Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 5

More PD-ineligible requests

None of these images meet the threshold of originality. They are all just simple colored shapes. We are requesting an administrator to mark these images as PD-ineligible. Thank you.

• File:Red x.svg
• File:Disambig.svg
• File:Disambig-dark.svg
• File:Disambig_bordered_fade.svg
• File:Disambig_gray.svg
• File:Featured_article_star.svg
• File:Featured_article_candidate.svg
• File:Former_featured_article_candidate.svg
• File:Cscr-star_piece.png

See [1]. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While there's a large gray area here, I suspect that at least some of these images may in fact pass the threshold of originality in some jurisdictions. (Indeed, I'd say that if File:Disambig.svg is ineligible for copyright, then so is most likely File:Commons-logo.svg too.) Also, an additional issue with SVG files is that the source of a vector image may be copyrightable as a computer program even if the final rendered image is ineligible for copyright. (Compare with the case of vector fonts in the U.S.)

Given these issues, and given that their authors have, in fact, explicitly released them under free licenses, I'd rather rely on the explicit releases than the always uncertain claim of uncopyrightability. If, indeed, these files are retagged as {{PD-ineligible}}, I'd strongly suggest taking advantage of the (little-known) optional argument to that template to visibly retain the original license as a fallback, as in e.g. "{{PD-ineligible|cc-by-sa-3.0}}". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI- Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ksd5_marking_various_graphics_PD-ineligible --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think File:Featured_article_star.svg and its derivatives are ineligible. Even File:Disambig.svg has some degree of originality. Only File:Red x.svg is definitely ineligible. Sv1xv (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with others here. To me, only the "red x" images seems to undoubtedly be ineligible for PD. Killiondude (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As do I. Most of these images meet the threshold of originality. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT I'm the originator of the red X SVG. Regardless of the copyright status I'd gladly multi-license that with PD. Though the ones that are widely used are various derivatives and not the one I started with. --Gmaxwell (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, multi-licensing anything with PD doesn't make sense (they're contradicting since one's asserting copyright and one's saying the opposite). Did you mean something like {{PD-ineligible|cc-by-sa-3.0}}? Anyway, I don't think all of these are ineligible. However, I do understand the argument that we should use PD-ineligible for freely licensed stuff, not just non-free stuff, when appropriate. We need to be consistent. Using something like PD-self for ineligible stuff gives out the message even if it doesn't change anything. It's saying if you make something as unoriginal as this, you can claim complete copyright to it. The questionable ones, like the FA star, shouldn't be changed by someone other than the potential copyright holder. It's just too much of a gray area to be doing that. Rocket000 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's true, but then we should start by changing the copyright to {{PD-ineligible}} on the Wikimedia logo. We should apply the same standards to our logos as we do to logos of other companies/websites. Besides, the formulation of {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} only adds to the confusion between trademark and copyright restrictions. –Tryphon^☂ 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Template:SOlicense

I do not know why, but the template is locked since long times, and all my questions to the locker Gmaxwell remain unanswered. I tried at different pages as Commons talk:Stroke Order Project#3 Categories to get any response, but in vain.

The template contains some errors, and as long as it is locked nobody can repair it. I have a tested version, Template:SOovers, where the errors are fixed. What is the reason that Gmaxwell locked it, and holds it locked all the time? I plead for unlocking. --Sarang (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done I brought it down to semi-protection. I don't think it should be protected at all, but, well, it's a compromise I guess. Rocket000 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Tt is really a good compromise and everybody should be able to live with that. --Sarang (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for unblock by IP:99.226.115.81

I received the following request on my en.wiki talk page. This is the address that filed deletion requests for lots of historical maps and did not stop when requested, see Special:Contributions/99.226.115.81. Currently it is blocked until 2010-08-18 by another admin (initially I had indefed it) and I would not like to overrule him:

This IP address is used on 3 different computers in a home and has been blocked on the Wikimedia Commons because one of the people using another of the computers linked to the address got a little over their head. They tried to do something about it and make an apology but nothing has gone through. Could you or another administrator who has access to the Commons unblock the IP Address there? It would be much appriciated by me! 99.226.115.81 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not leave anything on the talk page for this IP Address! Leave any feedback you have HERE or on the COMMONS! Thanks again! 99.226.115.81 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we take any action? Sv1xv (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the user creates an account and participates with that. This makes it possible to distinguish between the different users of the IP adress and only block the disruptive ones. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No objection, but then an admin must uncheck "Prevent account creation" in the blocking options. Should I do it? Sv1xv (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - unchecked - Huib talk 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Un-protection

