unprotected? I was able to noticeably improve the color on this (the blue glow from the flash on her ear and neck are particularly bad). It's cascaded from User:East718/PT, see discussion at w:User talk:East718#Palin. Or if it can't be unprotected, could someone just upload it from here? --Interiot (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done please leave a note here when you're done. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize it would be open for a short time, I had to step out. Could it be unprotected for a short time again? I'll check back frequently this time. Thanks. --Interiot (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Apparently the cascading page was deleted. Thanks for the help. --Interiot (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rosario Central

Today the article about Club Atlético Rosario Central, a football club from Argentina, became the featured article at the main page of the Wikipedia in spanish. The user FITO BEATLES CENTRAL appeared and started uploading copyright violations and adding them to the article (as well as no neutral phrases and sections, but that is dealt with at wikipedia). Some of those copyright violations have been marked as such and the user warned, but his response is to upload the same images under new names, trying to elude detection.

Note: Check deleted contributions if the copyvios are already deleted by the time this request is checked Thialfi (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done deleted the remaining images & left an end copyvios note. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 07:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone articles protection (see Vandalism noticeboard)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Ongoing_David_Shankbone_harrassment_-_page_protection_needed - at least the Image:Friends eating lunch at the home of Michael Lucas on Fire Island.jpg image needs protection, other of David's images may be being or about to be vandalized as well. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved over there; I'm about to semiprot a few more targeted images. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:DanielEmma

Username violation: matches the celebrity names of Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson. --75.47.156.211 05:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not done, no explicit violation. →Christian .И 13:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:PDmaybe-icon.svg

Hello, I was about to upload a modified version of this file, but it is protected. Since the modification I wanted to apply can be performed by anyone with a text editor, can you make the following change to the picture? Thanks. Diti (talk to the penguin) 14:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Done feel free to update it now. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reuploaded, thanks. Diti (talk to the penguin) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Red link

Hi,

On this template the ru translation gives a red link. Can it be removed bij a admin? the template

Thanks, Sterkebaktalk 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone can just create the page and translate the text into Russian? Diti (84.101.180.144) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jdxboom

Keeps uploading copyvio's after the warning. Maybe a block for a short time so he/she can read the policy. Sterkebaktalk 04:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jdxboom

Keeps uploading copyvio's after the warnings. Maybe a short block so he/she can read our policy. Sterkebaktalk 04:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done deleted the remaining images. --Kanonkas_(talk) 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Candy.jpg

Please protect this page from re-creation due to generic filename. It's been created numerous times. -Nard the Bard 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was fast. -Nard the Bard 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:o) →Christian .И 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Njones133

The user User talk:Njones133 is stil uploading copyvio's after a warning. Can the user be blockt so he can read the policy?

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 16:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Handled by ABF. →Christian .И 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Borrar

I copied the code for this from template:vd. Could someone protect it, like it says? :P -Nard the Bard 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, actually template:remover as well :) -Nard the Bard 00:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, both of these don't seem to have a lot of use. Is protection really needed? I'm not opposed but I am asking. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  - Well I just started borrar :P Nevermind I'll just watchlist. -Nard the Bard 10:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    - If they start to catch on just give a shout here, and they'll get protected. There's no hard and fast rule, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sciences exactes.svg

Hi, iam requesting the desprotection of this image, because i have this image with a code optimization. This imagen is:Image:Sciences_exactes_optimized.svg --Victormoz (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done please post back when you're done. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Victormoz (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

user:PMFavre

Can PMFavre be blocked so he can read our policy. He keeps uploading copyvios. I already give him a warning. Sterkebaktalk 13:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PMFavre (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely by Rama.[32] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg

Hi everyone, I am requesting full protection of Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.sv because after running a check usage on the Image I see that it is used on over 10578 pages across all WMF projects and as such I am requesting that it be protected as a highly used image across WMF projects. Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the indefinite semi protection is sufficient for now. Giggy (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

10000 usages seems to qualify for full protection to my way of thinking. I'd suggest we full protect this. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

10000? Then we should full protect just about everything on here w:Special:MostImages. I'm not sure if we should be that protective; that seems to me a broader shift in policy.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe we should, I dunno. We I think tend to protect templates if they get to 1000 usages, but there are more ways to be mischievous with a template than an image. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you can definitely be worse with a template. If a shock image is uploaded over one used only in a stub template, the effect isn't too serious as its only a tiny image at the bottom of the page in all uses. I think protection probably isn't needed for that sort of image, and changing to all 1000+ images being protected is a major change - which suggests it isn't a great idea.

I think how the image is used should be considered, not just the raw number. If the image is widely used on image description pages or in article space (including infoboxes, but not stub templates), or in the interface, I'd say its justified: All those uses are in prominent locations to readers, and as a fairly large image. I think we should protect a lot more, but I'd prefer a consensus to codify what we should protect before we protect thousands of images.--Nilfanion (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually asked before about these high volume flags, and protections on them before I was an admin. To pick one, this guy to my right has over 550,000+ uses today. While these images historically haven't gotten vandalized much that I can see, the possible damage if, say, this image became a penis could be broad for how many people may see it. The flip side is that--if we full protect these super high volume images--what if someone wants to edit them? That's the real trade off. How often do they get edited, versus what is the possible damage that can occur, should decide if we should protect these things... maybe. What do you all think? rootology (T) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

2 Requests please!

Would one of the fine admins over here please semi-protect the following 2 images: Image:Packerstock.png and Image:Bears v Packers 02.jpg. They are currently being used on this template over at en.wiki, which is being transcluded onto ~1300 pages. Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 17:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen any vandalism at all on any of the pictures. Maybe we should wait? --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was pretty common practice to pre-emptively semi-protect images that are highly used on other projects (like over at en.wiki, I protect templates and images that are highly used because they are very juicy targets). As I have seen it on many other images, and requested it here before, I figured it was common practice, but please do correct me if I am mistaken. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I watchlisted them. We do protect some high use images, but by high use I mean flag of the USA style high use (sorry, the Packers aren't that important...!). If there is regular vandalism, you know where to find us. Giggy (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks Giggy for watchlisting them, and I'll just try and forget that comment of yours... :P « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hctr93

Hctr93 (talk · contribs)

Hi,

Can this user be blocked so he can read our policy. This user is uploading album cover from mrs Spears. I already warn him but he keeps uploading.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 06:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Being watched, seems like they've stopped. --Kanonkas_(talk) 08:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by banned en.wiki user Jetwave Dave

Bonnie J Ott (talk · contribs) is a sock of the indefinitely banned en.wiki user Jetwave Dave, whose only edits on Commons has been to harass me. Compare with the list of confirmed socks. Please block this account indefinitely. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, a checkuser case has resulted in a block of the above account, as well as 3 other sleeper socks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ShakataGaNai

I request a block for ShakataGaNai for insulting me here. Despite my actions, which are currently being discused, I do not deserve under any circunstamce to be insulted. This is a flagrant violation of Wikimedia's pillar of ettiquete. Cheers, Gizmo II ¿Eu? 22:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

While not endorsing Shakata's comments, I think a review of Gizmo's status as an admin on here should be raised. He has caused widespread anger and upset amongst many user for his recent actions, that were wrong, out-of-process, caused havoc and ill-will on multiple sister projects, and for which he seems to regard as correct still. He appears completely unfamiliar with how to go about deleting a massive amount of material, and that is Admin 101. Given such circumstances, I would disagree with a block for Shakata. --David Shankbone (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

@Gizmo, you could have asked me to apologize, instead of posting a block request. I would have apologized. You are correct that the comment was insulting, and that I'm sorry. I was angry and upset. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with a block for Shakata - he lost his cool once, and frankly it happens to all of us at some point. Images should not be summarily deleted if they have already survived a DR, and images where it is not clear cut should never be deleted without DR. I think all parties need to cool off. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I lost my cool with Shakata once, and he never called for me to be blocked. I owe him a public apology for not having handled the Hilary Duff situation with him better. --David Shankbone (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) I also disagree with a block request against ShakataGaNai. Granted the comment was insulting, but that's a case of a user losing his cool when faced with actions which were in blatant violation of process, and the resulting cleanup which they had to carry out. ShakataGaNai and other admins should not have to clean up where another admin flagrantly disregards due process and goes off on their own tangent. If ShakataGaNai gets blocked, you deserve one too for breach of process. Iceflow (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

@David - LOL. True, I remember that clearly. I dont remember what exactly happened. Just that we were on opposite sides of the fence. No hard feelings. Like Matt said, we all do it once in a while. I'm fair sure something I've done has pissed off everyone at least once, and likewise most everyone has done something to piss me off at least once I'm sure. It is a _wiki_ means we all can do what we want, the down side is that we don't all see eye to eye. What I said on the undelete of the image noted above was rude, no excuse for that. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have written an apology here. I hereby disregard my request above.

@Shakata: I take your apology and give you mine in exchange, I should have calmed down, but I felt like i was being attacked and when I saw the insult, I lost my temper. Once again, I'm sorry. Cheers, Gizmo II ¿Eu? 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

--ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gizmo II: I'm sure that you're already aware that the purpose of blocks on all Wikimedia projects -- not simply on Commons -- is generally to prevent repetition of damaging conduct. More specifically, it is an established principle that blocks are not punitive; they are not devices by which to assert authority within a dispute. As an administrator on the Commons, I hope you would be able to recognise the wisdom of this, and also recognise that criticism of your actions was highly likely. Mass deletion of any kind of content is unwise without extensive and complete consultation with the community; mass deletion of content that is freely licensed is anathematic to the project; the premise on which your deletions were based is tenuous at best. The combination of these factors, surely, indicates that while ShakataGaNai may have been uncivil, he had every right to criticise you. Shall we, instead of winging about who did what to whom, simply accept the idiocy of what occurred and carry on with the work we are meant to be doing? And Gizmo, do you seriously believe that your role as administrator is to act in this manner? (@Wikinews:) --NicholasTurnbull (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully the situation is resolved, and Gizmo has since more than shown he understands where he was flawed, and he deserves some credit for that. As someone who is often on the receiving end of pile-ons for speaking rashly, I wish we could de-escalate this now. --David Shankbone (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think to be fair, David, we can. Would a passing admin please be kind enough to close this off as resolved? Thanks. Iceflow (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider it's

Resolved

now, if everyone's cool about it - Badseed ^talk 03:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:HoratioNelson1.jpg

Hi all, can someone please fully protect this image for 12 hours as it will be part of hte DYK on the main page in about 1.5 hours time? Casliber (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hola quisiera subri la foto del escudo de Montemayor del Río.

user:Kennight

Kennight (talk · contribs)

Hello,

This user is still uploading copyvio's from mariah carey fansites. I have warn him after i found four copyvios. Now he is still uploading. Please give him a block so he can read our policy

Cheers,

Sterkebaktalk 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed & blocked. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Amigo29 90 (talk · contribs)

Hi, this user tends to upload images which constitute a copyright violation. The user was temporarily blocked [33] a while ago, at which point he moverd to Wikipedia to upload his images: [34]. He has since uploaded three new images, all of which merit speedy deletion: Image:Casa_Verde_16_Jacobo_Arenas_400.jpg, Image:Manuel_Cepeda_Vargas.jpg, and Image:Logo_del_m19.gif. I am not familiar with the policies at the Commons, and I am unsure how they differ from those at Wikipedia. Therefore, I do not know what the appropriate steps to take are. Thank you, Colombiano21 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. I have deleted the images and blocked the user again. (For the record, reporting at an admin noticeboard (probably this one) is the best thing to do in these situations. So you did well!) Giggy (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Colombiano21 (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:FISUST1.jpg

Please lock and protect this image from deletion for at least 24 hours.

Any request to delete 'I.T.' by administrators unaware of it's copyright protection coverage and/or validity should be ignored by the Wikipedia community.

Thank You Professorking "Professorking (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"

What exactly does this picture represent? "FISUST Federation" doesn't yield any result on Google. It's only used on en:User:Professorking, which looks like promotional content if I ever saw it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am equally concerned with the fact that the offerings seem to have SPECIALIZED license: Original Work of the xxx.

To me either out of scope or copyvio seems sensible. If the rather aggressive approach continues it would be unfortunate - the user seems to think that they are the ultimate arbiter of policy/content here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

+ "hum" - some deleted content on en wp and this may be of interest. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears FISUST stands for "Federation of Interplanetary Security and Universal Space Travel". Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your assistance. To answer your question, the FISUST Federation is a classified International Agency that is designed 'NOT' to be found on Google, with the exception of maybe a Google Maps description in one place or another. It's placement was purely by request of one of the FISUST Federation Executive Directors for use on my USER page. Don't look anywhere else for it. You'll be a lucky 'ONE' if you find it somewhere else. Again, thank you all for your assistance. "Professorking (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"

I'm sure it wouldn't be appropriate for us to store classified information. Please read our Project scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jastrow. These files are outside our scope & should be deleted. If the user is unprepared to operate in a way that respects our policies I regret a block may be required. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally this is surely derivative at best? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And thus deleted. Giggy (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:WUNCI1.gif

Please lock and protect this image from deletion for at least 24 hours.

Any request to delete 'I.T.' by administrators unaware of it's copyright protection coverage and/or validity should be ignored by the Wikipedia community.

Thank You Professorking "Professorking (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"

Hmm. This image is the logo of some organisation, which you claim to represent, it seems. Can you confirm that the organisation gives permission for its logo to be licensed as its page claims by sending an email to OTRS, please. If not, it can be deleted. Giggy (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the above section, despite commenting in it (go figure). Image deleted. Giggy (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Osmar José Leite da Silva

Osmar José Leite da Silva (talk · contribs)

Hi,

This user keeps uploading copyvio's. I have warn him/her but after the warning he/she uploaden to more pdf. I think its time for a block so he/she can read our policy.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done by Yann. →Christian .И 19:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Danifronter

User uploaded copyvios after previous block. -Nard the Bard 00:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Blocked for 1 week. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Nancy

When somone has a moment could they indefinitely semi-protect my userpage - no hurry - I'm having a stalking/trolling/vandalism problem on en-wiki and it seems to be overflowing to Commons but they're offline at the mo. If only they'd tell me what I'd done to deserve it!! Thanks a million in advance, Nancy ^talk 17:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done - hope it comes under control but say if we can help. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Protect asap

Can someone please protect Image:Irving Berlin - That International Rag.ogg now as it is overdue for going on main page? Casliber (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done by another admin. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Main page images

Can the following three images be protected? They are part of the hewikiquote main page [35].

Thanks, Yonidebest Ω Talk 21:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to protect the first of the three images. Dolev (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done by me --Mardetanha ^talk 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks y'all :-) Yonidebest Ω Talk 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/SterkeBak/Bureaucrats discussion

Guido den Broeder linking an IP to a username
Sterkebak removed that
Guideo den Broeder re-inserted it
Ahonc removed it and protected the page.
I followed by protecting Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/SterkeBak/Bureaucrats discussion, since we protect archived RFAs etc habitually.

Comments welcome concerning the behaviour of all involved. Note that discussion was ongoing in #wikimedia-commons during this time, which will likely come up in the discussion. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rapid delete.png

Please protect this image. It is used on speedy delete templates on the Spanish Wikipedia and was over-written (by a well-intentioned person, but they still screwed it up) recently. -Nard the Bard 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Done — Rjd0060 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Sovereign-state flags

Requesting two months of semi-protection for Sovereign-state flags. This article was quiet for many months, but since 7 October has been suffering a revert war, involving one or more IPs who assert that Kosovo is not a country, so doesn't deserve to have its flag here. Though I'm not an expert on what this list should contain, I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia and I've been closely following the career of User:Koov who is now indef-blocked for running socks. One of his trademarks is trying to demote the status of Kosovo. His socks keep on attacking List of sovereign-state flags on en.wiki. The last Koov-sock edit of that article was as User:Dihn on 20 September.

Since different IPs are involved, I'm not sure that blocking any of them would work. I suggest semi-protection to forestall the edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

S-prot for two weeks anyway but I was not sure what the "correct" version is? Thanks for the heads up - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You protected the version that looks to be the most credible (the one from October 7). I'll watch the Talk page to see if there are any meaningful objections to that version. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - watching too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:EU on kosovo independence.png

Can an uninvolved admin please remove the protection? I believe there is consensus on the talk for it. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done abf /talk to me/ 19:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

user:62.195.210.201

Please block user:62.195.210.201 for as long as possible. This morning I found this message on my talk page (in Dutch). The message contains vile language in which he curses me and the Dutch Wikipedia and threatens to commit himself to more vandalism on that project. The IP belongs to nl:user:Maerkk, a 16 year old adolescent (I know the case/name and situation irl) who has been blocked for 2 years (until 2010) on :nl by the Dutch arbcom for using sockpuppets, physically (irl) threatening, stalking and harrassing other users. Yesterday I discovered another sockpuppet of his, which I reported (that's why he chose me). He also placed similar threats on the talk page of user:Troefkaart, who banned him on the Dutch IRC-channel. Best regards, Woudloper (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done by SterkeBak (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). --Kanonkas_(talk) 10:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Guido den Broeder

No commons contributor, blocked indef on wiki-nl and just trolling on and placing false accussations on pages like here. Very awkward personal attacks and false accusations and damaging users here. MoiraMoira (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the indef blocking - other views welcome? However it is time that page was closed & I have done so. I do not believe it should be unprotected now without community consent. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded with Herby. If Guido stops now, then I'd say just leave this here & move on. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That page shouldn't have been unprotected. That said, I consider that particular issue resolved adequately, and I look forward to no further disruption from GDB! I would have no qualms with the proposed course of action if that expectation isn't met in abundance. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing is fine with me - thanx MoiraMoira (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

user:MarkMu

I'd like to have myself blocked, because I'm resposible for the edits via this ip-address. Just as the regarding ip-address is blocked, I'd like to see user:MarkMu blocked too. Also, I'am user:MMaerkk and that useraccount is blocked for two years, because of repeated dis-behavior.

A larger reason to have myself blocked, is to allow user:SterkeBak rest and, so I hope, it won't happen he has to confront me.

I think it's to the administrators and the concerned to choose the length of the block. MarkMu (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked getting this info, for now I'm going to put this on stale for further opinions. --Kanonkas_(talk) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I always had the choise to given't away this information. I don't do this for myself, but for the user of commons. Most of you hadn't known this information, if I haven't done this request to have myself blocked. I hope all of you realize. It's now to the people of the community to choose what is right and to ask themselves the question what's sensible. MarkMu (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

all i can say is :S Sterkebaktalk 03:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

i am against a block. Mark if you wan't to give me rest keep away from my talk page. You have hurt me when i was down. Every time you say sorry all memories come back to me. I don't want that. If you wan't to help... Upload nice images to commons. Free content makes me happy. :) Sterkebaktalk 08:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

SterkeBak: If my request won't be granted, I'll agree with your point that I've to stay away from your talkpage. MarkMu (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked users on their own request before (although very rarely). If the reason is good - fine. However blocking is intended to prevent disruption. I'd far rather see a solution of co-operation between people though.

To MarkMu - I respect the fact that you have been public in your admission & concerns here. I would ask you to try and work together here on Commons (a good place in my view). If you really feel you require a break after giving it a period of trying to work this out you are welcome to post on my talk page. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

@Herby: In the Netherlands they say: "Eerlijkheid duurt het langst." what means: Honesty lasts longest. MarkMu (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the things I love about Commons is just how much we can all learn from each other. Thanks for that - they are good words. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Amigo29 90

After being blocked for a couple of weeks, this user has returned with further copyright violations of images which have already been deleted in the past: Image:Jacobo Arenas 400.jpg and Image:Logo del m-19.gif. User should be blocked and images should be deleted. Thank you, Colombiano21 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Images deleted and user blocked for 3 months. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Colombiano21 (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Fkcpt456

All images he uploaded were copyright violation. User:Spacebirdy and I warned him but no response. Please block him. Thank you.--Kwj2772 (d) 02:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Stale for now as that image was uploaded a day ago. --Kanonkas_(talk) 03:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:JessicaRapha

Resolved

This this user has been repeatedly uploading "All rights reserved" or other images that have unacceptable copyright status. A final warning was given,[36], and after several more warnings the user blanked their page.[37] Is this the appropriate venue to request a block? J.smith (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, it looks like this user is now trying to flicker-wash. J.smith (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! J.smith (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Can i please have the first image on the page called American Flag? I want to use it on another article and i cant because its protected. Thanks, Annoymous

Hi, if a page or image is protected you can not move or edit it. It would be no problem to use it on a project, or download it. On what page do you wan't to use it? Sterkebaktalk 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

authorization

Dear Sirs: I write to you from the Library of Universidad Estatal a Distancia of Costa Rica, to ask for authorization to include in our links the logo of Wikisource

I appreciate to much your help

Mónica Arce O.

This is totally the wrong place to ask. Please use the OTRS to ask for permissions for wikimedia-logos, even if I do not think there will be any permission for one of our Logos you can try. abf /talk to me/ 15:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Flickr images/reviewers/list

Hello,

This page was mistakenly protected on the assumption that only admins can promote Flickr reviewers. Not all reviewers are admins, so this should be unprotected. Many thanks. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I see at Commons:Flickr images/reviewers. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It was changed without any discussion by "Nagy", earlier today. In any case, such pages shouldn't be protected in case a non-admin wished to edit it. How do you turn this on (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Dantesutcliffe

This user is behaving very similarly to User:Amigo29 90, uploading similar/the same images which have already been deleted. Again, the user should be blocked and the images should be deleted. Thank you, Colombiano21 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, info appreciated. I've blocked this user indefinitely (& deleted the images). I have also changed the block on User:Amigo29 90 to indefinite as it seems obvious that they will not respect Commons policies. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Colombiano21 (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:MuralBrasileirosÉNóis naFitaCommons!.jpg

Hi,

There's some troubling edit warring over this image. It should be protected. Thanks, How do you turn this on (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi lock Image:Ejaculation educational seq 4.png

Please lock Image:Ejaculation educational seq 4.png for IPs. It is vandalized very often in the last few weeks. Thanks. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really necessary. I see only one revert in the last weeks and five since last year... Lycaon (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wikispecies-logo-en.png

I'm requesting for protecting of the Wikispecies logo. It is being the target of image vandals. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 03:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Done — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And also this image please. It appears on all species' languages main page and I hope we can beat it before the vandal does. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 05:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also done — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Guest 0

Unprotection request. --75.47.219.116 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not done No need to unprotect --Mardetanha ^talk 21:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also the above ip user is Guest 0. --Kanonkas_(talk) 08:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:BetacommandBot

Hi,

i was thinking... Is it really needed to protect a talkpage? I think this protection is not needed User talk:BetacommandBot

If i nominate a image for deletion i get a error because the uploader didn't recieve a notice. I think it is better if a bot archive the talkpage (every day when needed) than protect a talkpage.