Please unprotect File:Five Presidents Oval Office.jpg. There isn't really much vandalism, just a few test edits on a frequently viewed image. -- User:Docu at 05:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not unprotect as the image has seen many test edits in the past. Those should not happen on actual images, especially since most users do not revert their test after they are done. The current semi-protection seems like a good compromise to me. It will expire in about a month, we will see about it then. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy that warrants protection in the absence of vandalism. While some wikis exclude all IP from editing, this does not apply to commons and was rejected elsewhere. If the page is protected, this should be inline with current protection policy. We don't just protect all frequently viewed pages. -- User:Docu at 13:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but we protect pages which are frequently vandalized; this includes test edits. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do you take this definition of "vandalism" from? -- User:Docu at 10:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a borderline case and honestly don't have a policy about this at hand right now. I fail to see how test edits on a frequently used image further the Wikimedia Foundation's goal, thus I will not remove the protection; maybe someone else will. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Please can someone protect this file File:Map Serbia Blank .png because it's used as map on bs.wikipedia, and it's always reverted and vandalised by user from Serbia. It seem to be contoversial, but it's needed to explain current status.--CERminator (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done It is protected for one month. Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs) should discuss this matter on the file talk page or upload his preferred version under a different name. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Block on IP:24.184.37.0

I blocked this IP address for 1 day for repeated vandalism on policy page Commons:Email templates. See Special:Contributions/24.184.37.0 I also semi-protected this page, just in case he returns from another IP addrees. Sv1xv (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Protect File:Bellary Fort3.jpg

Hey, could someone protect File:Bellary Fort3.jpg? It is scheduled it to appear on the Main Page of en-wiki soon. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Protected for 24 hours. - Huib talk 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Would you please provide more information about the time span in which the image will be on the main page? I browsed to DYK, anniversaries and POTD queues and could not find it in the entries for the next few days. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with ChrisiPK, I ran a Checkusage and found it on this page, but it would be more easy for us when we have a link and a time span. Huib talk 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but a time span still seems like a good idea as I haven't figured out how and when the DYK is updated. I doubt the current 24 hours protection will cover the time when this image is on the main page. BTW: This is an awful image, you might consider using another one. ;) Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the enwiki process is that Commons images that appear on the Main Page are temporarily moved to enwiki and protected there. Has that changed? Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That or the image gets protected here for 24 or 48 hours. Usually one of the enwp users drop by at #wikimedia-commons to ask for protection. Multichill (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The DYK template rotates every 6 hours, so a 24 hour protection would be more than enough. You can tell if the image is going to be soon, because it will be in one of the DYK "Queues" on en.wiki. Killiondude (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a bot that copied files to en and protected the page while it was appearing on the main page. Gnangarra 13:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There used to be, but if I recall correctly, there were too many errors/bugs to justify it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

look like its still current Protected main page images Gnangarra 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on who's setting up the DYK. Some people prefer to upload it to enwiki temporarily, and others just go protect it at Commons/ask an admin to protect it at Commons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Rukshanawahab

ResolvedResults can be found at the RFCU, Tiptoety ^talk 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This user was blocked on September 7 for continually uploading images with no licensing, even after being told to do so. Once the block expired, the user continued to carry out the same actions, which led to a longer block on September 15. The user is now evading their block by editing as an IP; see Special:Contributions/203.211.71.25. The contribution targets and edit summaries (specifically the overuse of "categories have been checked") exactly match those of the blocked user. I ask that the IP be blocked and the block of the user be extended. Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More recent IP activity: Special:Contributions/203.211.76.3 --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a request for CheckUser here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be pointless to block the IP's as it is clearly a dynamic IP range that would need to be blocked but it would affect other editors. Though if the CU find it to be the blocked editor then it would be likely that the editor's block would be increased. Bidgee (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and depending on how many IPs he is using a range block may be appropriate. Tiptoety ^talk 03:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

True. Going by the two IP's the range could be 203.211.7x.xx. Also the IP's could be Mmyers1031 (The userpage was created by 203.211.71.25). Bidgee (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Mmyers1031 (talk · contribs) is without a doubt a sock, and as such I have blocked that account (as well as added it to the RFCU). Good work! Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That user's stale, isn't it? last edit in Aug 08. See the CU case, I've suggested a rangeblock. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg

Please fully protect this file. It is used thousands of times and 1) recently someone reverted it three times just to see what different versions looked like (doubtless creating tons of lag) and 2) an anon recently vandalized the description. -Nard the Bard 00:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 00:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Evrik (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Is 3RR a policy at commons?