Sterkebaktalk 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done warning users (also bots!) should not be a sysop's privillege. (if there is really need this page should never be used please redirect to the operators talk and then protect it.) abf /talk to me/ 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How do other bot owners that move images around handle this problem? I think the general solution should be applied here as well. I'm not keen on protecting this page just because someone doesn't want to see messages. ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, botops generally redirect the bot's talkpage to their own, and handle all communication personally. That's what I do, and it works for me. Multichill does that for his bots, and it seems to work there. I fail to see why Betacommand can't do the same. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This sort of reaction is not helpful. I suggest you make an attempt to be civil if not out-and-out polite. I see no reason to re-protect this. Bot operators need to be responsive - a protected talk page is exactly the opposite. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll go further, it's actively unhelpful and quite unacceptable to berate a long time user that way, I suggest you refactor it, Betacommand, as no one bot is irreplaceable. ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I do understand why Betacommand has his bot talk page protected. Most people just fire up the scripts and don't care if the actual uploader gets informed (see for example this discussion). When the page is protected, people get an error and see that they are informing a bot of a problem, not the actual uploader. Now that the page is unprotected some uploaders will not get notified of a deletion request. Multichill (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Robber123

Hi,

User:Robber123 is warned for uploading copyvios. But is still uploading them. Maybe a one day block so he can read the policy? I placed some extra info on his talk page. Sterkebaktalk 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done blocked for 3 days --Mardetanha ^talk 23:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rcosentino

Hi,

User:Rcosentino is warned for uploading copyvios. But is still uploading them. Maybe a one day block so he can read the policy? I placed some extra info on his talk page. Sterkebaktalk 19:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done by Mike.lifeguard (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). --Kanonkas_(talk) 20:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:CatReformer.png

HAve created an update of the existing Image CatReformer.png. Because my usrid is quite new i couldn't add my update to exisitg images and had to upload it under another name (Image:CatReformerx.png). Could you add this file to the existing series?

Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moltroff (talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, wrong place here but done now. --Martin H. (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki vandal Special:Contributions/217.128.231.151

Searching Clem23 - blocked for 1 week - longer needed ? --Foroa (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting one. fr wp have blocked for 6 months, en wp for one week. The indication on en wp (here) is that it might be dynamic however given the long history of vandalism on it I have doubts.

A week is fine, a month would not worry me at all. Certainly any subsequent blocks should be longer if they come back. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Gastonghilardi

Gastonghilardi (talk · contribs)

Dear Administrators,

This user is uploading bookcovers on commons. I already told him that fair use isn't allouwd on commons and told him to upload it local. This user keeps uploading the covers. And uploaded it twice after my end of copyvios template.

I would like to ask a small block. A hour maybe he didn't read his talkpage yet.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 17:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User has warnings, and all uploads are deleted. If they continue in the same manner as previously, I would block them. Until then, I assume they are reading the warning very carefully, including the linked pages :D — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes i believe so. Otherwise i would ask for a block for a hour so he must read the page. But it solved thank you for responding. Sterkebaktalk 21:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Could someone please move December 6/draft to December 6? The latter is protected. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I suggest you watchlist that page, as it will very likely be a vandalism target (the reason it had been create-protected). — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Puziveri.jpg

This page is regulary vandalized by puppets of cross-wiki vandal (User:Staljaroff, User:A Ghost of Stoljaroff - impersonators of User:Stoljaroff), and other vandals.--Stoljaroff (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

@Stoljaroff, the closing admin will surely consider this. I left a note on the rfd page.

Working on this rfd will probably need an admin with Russian knowledge. --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This user (Stoljaroff) has been indefinitely blocked Wikipedia for sockpuppeting and violations НТЗ, blocked by arbitrators in accordance with their decision under the guidance user:Drbug (Medeyko). This user is bad and strong troll, it's oppose unblcok of the Noble Canopus Kilya. --Staljaroff (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Staljaroff (talk · contribs) has been blocked indef after consulting two ruwiki admins, the block was given due to impersonating/trolling and very likely sockpuppeting. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see any socks. Blocks will have to be placed as needed based on behaviour. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Salangai

A lot of copyright violations. See his user talk. See here his official warning. MusicalM (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC) (replaced; I placed it at the top)

Let's see if the Salangai uploads the images again. All notes (exept yours) were added within 5 minutes.

Right now I don't see any need for blocking this user as long as he doesn't start to upload the same images again

--D-Kuru (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand. MusicalM (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

user:Giusex27sc

ResolvedUser blocked

Giusex27sc (talk · contribs)

Hello,

This user keeps uploading albumcovers. I already told him that Fair use is not allouwd on Commons. The uploading stopt for 15 minutes after that. But now he starts again with three album covers. I am sorry to ask but I believe a block is the last option now.

See ya, Abigor (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. →Na ·gy 22:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I Need the ability to ovferwrite an existing image

i need File:Timeline_of_web_browsers2.svg to have the file name File:Timeline of web browsers.svg as i updated it but do not have rights to overwrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamadatix (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please use {{Bad name}} as described at COM:DR#How_to_list_deletion_requests. If you need to rename a file because it has an incorrect or misleading name, please use {{Rename media}}. Commons:First_steps/Upload_form#5._File_Summary says, "For new users, there is a 4 day period when they can't overwrite existing files." You should be able to overwrite files on December 25. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

overwrite

ResolvedProblem solved

Hi,

Could a admin protect File:Hans Lindström.JPG The image keps being overwriten.

See ya, Abigor talk 12:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 12:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the image at File:Hans Lindström CS.JPG and notified the uploader of this as a means to resolve the issue of like names. Gnan garra 14:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Therefore

unprotected Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 14:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

...and just in that moment the other file was deleted... :P Scary case! ;) Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 14:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)shakes head its just been tagged and deleted as a duplicate, oh why does the system work quickly and efficiently at moment like this...... Gnan garra 14:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Kamil9243

ResolvedTook care of itself

Kamil9243 (talk · contribs)

Hello administrators,

This user is uploading album covers from the pussycat dolls. Since those albums are copyrighted and only permitted under a fair use license I already tagged the images as Copyvios. After that I give the user some explanation about Fair use and that he should upload it locally. After a new album upload I placed a End of Copyvios template on his talk page. Now he uploaded a new images. I think a small block (maybe a day or so) should make him play by the commons rules.

Thanks for your time, Abigor talk 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think a blocked is needed anymore. The user stoped uploading and I hope he has read Commons Licensing very carefully, or that he comes to me when he needs any help. Abigor talk 21:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Block

Can someone please block this obvious sock. Thanks. Majorly ^talk 03:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And now undone by Herby after some consultation. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by "sock" I really meant SPA. Seemed the posts were very odd to me, but if Herby is happy with it, then we can leave it. Majorly ^talk 18:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Antpooh

Antpooh (talk · contribs)

Hello,

this user is uploading a lot of fair use material. I give him some information regarding fair use, and placed a end of copyvios templates on his talkpage. After that template he uploaded one more albumcover and started to upload stuff where for OTRS permission is needed.

I think the last option is a small block so he can read our policy.

See ya, Abigor talk 10:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seem to be missing that nice orange bar completely.

Done & thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How to change the protected upload forms?

In Commons:Village_pump#Vandalism_of_images I asked what to do to arrive at the situation that all upload forms have the default tick box set to "on" for the "Add pages I create to my watchlist". In my opinion the tick box in the upload forms should not be present. Default the page that one creates is added to the watchlist. If one does not want to follow that page anymore the "follow" can be changed as with each Wiki page. As the upload forms are protected my question is how to have that changed? Wouter (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing that option is not a good idea, as users should be able to decide themselves whether to add pages to their watchlist. Please use the feature described by J.smith to have all your image uploads added to your watchlist and understand when other users do not want this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding. The point is not that I want it for me but for the newbies and those who contribute to Commons only by uploading their files and not doing work in trying categorizing things as good as possible. When the default is that image uploads are added to their watchlist then may be 10% of them learn from info that they get via that watch list such as a request to make the description better, request to add a link to a category, to see how others improve the retrievability of the image by adding other categories and finally also to see when vandalism occurs and react immediately.

I am working now systemically through the Category:Media_needing_categories and have added to several hundreds of - only those in my opinion good - photos categories and have added comments/requests often on the user page other than in Commons. Often with a positive effect because I "label" the photo where I make a comment about with “follow it”. This all makes it for me very important that the default is “on” for adding to watchlist. Recently user Multichill wrote “We have a lot of uncategorized files (190.000) here at Commons and about 500 more uncategorized files are uploaded each day.” I think that a default “on” can reduce that a bit. Wouter (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Wouter. I noticed already several times that newbies don't see what is happening with their images and categories, they don't see the edit summaries, they only notice suddenly that something has changed without understanding by whom and why. If you want to trgger a sense of responsability of new users, you have to provide them by default the means to see what is happening with their inputs and a chance to learn and understand the system. --Foroa (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though, we should not default it for ppl who explicitly turned this off in their configuration. I agree to turning the config value on by default, but not to always check the button, regardless of the user settings. This might be useful for newbies, but a real pain for ppl who like to keep their watchlist organized. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisiPK's proposition, both sensible and useful. It would be really nice to have users noticed on their watch list when a tag is applied to their picture (since putting a nsd tag, for instance, does not send a message to their talk page). --Eusebius (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with ChrisiPK's proposition to turning the config value on by default and people who explicitly want to turn this off in their configuration can do that. The present situation is just the opposite. How can this be implemented - who can do that? Wouter (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all we need some kind of community consensus. Please propose this on the village pump, so more people will notice it and post their comments. If there are no objections, we can ask a developer to change this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please leave this as an optional feature. I don't want the 50+ images that I've made minor changes to on my watchlist, but I do want to keep images that I'm the "author" of on my watchlist. J.smith (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the reactions on Commons:Village_pump#Request_to_change_the_default_in_My_preferences.2Fwatchlist we can talk about community consensus. What is the next step; who will ask a developer to change this? Wouter (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I did: Bug 16961. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the request has been issued somewhere. Do you have any idea:

When this will be updated and installed on commons
If this switch applies for all newly created account, all accounts that did not change their preferences, or simply change the default settings of all users ? --Foroa (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I opened a request on Bugzilla, check the link I gave.

I have no idea when this will be updated. If you like to know, add your mail adress to the CC list on the bug request.
What I proposed is changing $wgDefaultUserOptions. The behaviour of this variable is explained in mw:Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions. The change will not affect existing accounts, only newly created accounts. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gruponovo-s

Gruponovo-s (talk · contribs)

Hello,

I want to request a block for this user. The last two days he keeps uploading the same logo on to Commmons (3 times), not only the logo but also a unfree screenshot is uploaded for the 3 time now.

I give him some explanetion about fair use on Commons and placed yesterday the end of copyvios template on his talkpage. Now he uploaded the same stuff today again.

Maybe he should get a time out so he can read our licensing policy or something like that.

Best regards, Abigor talk 05:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave the uploader a final warning. We'll see whether that stops him. Thanks for reporting. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Deathgleaner#block

Deathgleaner has a history of minor vandalism on English Wikipedia. On Commons, he socked on an FP vote (his own image) and even requested that his socks be unblocked because he wasn't given warning that that wasn't OK. He wasted the time of four project CheckUsers that day. Since then he has continued, most recently with User:CommonMaster. Since he expressed an interest in being unblocked, I removed the prohibition on editing his talk page, and there is now an unblock request there. In addition to the obvious requirements that Deathgleaner restrict themselves to one account and behave in a more appropriate manner, Lar has suggested that if unblocked Deathgleaner be prohibited from taking place in community discussion/vote areas like FP, POTY, RFXs etc. I agree that that would be a sensible restriction.

I'm not prepared to unblock Deathgleaner without the consent of the community, so please make your views on this known below if you have any. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If they will only use this account & per Lar suggestion I'll support an unblock. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for giving a user a second chance, but he will need to keep his nose clean. I'd request that a checkuser at some random point in the future check to make sure he's not abusing multiple accounts. --J.smith (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- A random checkuser would probably violate the not-for-fishing rule. If you have suspicion that he is using another account, feel free to contact a checkuser with some evidence. Giggy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  - My idea is that this is a condition of unblocking - with Deathgleaner agreeing to it as a condition of unblocking. --J.smith (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
no participation to such votes should be the minimal requirement for unblocking Imo. Esby (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I support an unblock per Lar's suggestion. These restrictions should hold for some limited probation time, perhaps half a year. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I also support unblock, but don't like to see certain users being restricted from voting. Either they are unblocked and eligible to vote or they are blocked. There should be no such thing as Don't vote for the next 6 months or whatever. So if he is unbloked, I think he should also be allowed to vote. Of course, it should be checked again when there are probable socks voting in favour of him. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I support unblock with the restriction. If the restriction isn't acceptable; the block should remain. It isn't punitive, in my opinion, but rather it avoids the time and effort required to monitor a less restrictive remedy.Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. Giggy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Spiring

My name is Paul Spiring and I uploaded a picture to a Wikipedia page about me. I own the copyrighton this picture and I am happy for this to be released into the public domain. However, it appears that the image has now been blocked. Can someone advise me about how to unblock the image. Thanks in anticipation, Paul. "77.3.85.163 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)"

Nothing can really be done on the Commons if the file is hosted on another project (in this case, the English Wikipedia). Note, however, that the image (w:File:Paul Spiring in 2008.jpg) appears to be working, although it needs a copyright tag. Эlcobbola _talk 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to update MediaWiki logo description

I would like to update the logo-file description to explain what is "Powered by MediaWiki" on the logo page "File:Poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png". Please see the planned new text on talk-page:

File_talk:Poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png.

You can either update that logo-image description (with similar new text & wikitable), or allow me to replace that text as shown in the talk-page. There's no hurry on this. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need the way it works now is just fine. So I will not do it. But I think the license that comes with the software tells that it has to be this way. Abigor talk 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see only benefit in doing this so I went ahead and made the change. Giggy (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wickedauthor

I have blocked for a threat to ABF. May be worth keeping an eye out for further disrupution given that there was also mention of multiple IPs. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, banned indefinetely, see discussion here. There was no indication this user was wanted to contribute in a productive way. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 17:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock(s) cleaned a while ago. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 11:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Tomascastelazo

I blocked this user yesterday for the relatively long period of two weeks for a lengthy pattern of ad hominem attacks. User:Gnangarra has suggested that I post here for more general discussion, which I am happy to do. The rationale for the length of the block is that in my view the attacks are a pretty serious matter: they have been going on for a long time, the reaction to multiple warnings was uniformly negative, they were not stopping, and some appear to be libellous. My comments to the user on the block can be seen at User talk:Tomascastelazo#Block. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo comments were not reasonable or very civil and TC does need to take care in how he responds. FP is an emotive area editors do get upset by some comments it is an area of Commons that could do with reconsideration on how it operates, the criteria and whats acceptable behavior, but thats really a discussion that can place there. In my opinion the multiple warnings;

[38], 12 Dec
[39], 13 Dec
[40]. 7 Jan

while there arent really sufficient to say you've been warned, I'm blocking you for 2 weeks. I do think that a block in this case was unreasonable, the time period is excessive. The time between warnings is significant as is the passing of a week since the last warning and that was after 2 weeks had passed since the first two. If this had occured over the last couple of days only with the 3 warnings within the same week, then to me a 2-3 day block would in the first instant send the message that such behaviour isnt in the spirit of working in a collaborative environment and wont be tolerated any further.

What I think should happen from here is that TC be asked to appologise, acknowledging that the comments are unacceptable and that they wont happen again, from there the block should be reduced to time served. Gnan garra 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the speed with which a user is attacking others really matters. That is, three ongoing attacks over the course of a month can in fact be more detrimental to the project than three attacks in just three days. So, I'm not sure that your reasoning on that point makes sense. Instead, I concur with Michael - he was right to consider past blocks and past behaviour in this vein (whether or not it resulted in a block at the time). — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a block is in order. Not infrequently, I've been disappointed with the level of discourse that is tolerated at FPC. But, I find myself more in agreement with Gnangarra about the length of block. A block of a few days would be more consistent with the tolerance that has been extended to others. I think that an acknowledgment and affirmation of the sort suggested by Gnanarra is appropriate, however, if the block is to be reduced. A repetition of such behavior after block expiration should result in a longer block. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps say that as the block is intended to protect Commons and not to act as a punishment, I would have no objection at all to it being lifted early if Tomascastelazo were to undertake on his talk page that he will not in future make ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, there seems no sign of that so far. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to get more involved, being the focus of TC's attention (though there are other 'targets' [41]). Still, I could live with a shorter block provided it would be the last short one. An apology would be nice, but if he can avoid further blocks (i.e. no more personal attacks aimed at whoever), then that would be just as good. Lycaon (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to see Tomascastelazo's behavior change in the FP discussions, even tho I agree with his point of view in a number of things. I hope that this block leads to some introspection. J.smith (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon, I applaud you that you've agreed with a shorter block. Could Tomas block be reduced then? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I fear that the comments on Tomascastelazo's talk page, and in particular his attacking response to Gnangarra's review of the block would not incline me, at least, to shorten it. Others may take different views, but as I said above I would like to see a commitment from him, first, that no more attacks will be made. At the moment they are still continuing. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I am shaking my head over what I see here - I have to wake from my wiki-sleep to comment on this. I think the extent of the original block is too long. Sure TCs comments are harsh. One of the spicy replys mentioned in the block is IMO quite justified, though, as it is was in response to a most inconsiderate review comment. And I do not agree that TCs reply to gnangarras denial of the unblock is another personal attack. Calm down, everyone. Be mellow. IMO TCs is merely expressing a disagreement with the outcome of the unblock request. I can understand he does not agree. TC is IMO expressing his opinions about where the emphasis ought to be for FPCs. It is a struggle of values for a project, where there is strong disagreement of opinions with other editros. That is only natural. In this process he is explicitly contesting the opinion of especially one other editor, who represents another pole in this struggle for values. And the words have been harsh from both sides.

I do understand if TC is triggered by the reponse on this from the community, which is very one-sided. There are nuances in this which are not acknowledged in the debate. And right now TC is deferred to only commenting on this debate on his talk pages, where he was posted several points. Others users may agree or disagree in these points, but what I see is a total neglect to actually address the issues TC put forth, either with a counter argument or an acknowledgement that there may actually be some issues raised here, which should be adressed, or where there is room for improvement. In this case I have quite frankly been baffled to witness what I perceive to be a rather biased reaction with too little willingness to acknowledge critique or alternative points of view. What I would also like to see was users opposing TCs view acknowledging, that, yes, we could do this and that better, or this comment of mine was not fruitful. Otherwise, TC is alienated, and can use the exact reactions we are seeing quite now as fuel for supporting claims that the block is a way to censor the opinions of TC. TC is not an angel, and I have often told him to moderate his tone in earlier visits. It would help if both sides stretched out to meet and compromize, such that we do not loose yet another valued contributor. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Kim! I am with you on this one.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Gnangarra for lifting the block. Now, time to move on an work constructively together. Don't get personal, stick to discussing images, and how to evaluate them. Respect that different users have different preferences, different cultural backgrounds, and that by taking in and learning from these different opinions the Community and its processes can be improved given a little openness from all sides. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to generate a field that is conductive to building something better, I must start with the personal issues involved here.

1. I recognize that my ways may be bothersome to some people, that is not my ultimate intention.

2. I apologize to all members of the community, and especially to Lycaon and Michael Maggs.

3. I will try to control my hot temper....

On the other hand, I would like to propose a reform of the rules and scope of FP in order to have a site of such quality that gains the recognition of the world community as a source for free images of high encyclopedic value, technical quality and aesthetic quality suitable for the advancement of knowledge and the liberal tradition of Encyclopedia.

Create an environment of selection and recognition that is such that will attract graphic talent so that the rewards are an incentive enough in order to convince people to donate their work for this cause (photographers are very particular in releasing their work for free).

To have FP´s reputation in such high regard that it has the potential to be a springboard for upcoming graphic talent who normally do not have access to the appropiate forums to gain the recognition that is correlated to the quality of their work. There is a lot of unrecognized talent out there. This can be a great equalizer, where pure talent, and not connections or privilege, is the main characteristic of people´s work.

All we have to do is start consensus. The talent for that is already here.

Who says we cannot shoot to the stars?

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And special thanks to Gnangarra, Mila, Slaunger

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomas, thank you for that. For my part I apologize for setting a longer block than some of my fellow admins thought warranted. By all means let's press ahead now with the task in hand. I am looking forward to working with you to improve the FPC process. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, Tomás. Let's start from scratch. Lycaon (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Could an administrator please protect my user page [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite), and protect my talk page [move=sysop] (indefinite). I am receiving vandalism here from people that I block on en.wp. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

~~Being picky - you don't have a user page at present??~~ Don't tend to do indef type stuff here on Commons but some protection seems worthwhile. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done I cleaned the vandalism out of the history as extra service.. Abigor talk 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please show me the paragraph under which conditions where you are allowed to fake the history of a page 78.52.184.9 19:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't fake the history. I cleaned some ugly vandalism out of it. Abigor talk 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to send him the bill for the extra :)! --Herby

talk thyme 19:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:H.i.t.l.e.r. rulzz

Can someone please block this idiot a.s.a.p.? Woudloper (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done: user blocked indefinitely (inappropriate user name), unable to send mail or change talk page, IP not blocked, can create new accounts. --Eusebius (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we delete/protect the user/talk page of such accounts? I've only put a block notice. --Eusebius (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The above account is a troll abusing multiple accounts. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Another avatar blocked: User:H.i.t.l.e.r. is alive. --Eusebius (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5/en

I really don't understand, how was it possible for an IP to modify this template in spite of the protection?

Not hard - ain't protected as far as I can see :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but there's a cascading protection warning when you try to edit it? --Eusebius (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken - I'm puzzled - better brains required! (that or "cascade" ain't working). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus: although the /fr version is used in the same manner as the /en version, it doesn't show the "cascading protection" warning. But I think this is due to the preference settings of the guy who protected Cc-by-sa-2.5 (I suppose cascading protection only impacted the template included through autotranslation). If it is right, it is another argument against relying on cascading protection. --Eusebius (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't use cascading protection. It will only protect the main template, the lang template, the layout template and one of the language templates. Multichill (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the current policy about license templates? Should all languages of all licenses be protected? --Eusebius (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO none should be protected as long as they are not vandalised frequently. Precautious protection should only be used for real high-vandalism targets and should be restricted to those. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also for high-use templates. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

High-use templates listed in Commons:Template i18n/Most linked-to templates now protected (at least main, + /layout and /en when available). --Eusebius (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Protecting the main template of autotranslated templates can do no harm. This won't have to be changed anyway as documentation and actual display code should be included from subpages. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that when we create a subpage of a protected template, the created subpage is not protected by default, despite the cascade settings? Esby (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently yes, you're right, in the general case at least. --Eusebius (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cascade means protecting a page and every page included on the protected page. This is not related to subpages. However, the autotranslation obviously breaks the dependency calculations of MediaWiki (German users transclude Template:name/de, English users us Template:name/en and so on), so the software cannot figure out which pages are actually called by the cascade protected page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

File

Please you have to unprotect the file. According to CIA World Factbook and ministry of internal affairs of Albania, orthodox Christianity is not the religion of the majority only in that part of the south that you have marked. It is spread more higher, up to the line of Vlora and Korca district(the southern Albanian geographic line. These are very known orthodox districts. Moreover, the blue color (Catholic religion) has to be taken a little more down, near Durres district. I am from Albania and I know about my country. This information is reliable and trustworthy. Please, if you do not unprotect the file, then just recolor it yourself. Also, you could unprotect the file for some days, and let me change it. Then protect it again. I am not a vandal. If you see my contributions, you 'll see I've written many articles for my country, reliable pages with citations. This will ensure you. I am the user "Thebesterrefan". "PLEASE CONSIDER IT IN ORDER NOT TO LE ANYONE BE MISINFORMED" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebesterrefan (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, what file do you wish to be unprotected? →Na ·gy 12:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this one Abigor talk 16:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User Domaleixo

Domaleixo ( local | logs | global ) is trying to impose his point of view of a would-be "correct heraldry" for the blasons of Belo Horizonte and Campo Grande (Brazilian cities).

The edition war started by this user at Wikipedia Portuguese has already caused the block of the following articles:

Here, he started an edition war with other users in two files, trying to impose his "update":

His versions of these blasons are not the official ones and, at Wikipedia Portuguese, many users - some administrators -, have already complaint about his disruptive behaviour. In fact, he started to alter the files here, since most of the articles there are currently bloked. Thanks. --Tonyjeff (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection of high risk images

Please fully protect the following images heavily used on Wikipedia and accross various projects:

File:Portal.svg File:Crystal personal.svg File:Nuvola apps important.svg File:Crystal Clear app Login Manager.png File:Nuvola apps filetypes.svg File:Disambig.svg File:Exquisite-kfind.png File:Purple question mark.svg File:Soccerball.svg File:Flag of Poland.svg File:Waricon.svg File:Flag of France.svg File:Button sig.png File:Vynil record.jpg File:Flag of Australia.svg File:Ambox warning pn.svg File:Wiki letter w.svg File:Nuvola apps korganizer.svg File:Camera-photo.svg File:Image-request.svg File:Flag of India.svg File:Soccer ball.svg File:Vote.svg File:Replacement filing cabinet.svg File:Nuvola apps package graphics.svg File:Video-x-generic.svg File:Exquisite-microphone.png File:Flag of Italy.svg File:Nuvola apps important blue.svg File:Clipboard.svg File:Flag of England.svg File:Poland map flag.svg File:Flag of Spain.svg File:Flag of Canada.svg File:Clockimportant.svg File:School ip.svg File:Maple Leaf (from roundel).png File:Star full.svg File:Logo de la République française.svg File:Stop hand.png File:Nuvola apps edu mathematics-p.svg File:Button sig2.png File:Soccerball mask.svg File:Terrestrial globe.svg File:Armoiries république française.svg File:Flag of New Zealand.svg File:Flag of Brazil.svg File:Chamomile@original size.jpg File:Star empty.svg File:USS Constitution 1997.jpg File:Diamond-caution.svg File:Flag of Russia.svg File:Queen Mary 2 03 KMJ.jpg File:Flag of the Netherlands.svg File:Puppeter template.svg File:Orange check.svg File:Stock post message.svg File:Gnome-dev-cdrom-audio.svg File:Flag of Sweden.svg File:Mitlogo.svg File:P train.svg File:Three rail tracks 350.jpg File:United States Arms.svg File:System-users.svg File:Africa satellite orthographic.jpg File:Flag of Japan.svg File:Book collection.jpg File:Red x.svg File:Flag of Romania.svg File:New School.svg

Cenarium (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done for most of them. None of them are frequently subject to vandalism (if so, please re-request protection of those again; I didn't check all of the page histories in detail) and most of them are not heavily used across WMF projects. Most of them are basically only used on enwiki. As long as they are not subject to vandalism, this doesn't warrant a protection. As a general rule of thumb: Images should have more than 100 inclusions each on at least 5 or more WMF projects to be eligible for pre-emptive protection. I did protect the following images due to heavy use:

Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We have suffered too many times from massive vandalism on enwiki due to unprotected commons images. Information.svg is used on 1,320,337 pages and most of them on 100.000+ pages. All of them would have been fully protected a while ago on enwiki due to high visibility. We cannot afford a single vandalism for those images (see the result). The alternative is to re-upload all of them on en.wikipedia (I already cascade-protected them), but it's a bit unproductive. Cenarium (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons is just like En.wiki free to edit. When a images is vandalisd a few times we can protect it. But Commons doesn't have to protect images because the are high use on En.wiki or a other wiki. We have more than 700 projects if we have to protect all images that are heavy used on a project we can protect all our images..... Abigor talk 17:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if such vandalism would result in thousands or tens of thousands of readers seeing 'unpleasant' images (the server couldn't update the reversion immediately), and if 'well done', a cascade failure of Wikipedia ? Cenarium (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are the most-used commons images on Wikipedia. I have checked the image global use and they all satisfy the 100+ on 5+ projects condition, except Exquisite-kfind.png, Nuvola_apps_korganizer.svg, Vynil_record.jpg, Image-request.svg, Vote.svg, Nuvola_apps_package_graphics.svg, Maple_Leaf_(from_roundel).png, Maple_Leaf_(from_roundel).png, Terrestrial_globe.svg, USS_Constitution_1997.jpg, Chamomile@original_size.jpg, Diamond-caution.svg, Diamond-caution.svg, Queen_Mary_2_03_KMJ.jpg, Orange_check.svg, Mitlogo.svg, Three_rail_tracks_350.jpg, United_States_Arms.svg, Book_collection.jpg and New_School.svg. Could you protect the others ? Thanks for what you have protected already, it'll be less to upload locally ;) Cenarium (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't protect the flag images as those are obviously changed pretty often. Protecting the wrong version of those sounds like a bad idea. Also, I am not planning on protecting any more of the images you posted. I reviewed the images you requested for protection before and protected those where I thought vandalism would be likely and which are really high-use. Please note that the 100+ usage on 5+ projects is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for a protection. The rest of the images you nominated are not likely high-risk targets of vandalism and will thus not be protected by me. Feel free to request again once new arguments come up. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no other arguments. On Wikipedia, we protect templates or images that are heavily used (more than ~10000 pages which is the case for them) to prevent massive vandalism and denial of service attacks. Having viewed a couple of commons images protected due to high use across Wikimedia projects comparable to the ones above (and including flags), I thought it would be uncontroversial to request those protections. Cenarium (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I went through and protected more vandalism targets. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock

Please unblock the editing for the image you made to Image:Question mark-copyright.svg. Doing so would resemble all images that anyone can edit on Wikimedia Commons. Upload Way (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such image, nor was there ever according to the logs. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be related to File:Questionmark copyright.svg, but I don't see the point of this request. →Na ·gy 13:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That image is protected because it's used on a lot of wikimedia projects, and editing it would result in a fair bit of damage. Giggy (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Salt: File:That's why my mom always told me to cross my legs when I wore a skirt.jpg

It was deleted, then discussed and recreated, then shortly after discussed and deleted. Banning yet another review, I say we salt, which was part of my original proposal for discussion (I recognize this was not directly addressed in discussion or closing, but it makes sense).--Cerejota (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted, restored and deleted again after a second conversation. I don't see anything wrong with this. There is little point in salting a file name that is highly unlikely to be used again (And has only been used once). --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cheesecracker

Please block this user asap per what's going on over at File:Bendigo Fires 07022009 1.jpg.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Done by Odder (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) Abigor talk 08:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Few issues with block

1. I'm not sure,if this is done in purpose, but, when I was blocked

I could not get an edit screen for archives of my own talk page.

I simply wanted to copy something from there to paste to my current talk

page, but I could not do this.

2.While I was blocked almost every time I changed the screen during one session on Commons there was "new message"

warning. Of course in reality there was no new message, but rather an old one with a block template.

Maybe this is done in purpose to be constantly reminded about the block, but it does add

to the injury :)

3. If I understood this thing

right, my block was reduced to 2 hours. In reality I was blocked for 24 hours. Is this a problem that should be

corrected? If it is, may I please ask you to count extra time served toward my next block? :)

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if are are blocked, you can view the source code of the page. The source code is generated under the block message.
Did you try to visite your recent user talk archives? Did you try to bypass your browser's cache? Did you try to purge?
I do not really know.

--Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Joku Janne.

Maybe I did not notice I could see the source code. I'll make sure to try next time :)
I did not try to bypass my browser's cache? I did not try to purge? I got this new messgage warning, for example, when I looked at my contributions or something like this. It never happened to me before with a normal message, but maybe I did not payed attention. I should have done a better job testing.
You do not know why I was blocked for 24 hours instead of 2 hours, or you do not know, if extra time I served could be credited for my next block? :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)3. You were blocked with Autoblock enabled, meaning that the MediaWiki software automatically creates a block for the IP adress you are currently using, which expires at the same time your actual block expires. Your block expiry time was later changed by Abigor, however this does AFAIK not change the IP block issued by the software. Thus your IP was still blocked for 24 hours and you could not edit. It would have helped to get a new IP adress and login again, then the software would have issued a new block for that IP and have it expire at the same time your block expires. BTW, extra time cannot be credited for your next block as your account technically wasn't blocked. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I still cannot understand what is the use of changing the time of the block, if software automaticly continues the block. I guess it is easier to say than to do to get a new IP adress. I know I could not get a new IP address. Anyway...Thank you very much for explaining it to me, ChrisiPK.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that autoblock shouldn't have been used. It's a tricky thing, and some admins don't understand how it works. Perhaps noticing this will remind folks that autoblocking isn't appropriate in all circumstances. — Mike.lifeguard 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unability For The Common Uploaders

I was just looking to upload an image - screenshot - and was prompted I couldn't do so. I empathise with your concerns but do ask this be sorted out so Wikipedians can upload and be protected simultaneously. --Trap The Drum Wonder (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots generally do not meet out licencing policy, as they are derivative works of whatever is being screenshotted, which is almost without exception not free the way we define it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Upload permission

I'm here to request permission to upload images, since I want to contribute with some images in the pages, but I encountered my upload blocked while trying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesquey (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with your account, maybe there was a technical problem during upload. What happened exactly? Or do you want advice on the status of a specific file you want to upload? --Eusebius (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Primeros pasos

The page Commons:Primeros pasos (wich is Commons:First steps for the users with spanish languaje) should be protected or semi-protected. It's a typical target of test edits by new users, and I had to revert some bad edits. Belgrano (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done - Semi protected. Abigor talk 13:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan blank

Recently File:Azerbaijan blank.png was modified to show the disputed territory of w:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Users Baki66 and Azeri started a revert war, with offensive edit summaries and are yet to comment on the talkpage despite my numerous calls to do so. Nagorno Karabakh is a self declared de-facto independent country, but is still de-jure part of Azerbaijan. VartanM (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to original, protected for two weeks. Let's hope the users can work something out. Siebrand 10:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A good sollution would be to upload different versions with little different filenames like File:Azerbaijan blank1.png or File:Azerbaijan blank NKR disputed.png. This helped with File:LocationMorocco.svg. The usage on Wikipedia is not our concern, so we can provide maps from different point of views. --Martin H. (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been almost 3 weeks since the protection, and the edit warriors failed to address the issue on the talkpage. To remind you, this is about showing the disputed territories inside the borders of Azerbaijan which Azerbaijan has no control of since 1994. The map is used on hundreds of articles on different language wikipedias as a locator and I believe readers of wikipedia are entitled to know that a town or village they're looking at is not under Azerbaijan's control. VartanM (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reverted to modified version. Awaiting the revert warriors. VartanM (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Request user page protection

I have a Wikipedia English user account [42]. I was being harassed by several IP addresses geolocated to a certain area in Wisconsin. The most recent IP address was blocked there for 3 days because of vandalism and my account there was protected because of the harassment. Now, another IP address geolocated to the same area has followed me here and continued to harass me direct insults toward me. I have no doubt it is the same person given that I haven't used this account in months. Can my user page and talk page be protected or semi-protected? It is rather disturbing someone keeps following me throughout the Wiki project. Thank you. Dysepsion (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Semi-protected. -- Avi (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Request unprotection of Template:Flickrreview

Template has been protected for more than 6 months. Although heavily used, permanent protection prevents non-admins from actively working to improve the tag or update to match changes to the project pages that it supports.--User:Doug^{(talk • contribs)} 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This template is in use at about 50.000 images. We usually keep heavy usage templates protected. What exactly do you plan on doing? Multichill (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good idea, per above. The best thing to do is propose changes in a sandbox and ask an admin to move it over. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Or just add your changes to the talk page and add {{Editprotected}}, which will flag the admins. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not done - Heavy used template, there are other ways to get the changes done. You could also make a new version and place it on my talkpage. I will place it on the template than. Abigor talk 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparent thirty-fold escalation in block length

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#3 months? for further discussion. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I mistaken, or is the block discussed here Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#3 months? a bit too harsh? Also, should the block have been placed by an editor who was involved in the other side of a dispute with the user? -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied there. Let's keep it in one place. Rocket000 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Brasao cg ed.jpg

I ask for protection of that file. One user is trying to change the file to impove his POV. Béria Lima ^Msg 17:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File has been protected for a week, I left a comment on the file talk (and suggest others with opinions about this post the same place). Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - 26549.jpg

Could someone remove <nowiki> from last line of the source details. I can not save it because it triggers some spam filter.--Jarekt (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

holocaustresearchproject.org is on the spam blacklist which means that the software prevents page saves (even from admins) if the page contains external links on the blacklist. See m:Blacklists and m:Spam blacklist and more specifically m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Recurring_requests#holocaustresearchproject.org for more. There were 3 requests in the past to remove the page from the blacklist, but they were all declined. You can request whitelisting that one link though, as that has worked in the past. -Andrew c (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You can make your whitelist request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. It appears there is already a holocaustresearchproject.org page on the whitelist. I would just add the site myself, but I'm not comfortable enough with the coding to know how. -Andrew c (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done - Huib talk 18:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks --Jarekt (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Blue check.png

Please unprotect, so the file can be recategorized into category:Blue symbols --WikipediaMaster (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Done placed in the category. Huib talk 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:DAB list gray.svg

Is about to be used on a highly-visible meta-template on enwiki (w:Template talk:Dmbox#Set index image), please fully-protect. Happy-melon (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done Rocket000 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gogo Dodo

Can an admin please indefinitely semi-protect my userpage? Actions that I have done on en.wikipedia has spilled over to my Commons account. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Template:Nopenis_(category_version)

this template is pointy, borderline comic/insulting, & does not reflect WMC policy.

there is no WMC POLICY: WE HAVE ENOUGH/TOO MUCH OF THIS STUFF

template is being advocated (& protected) by a small group of editors seeking to promote a specific pov.

template was NOT protected to prevent vandalism. protection was used to shut down legitimate debate.

i wish to nominate this template for deletion.

please unprotect it

(have contacted protecting admin)

Lx 121 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been done by someone else. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Deutsche Fotothek Logo.svg

Used on 30,000+ image pages right now and about to be used on up to 250k pages. Needs protection. --Yarnalgo (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not done - The image has a clean history and hasn't been vandalized. I am not going to protect a image because it can maybe be a target for vandals. (Than we should close down the whole project) Please remember it's a wiki, everybody can edit everything ;-) I placed it on my watch list. Huib talk 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done by User:Multichill. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Liftarn

Liftarn (talk · contribs) was blocked by Finnrind (talk · contribs) for a week, because Liftarn had reposted his complaint about Mbz1 referring to him as "it". This admin seems too involved too take such a decision: first he had tried to excuse such language. He then defended his comment, and deleted Liftarns complaint. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin to respond here. Multichill (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to {{GENDER:Liftarn|he|she|undefined}} it's he. "It" can be an insult but so can calling a he a she and vice-versa. Anyway, that's not a reason to block at all. There's got to be something more to it than that. Rocket000 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Reporting a user at COM:AN/U is asking for administratrative intervention against a user, which would be either blocking said user or deleting its (sic!) uploads. Mbz1 as been reported twice in few days, both reports in my judgement clearly with the intent of abusing COM:AN/U to intimidate another user. First by Falastine fee Qalby (talk · contribs) April 6th, removed by Adambro (talk · contribs)[43], and then by Liftarn (talk · contribs)[44], removed by me and then reinstated after I had warned the user [45]. The core of Liftarns complaint is that Mbz1 referred to him/her as it after herself (well, her own work uploads are attributed "Mila Zinkova") being several times called "he" in a deletion request. Note that this deletion request, even if only concerning recent uploads from some flickr-accounts, is titled "Images by Mbz1" and that the notification to the user was "All your images have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests" [46] (which would include nearly 4 000 images, among them a lot of Featured Pictures). In total, this is as I see it a clearly a campaign to bully another user away from Commons because she has a different point of view on the Israel-Palestine conflict than users Liftarn, Falastine fee Qualby&co. This is abuse of COM:AN/U to harass another user, and as such I have blocked Liftarn with the rationale "Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Bullying other user through COM:AN/U".

Should another administrator judge this differently I will certainly not wheelwar, just feel slightly disappointed. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I tried to steer clear of Mbz1, he has been POV pushing with Israel-Palestine pictures even before I registered at wikipedia.[47] I don't mind that he adds Israeli-related pictures to the article, I encourage it. I have a problem with him discrediting my opinions with the term SPA, and what I feel is bullying. My first encounter with him here at commons was very recent, and it is when I reverted his POV/date-changing edits to a picture I uploaded[48]. A few minutes later, he followed me to a deletion request (where I told the user requesting the deletion that he cannot ask for deletion because he thinks the photo is photoshopped) and voted "delete" [49], perhaps in retaliation for reverting his edits minutes earlier. Anyway, later I checked one of Mbz1's photos and found that the date was off from the date supplied in the original source. I changed it and I didn't check any of his other photos thinking it was an isolated incident, I AGF.[50] If I had an agenda against him, I would have checked all of his photos.

Cut to a couple of days later, I come across this deletion request of Mbz1's images, here he refers to me as a single purpose account [51] (Here is some context) even before I commented. But my attention was taken else where. I found that a couple of Mbz1's images were not accurately dated, I made a comment (I didn't vote for deletion or make any attacks)[52] about removing the inaccurately dated pictures from the Wikipedia article. I found out that only one of Mbz1's images in the article was not dated correctly, so I removed only that one and left the rest in. Anyway I noticed that Mbz1's behavior was getting more hostile. He referred to Liftarn, who he has attacked before, as 'it'. I called him out on it, Finnrind defended him. Here Mbz1 is trying to discredit my opinion and my action of removing his inaccurately dated picture.[53] I got angry and I called him out on his date fixing on photos. I filed a request, Adambro removes it, Finnrind applauds the action but wonders why Adambro didn't warn me and why he removed it only after Mbz1 had his say, another example of Finnrind's unexplainable defense of Mbz1. I feel that maybe I was harsh in my reaction to Mbz1's saying I am a SPA. Finnrind's suggestion that I am targeting Mbz1 because of his pro-Israeli POV is based on ignorance and perhaps stereotyping, who knows realy. Anyway, i just thought I defend myself from Finn's accusations. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a she who has been called a he all the time and I don't mind, but I would be offended to be called an 'it'. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we unblock Liftarn already? Also Liftarn's complaint wasn't only about the 'it' comment. Please check the report [54] This report was not made in bad faith. Even if it was, it doesn't warrant an admin to block a user. Liftarn was not making personal attacks and he wasn't being uncivil in the face of the attacks. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rindahls respons shows his bias. He is assuming good faith on the side of Mbz1 when he writes "it", but talks about Liftarn as a part of a mob. It was Timeshifter who made the Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Mbz1. The phrase "all your images" comes from Help:Mass deletion request#Notify the uploader.2Fs - please change that page, if this causes problems. Liftarn hardly wrote anything in that DR, but Mbz1 immediately reacted angrily, personally and using dehumanizing language. He lives in the US, he should know very well that one does not refer to a person as it, and his typography shows it was intentional. Liftarn had a legitimate complaint. Administrators can just write that in their opinion it is no reason for action if they do not agree. But Rindahl had already made that clear. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For some time now a number of users have done what they can to harass & attack Mbz1. Kuiper seems to delight in "reporting" other people wherever he can - he has sniped at me a time or two in the past. Equally Liftarn/Qalby and others appear to be behaving in concert in a disruptive manner. Solely my view of course but it does seem sad that Commons is being led in such a direction by such people. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the above comment - but I suggest unblocking Liftarn. The point has been made. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No admin has accepted or declined Liftarn's unblock request yet.[55] I asked finnrind to review the evidence, but he hasn't replied although he has made edits ever since. So I guess he is just not interested. Herb's comments and his copy/paste typo of my user name shows that he has really no idea what is going on, just trying to get a word of support in for his buddies. Can someone who isn't a friend or an acquaintance of any of the people involved in this thread, please review liftarn's request to be unblocked? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if I had copy & pasted it I would have got it right I assure you. I do have a fairly good idea of what is going on here & see you as effectively an SPA in this. There is clearly meat puppetry, goading etc going on disrupting Commons.

I find it quite insulting that you think because an admin here gets on with someone they would be unable to take a balanced point of view on anything. However you are rather inexperienced in Commons matters or you would know that I actually blocked Mbz1 a while back - suggests that you really do not know much. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Equally I see the unblock request only arrived yesterday so few people will have had a change to see it yet. I'm sure someone will take a look soon. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you copied and pasted Finnrind's typo of my name, Qualby, and repeated what he said about me. Whether you consider me to be an SPA or not does not matter, I work in different subjects in Wikipedia, the more important project. I don't have to prove anything to you. What I consider you to be is an ineffective admin who is not interested in judging people based on the evidence but rather what your friends have to say about the person. I wasn't even involved in Common matters until I was dragged into it by Mbz1 for no good reason, so I really don't mind that you say I am rather inexperienced in Commons. I don't have any interest being here and being judged unfairly. And I really doubt anybody would have looked at Liftarn's unblock request seeing that they are too busy protecting other admins' action while treating members like me as if I am worthless and sinister. I am not engaging in meatpuppetry or goading, stop associating me with actions I am innocent of, this is clearly harassment. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am fascinated by the fact that you "know" what I did. Sorry to disappoint you but I merely typed your name without looking - call it careless or human as you wish but I did not copying and paste it. Wise in this and many things not to assume you know or understand I guess. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked Liftarn now. I would urge multiple users who, I'm sure, can identify themselves to take it easy with the COM:AN/U requests and baiting of other users. Please try to get along, if only for the good of the project. — Mike.lifeguard 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Thanks also for your calming words. Endorse, endorse. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Rocket000 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Me three ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Liftarn has continued to make what may be incendiary and inappropriate edits. Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Liftarn (talk • contribs). Perhaps the block may need to be restored and a temporary topic ban until such time as Liftarn can edit nuetrally and fairly with regard to Israel/Palestine issues has been raised. Comments and suggestion (on COM:AN/U) would be appreciated. -- Avi (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia-logo.svg

Same as above!

New file: http://www.nervenhammer.com/images/Wikimedia-logo.svg

Validator: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nervenhammer.com%2Fimages%2FWikimedia-logo.svg

Kindest regards, --Fleshgrinder (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Commons-logo.svg

Unprotection request for update and after update apply protection again.

I completely recoded the whole file by hand. Deleted all unnecessary elements and attributes, deleted all Inkscape related elements and attributes and replaced tabs with 2 space indentation and many more! The file is now valid SVG 1.1 and works fine on my testwiki, Inkscape, Opera 9.64 and Illustrator. Also I would like to expand the description of the page, by adding the source code of the file and also I'd like to include the Template:ValidSVG. As I do it on my files, see for an example File:Alien 3 Logo.svg and File:Steyr AUG A1 407mm.svg.

File can for now be found at: http://www.nervenhammer.com/images/Commons-logo.svg (Only to show you; after the update I will delete the file from my server!)

Here is the validator check: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nervenhammer.com%2Fimages%2FCommons-logo.svg

Kindest regards, --Fleshgrinder (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, why do you add the source code on the page? It's not like something you need to recreate the image (like gnuplot or latex source), it's the content of the SVG file. It seems completely redundant, anyone can open the file in a text editor to see the source. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a must, I've only seen other people doing it and I found it quite useful. If someone - like me - is into programming SVGs directly it's very interesting to have a look at the source without saving it to the harddisk and opening it - it saves a lot of time. But as I wrote, it's not a must. I think the most important thing of all is to update the logos to a valid and very easy file, as my recoded files are. Kindest regards, --Fleshgrinder (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Algeriaforum2009 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I'd like to unblock this user. I have first blocked him for 1 day, and then GeorgHH blocked him for one month, although the user did absolutely nothing after he was first blocked. GeorgHH just didn't answer me. --Eusebius (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No real issue but they were using other accounts too (I blocked a couple of obvious ones). I'm happy to do AGF. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're leaving one account open? (BTW I'd assume "misunderstanding of the project scope" instead)--Eusebius (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware I left any open? However I'm quite happy if one is unblocked. I would agree about the scope issue & would have done as you did - a short block to give them time to read things! I just blocked the "extra accounts" to send a message that that was not the way to edit here :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I leave a message in French on his talk page about multiple accounts, saying that we let him use User:Algeriaforum2009 unless he tells us otherwise. I will unblock if there are more admins ok with that. --Eusebius (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Make Template Template:Coat_of_Arms Translateable

Please unprotect Template:Coat_of_Arms or better integrate:

 {{Coat_of_Arms/{{#ifexist:Template:Coat_of_Arms/{{int:Lang}}|{{int:Lang}}|en}}|}}

I started to make the files: Template:Coat_of_Arms/en and Template:Coat_of_Arms/lang (I think the en-version can be proteted too.) I will start with Template:Coat_of_Arms/de. If someone can help with an other language it will help. Thanks a lot. HBR (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at {{Autotranslate}} and some examples on how to get a template autotranslated. Multichill (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg

Same as above! Please unprotect for file update, kindest regards --Fleshgrinder (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Done — Mike.lifeguard 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Janna 2.JPG

Please unprotect this page. It has been protected for over then a year for no good reason.--O sama K 06:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Done Huib talk 07:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect Template:Häggström diagrams

The fact is that in the ~6 months of history of this template, not a single edit from an unregistered user has been anything else than vandalism, and so it will probably continue due to its relatively high complexity compared to a normal article. As the template now appears in images that, taken together, are viewed millions of times each month, the increasing vandalism is starting to become considerably annoying, mostly to the readers. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done odder 10:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:JMClogo.jpg

The CommonsDelinker bot deleted the subject image from Blue Grass Army Depot. I didn't upload it, but I am 95% sure that this is a US Army or DoD logo, which I understand puts it in the public domain as a Federal image. Since I can't see it or find it, I can't be 100% sure. However, please do what you can to restore the image to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.14.3 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your request has been forwarded to COM:UDEL. Thanks, →Na gy 10:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia_Rollback.png

Please protect File:Wikipedia_Rollback.png...there are over 500 people with the image on the english wiki...see english wiki. Thank you.Smallman12q (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this needed? It's not used in any articles on any project so the consequences of vandalism to the public face of the project are low. Better people vandalise an image used in userspace that one in articles - even if the number of uses are greater - surely? Also, the image has never been vandalised (and neither has File:Admin mop.PNG which is probably used even more extensively). WJBscribe (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not done Its great that the images is in use, but if we protect all images that are in use we can close down Commons. We have files that are in use on more than 100.000 and not protected Huib talk 14:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Republic of China.svg

The current svg of File:Flag of the Republic of China.svg has the wrong color, the color blue is too dark and wrong, even user/admin/creator Zscout370 has admitted that he was trying to use the more accurate color, but was stopped by someone, without explaining who is that so called someone. I request the full protection to be changed into semi-protection, until the dispute on the blue color is resolved. My discussion with admin Zscout370 can be seen here:Image:Republic of China Army Flag.svg Arilang ^talk 13:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Deactivation

Please deactivate my account and block my user page as well als my user discussion. --Steffen85 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not done Please consider using Wikibreak Enforcer. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please protect File:Biandintz eta zaldiak - modified2.jpg

The POTY should be fully protected, so that only admins can edit it. There's really no need to change anything, and no need to upload a new version. If there should be the need to edit something, however, everyone can ask for an edit on the talk page using {{Editprotected}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Picutre has been semi-protected. The current vandlism does not warrant a pre-emptive full protection. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. --The Evil IP address (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Applications-office.svg and File:GFDL yellow.png

Both are now used in the license warning displayed whenever anyone edits a page on Commons. They need to be protected because of high visibility --Yarnalgo (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

However both the files are heavy used I don't see a reason to protect already.

Everybody can edit

That is one reason why this project is so great. I will say not done not needed untill it is targeted by vandals, I dont feel good with protecting because maybe someday a vandal will come by Huib talk 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree witgh Yarnalgo. This is still a wiki first and foremost, but we cannot risk a vandalism that will be visible on such a big amount of pages (for a while before a revert and then through the cache etc.). I have fully protected both files and have added them to my watchlist in order to fill any requests that may arise. Problem solved, Done. odder 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Translation table

Hi! Two days ago, I have asked for the modification of Template:Translation table. Since the amount of change is quite large, I'm willing to do it myself if you could unprotect it for a couple of hours, starting from now. Of course, I will notice you when I'm finished. Thanks. — Xavier, 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected. Happy editing! ;) odder 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Back soon (at least I hope so ;-) — Xavier, 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Although not so soon... You can protect the template again, thank you. — Xavier, 01:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone bring back this template to its protected state? Thanks. — Xavier, 00:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-protected. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unknown user is changing many files

User 79.150.1.237 is changing many files. The changes are political based. With several categories a small edit war takes place. The problem is that he/she has only an IP-adress so discussion is difficult. May be that a block of a few days may help to stop this. Wouter (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: IP has already been blocked today by Cookie, for a duration of one day. — Xavier, 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Chav.jpg

Can someone please un-protect this image as the last 'bad change' took place months ago and it was even longer since vandalism was bad. If not can someone remove the link to File:Chavar.jpg (the alternative location of the image people kept changing this to) as that image has been removed. Regards, FM (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The protection expires soon, on July 1st, 2009. However I modified the protection to block only unregistered and new users. Sv1xv (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

TarackaChetowaIkonoka (talk · contribs)

I placed an indef block without warning on TarackaChetowaIkonoka (talk · contribs) for insults and vandalism on several image descriptions and user pages. I don't know if he insulted people on a random basis or if he targeted specific users. Does one of you know who this might be? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be "trans-wiki conflict", see en:User_talk:Taracka for an explaination. On :en the vandal threatened "wait until i attack with 50 sockpuppets". --Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bsktblldn618

This user is evading his block by uploading the same non-free images as before under User:Bsktblldn619. He is repeatedly inserting them in en.wikipedia articles as well. Killervogel5 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Already done, Martin H. indeffed early this morning (late last night, whatever). -Andrew c (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Image license

Please protect Template:Image license. The page has been vandalized twice, and furthermore there's nothing that really needs to be changed. The template is already autotranslated and the documentation transcluded from the subpage. Also, people are still able to use {{Editprotected}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Done - Thanks for the notice. - Huib talk 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Copyright by Wikimedia

I created polish translation of this template. Please add it. DaniXTeam (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you. →Na gy 14:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Squatina angelus - Gervais.jpg

Could someone please protect this file as it will be displayed on the front page of en.wikipedia shortly. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind - problem solved. Gatoclass (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Emblem_of_the_Kuomintang.svg

Please could this file be protected? A user has been reverting it to his favorite version for about a month, and only replies in Chinese when asked for explanations. The version as of 14 June 2009 is the right one as it closely matches the one on the Kuomintang website. Laurent1979 (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done here, discussion seems to take place on the file's talk page. →Na gy 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Tel Aviv duck2.jpg

Please remove the protection of File:Tel Aviv duck2.jpg. The image is no longer on the main page of the Hebrew Wikipedia. Dolev (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Done (together with Túrelio). Lycaon (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Vagina

Please semi-protect this page as it's a high-vandalism target. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Done--Kwj2772 (msg) 10:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:SkipGates.jpg

Vandalism from Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has spilled over to Commons with morphing accounts continuing to remove the copyvio tag from SkipGates.jpg. Please protect and delete. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

sorted per this. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you protect children from accessing pictures and information that are not age appropriate?

Any child can access pictures and information on Wikipedia that are not appropriate for their age and maturity level or emotional health(pornography, drug information, etc). Will Wikipedia set up some kind of guard or age affirmation before viewing,please? I realize that if a child is going to access this information, an age requiremnet would not stop them. But at least they would know, and parents as well, that the information they are seeking requires an 18 year old age limit.

Hi. Two things. One, we have a disclaimer - Commons:General disclaimer. Two, we aren't wikipedia. Wikipedia has an even better disclaimer - Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Essentially, the onus is on you to prevent your children accessing such material, either through monitoring their web use personally or installing content filters. We at Commons, and Wikimedia projects in general, are here for the betterment of the population as a whole, and we will not censor ourselves to prevent children accessing what is an educational resource. Please see also Commons:Project_scope#Censorship. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to check out Wikipedia Selection for schools, articles that have been checked for age-appropriate content, etc. It is available as a download, or on DVD. Killiondude (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Test.png

I have uploaded an image with a very simple name to prevent further uploads, could someone please protect this image? It has just been erased in the past, this image needs to be blocked from further uploads Scarce (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sv1xv (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Lollyvondy

Lollyvondy (talk · contribs) was warned a few weeks ago after uploading a batch of non-free (copyvio) images that they would be blocked if they continued. Today they uploaded two more copvios. Just wanted to report this somewhere, and found that this might be the most appropriate venue. Killiondude (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Deleted copyvios and blocked user for 7 days. Sv1xv (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please block Havid 2

Havid 2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is a crosswiki Indonesian spambot who needs to be blocked. Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Please reconsider taking the tools back :) →Na gy 22:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag of United States

File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg

I optimised the svg code so that each star only consists of 3 triangles anymore instead of 5. A Pentagram Star consists of 3 triangles.

This results in reduced file size and reduced ressource needs.

Here is the optimised version:

File:Flag_of_America_19_10.svg

djmj 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a flag expert, but I know even the littlest of changes can be quite controversial. In your version the stars are slightly bigger making the margins on each side different (the stars as a whole are no longer centered in the blue rectangle). Rocket000 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Besides, since SVG files are displayed as PNG, I don't think the optimized version would lead to any reduction of resource requirements. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this and updated the version, the stars size is the right one (80 % of stripe height)djmj 0:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, but the stars are still different and now the rectangle is wider. I know these are trivial differences (at least in my eyes), but you see, when it comes changing protected images like this admins need to be very careful not to replace the file with something the previous uploaders' won't like. This is especially true for flags (not to mention it being one of the most visible images used by practically every Wikimedia project). For example, your stars may be the correct size and all, but that's not we're worried about, it's the fact that it's visibly different in some way. Good or bad. I suggest proposing the new version on File talk:Flag of the United States.svg. Judging by the current code (which was obviously done by hand), the extremely detailed description, file history, and previous discussion, I'm afraid to make any changes without others' input. Thanks for understanding. Rocket000 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that you already have. :-) Rocket000 (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand this, this was more a little work for myself, and turned out to be optimised as much as possible. I will later produce a sketch to check if all proportions are fine.djmj 10:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Human penis erect.jpg

I hereby request the semi-protection of the picture linked above, as it has been a high-vandalism target in the past, see here. Besides the recent vandalism, the vandalism was already in 2005, so I'd semi-protect it, because I'm very sure that it'll be vandalized again. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Done --S^[1] 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bable language codes

I would like to add the following languages to the Babel function, so I can add them to my talk page. Currently there is no code associated with them 1) Sumerian 2) Akkadian 3) Old Egyptian (only Middle Egyptian is listed) 4) Late Egyptian 5) Ugaritic 6) Biblical Hebrew (there's just Hebrew, which might mislead people into thinking I could help out with modern Hebrew) 7) Ancient Greek (ditto; don't know modern Greek at all) Thanks--68.160.41.150 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Page protection

I protected this page against anonymous editing, as there are two recent cases of vandalism by 79.106.109.9 and 74.233.109.201. Sv1xv (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock File:Obama portrait crop.jpg

Please unblock File:Obama portrait crop.jpg. It's waiting for a pending category change now for more than half a year. -- H005 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I unprotected this page after 8 months, I am now watching it so when vandalism happens it will be locked again but so far I don't see the need for protection

Best regards,

Huib talk 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, why aren't there protection conflicts like the usual edit conflicts. Well, I have reduced the level to semi (believing it was still semi-protected), as I understand the concerns mentioned in this edit summary and think that they deserve a semi-protection. Some tip for you, H005: If you would have placed {{Editprotected}} on the page, then some admin would have probably added the cat. Just letting you know. Cheers, --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why semi protection? When you look at the history [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Obama_portrait_crop.jpg&action=history you will see that no vandalism has happend, we need to remember this is a wiki and everybody is free to edit. I would support protection after vandalism but this image is clean so why protection? Huib talk 21:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not generally against leaving it open for anybody, no, I even think that way too many pages are protected here (especially rarely used templates), but I can understand the concerns that Rootology mentioned there, which is why I only reduced it to semi. Feel free to unprotect it again; I won't stop you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gframesch (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I suggest that this account be blocked indefinitely. It is not active anymore, but it has uploaded a lot of pictures of periods ranging from the 1920s to the 2000s, mostly from unstated media source, all stated as own work. They're getting slowly deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Are you sure you have the name correct, I dont see any deleted contributions.

Best regards,

Huib talk 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, typo! Corrected. --Eusebius (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection of high-risk templates

I think that {{PD-self/en}}, {{PD-self/layout}}, {{License migration redundant}} (listed on the first page of most linked-to templates) should be fully-protected, due to thousands of pages using those templates. Thanks in advance. Julián ^(reply) 02:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree,

hecho. →Na gy 11:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Speech bubble.svg

This file seems to be vandalized often. Semi-protect? --Jarekt (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, three months, let's hope we'll find a solution how to fight the imagenote vandalism/test edits by then. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:OTRS received

I think this template should be semi-protected, quite used...

Gonioul (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Emijrpbot (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Even a bot doing a non urgent tast, for that he is not approved for, see (Commons:Bots/Requests/Emijrpbot), should not edit so fast (now 40-50 edits per second). --132.187.11.10 12:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw this by accident. I agree that the bot is too fast. Actual speed is only 40-50 per minute not per second ;-). Even this is in my opinion to fast. But I see (for now) no need for a block. I informed the user on his talk page and hope for a reduce in speed User talk:emijrp. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit rate reduced to 15 edits/minute. emijrp (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That should satisfy everybody. Even though I am not an admin I mark this as

Done --Schlurcher (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My user name in pt.wikipedia.org is Sara©SF, and I have requested unification in the en.wikipedia.org so that I can have a unified account. To my amazement, when I tried to upload a picture here in Commons I was asked to log in with a valid account. I had to sign up with a new account so I could upload a work of mine and now have ruined my unification through the wikiprojects. I had to sign in with 'SaraCSF' because access to the '©' of 'Sara©SF' was blocked. Please help me in unifying my account again giving permission to the '©'. Thanks. SaraCSF (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is... wierd. I don't see an existing account under that name. Try creating a new account with your normal name. If it errors out, let us know what that error is. Depending on what the error is there might be away to get around it. --J.smith (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear J.smith, I have tried again and again and I keep getting the same message: Login error: The name "Sara©SF" is not allowed to prevent confusing or spoofed usernames: Contains unassigned or deprecated character. Please choose another name. It seems that I won't be able to use my name here, and have my accounts unified, unless one of you admins help me solve this minor problem. Thanks. SaraCSF (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help me out here. It's been a major hassle to try and edit the Wikipedia and upload files wile doing it without having an unified account... Thanks. SaraCSF (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If your account containing the © is already unified, try logging into that here. Usually the titleblacklist does not apply to automatically created SUL accounts. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 06:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it has a bug for the unified session for inter-projects (or inter-domains if referred correctly, c.f. Bugzilla:14407), currently only the inter-language unified session are working as expected. If you have the account in Meta or Wikispecies, try to logon at those site, then going back to commons to create the account here. Shinjiman (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I only use Wikipedia, en and pt, also use it es and fr, but I'm not yet unified there. So, I'm only "unified" in pt and en, and wanted to be unified all over. I wanted, that is, to be unified... which I'm currently not. I'm using more the en and pt Wikipedia, so I haven«'t felt the need to get any more unification, but since I'm starting to use Commons I wanted to have the possibility of going back and forth, from Wikipedia to Commons, without having to change the log on constantly. It's a major hassle because when doing that I will loose any editing that I haven't saved and I don't like to be saving before writing an article. If you go and see any of my full articles (I am Sara©SF and usually edit the pt Wikipedia) you'll see that the first save is already a pretty complete one. I keep trying to do log on here with my user name and the action is always of forbidden. This happened in pt Wikipedia when I wanted to do an archive page and I had to ask an administrator to give me permission to use my own user name, because regular users cannot use the ©. Please see if you can give me the permission to use it. Thanks. SaraCSF (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Shǒu yè

The page was tagged for speedy deletion previously, the reason provided before is "Chinese Pinyin is not a language" (by User:Xiaomingyan). Actually, Chinese Pinyan can be assigned a RFC code as zh-Latn, which stands for the Pinyin script for the Chinese language. Thus this page should be protected to resolving this issue. Shinjiman (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war at this time. I don't think protection is required at this time. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added this page to my watchlist so I can respond easy and quick when it comes to a edit war, but I hope it never happens. Huib talk 14:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

IP:65.49.2.15

This IP address blanked the deletion requests page for yesterday (2009-09-06). There are no other contributions. I blocked it for 7 days. Sv1xv (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't 7 days a bit harsh for a first offense? In fact, I would have given a warning first, as it could be an honest mistake (there was no insult or spaming involved, probably just an unfortunate experiment). –Tryphon ^☂ 10:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you are right and we should change it to a 3-days block, when User:Nagy extended it to 1 year... Sv1xv (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think blocking for such bagatelles is appropriate in case of persistence. However I extended per m:NOP. Regards, →Na gy 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you got me scared there for a while, a 1 year block for blanking one single page... But yes, a 1 year block on an open proxy is perfectly justified. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg should be PD-ineligible

File:Yes check.svg is licensed under the GFDL right now. However, we have discussed this matter on the file's talk page and we believe that this file should be licensed PD-ineligible. It does not meet the threshold of originality. I have already done the work of relicensing all the other checkmark SVGs to PD-ineligible, but as this file is protected, I cannot relicense this file. Please either temporarily lift the protection or relicense the file on our behalf. Thank you. -Siddharth Patil (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done Tagged as {{PD-ineligible}}. Sv1xv (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)