• 04:25, 04:40
• 14:34
• 15:12
• 15:36

seem to violate this. -- User:Docu at 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to be disruptive. Those edits were part of trying to flesh out the entire page. Evrik (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Then undo them and participate in the discussion on talk. -- User:Docu at 16:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• umm I have been. You know there have been 64 edits in the last three days. Most of those have been mine. So calling me out like is is really uncalled for. Evrik (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Move along people, nothing to see here ;-). Join the fun discussion at Commons talk:Language policy. Multichill (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • :-D Evrik (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok I will restore the section as it was before your 4:25 edit. -- User:Docu at 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I just read on my talk page "that exists as I am writing it and I am encouraging everyone to consider the "static" page until everything gets sorted out.". I think you are contradicting yourself. -- User:Docu at 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No contradiction. Just trying to move this whole thing forward and keep everyone on the same page. Evrik (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I haven't seen you undo your fourth edit that violates 3RR. -- User:Docu at 17:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't know if I could revert it at this point without violating the non-existent policy. Also, there were typos that needed to be fixed because of all of the reversions. This is the version I am sticking with. I think it is comprehensive, relatively neutral, and it looks pretty darn good. Can we now focus on the policy discussion? Evrik (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a short note, 3RR isn't a policy on Commons so it cant be broken. Huib talk 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. However, to elaborate on that, we expect people to be reasonable people, to edit cooperatively and in a spirit of harmony, and the like. If someone is continually edit warring for no good reason that may be considered disruptive. In this case I hope the parties can work through the issues on the page without casting aspersions on each other, bringing up charges of edit warring if they're not warranted, and the like. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I'm not too fond of 3RR anyway, as it gives edit warriors a false sense of security if they don't violate the arbitrary limit. (Not necessarily suggesting Evrik is guilty of this, just a general opinion.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nod. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. That's true at en:wp. Here, it's not even a bright line. If you edit war, and you're doing it to be disruptive... or if you report others for allegedly edit warring, and you're doing it to be disruptive, you may find yourself blocked. 1, 2, 3, 4R, whatever... it's not about counting Rs. It's about working together harmoniously. Which this thread isn't showing much of so far. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to keep your ink for the 'fun discussion' Multichill invited you to join (see above). The previous one was closed in a somewhat sudden way (Commons talk:Galleries#Naming convention) -- User:Docu at 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could summarize, neutrally and succinctly, what is at issue here? I see a lot of talk on that page and not a clear understanding of what is problematic. Having a language policy or guideline seems goodness. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really any issue here. There were 3 reverts and Abigor answered the question, that's all. -- User:Docu at 02:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Then what is it you're asking people to keep their ink for? That's what I would like to see summarized... the issues at the "fun discussion". NOT this particular so called edit war. ++Lar: t/c 10:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On the issue I agree with the comments by Multichill and Evrik above. I wonder who started calling it an edit war. -- User:Docu at 10:58, 2009 October 12

OK, but that doesn't answer my question. You brought this here in the first place. It may be helpful to say what you really mean. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

From your edit summary ("confused"), is there a specific part that leaves you confused or that you don't understand? It seems that you aren't that active at commons so I don't really know which parts you follow or comment on. It seems that you just joined this random thread after it was already over. -- User:Docu at 08:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you always this difficult to communicate with, or is it just me? You said "save your ink" to comment on the substantive issues around creating a language policy. I asked you if you could summarise what you see those issues are. 4 back and forths later you're asking me what I'm confused about. That's confusing. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here it goes: Docu brought the matter here asking if there excisted an 3RR policy at Commons, was told none such excisted and thus the matter is resolved (as fas as Blocks&Protections is concerned). The part about language-issues originates from Multichil trying to close this discussion early saying "Move along people, nothing to see here ;-). Join the fun discussion at Commons talk:Language policy". Lar explained what how we tend to do things at Commons without the 3 revert rule.

The rest of this discussion really seem to be just confusion, and would probably be better off left into eternal obscurity. I'm sure there are plenty of issues regarding the language policy that still needs attention, but none which presently requires any blocks or protections. I considered writing this attempt at clarification in Norwegian just to make things really clear, but I somehow think that would be against our Commons:Language policy. Happy editing! Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> Thanks for your summary Finnrind and helping us keeping this focused. You might have wanted to point out that everybody seems to agree that the language policy itself is not the issue to be discussed here. I don't quite understand why Lar seems to disagree with this. -- User:Docu at 23:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect File:Copyright-problem.svg

Can you please fully protect File:Copyright-problem.svg? It's a high risk image, which is widely used on Wikipedia. --68.192.158.195 23:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect File:Wikis Take Manhattan.png

Can you please fully protect File:Wikis Take Manhattan.png? highrisk widely used on commons. when done, add {{protected image}} to the top --Newyorkmets2000 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 22:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Block on 68.192.158.195

can you unblock 68.192.158.195? --Newyorkmets2000 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. --Martin H. (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please unprotect File:Blank map europe.svg

File:Blank map europe.svg has been protected since April because of some edit-warring. Can this be unprotected please? I'd like to upload an update unrelated to the edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect User talk:I-210

Another change requested. --75.47.129.92 03:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done - Also I have blocked the IP as a sockpuppet. Tiptoety ^talk 03:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just of note, anything related to I-210 that posts in the 75.47 range is usually him again.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 13:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Category:Statue of Liberty

Please protect the above page. I closed the debate as it was opened more than two weeks ago and there was no new input in almost a month. -- User:Docu at 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Foroa is an administrator. Protection will bring no effect. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It will, because she can't use her tools to override it. -- User:Docu at 15:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes she (Foroa is a "she"?) can. If you're trying to silence that discussion, COM:AN is probably a better course of action, not ineffective protection. Wknight94 ^talk 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to reopen the discussion, announce it on COM:AN and Village pump and see if a broader consensus cannot be reached. Foroa doesn't appear to see a strong consensus at this point. If one exists, broadening the discussion may elicit it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

She can override it, but it would lead to her being de-admined. Anyways, if anybody wants to re-open the discussion, he/she can re-open it.

BTW, we are already on a subpage of AN and the Category question isn't really admin specific. Simply, we shouldn't be undoing closings in the way she did and clearly there was no consensus in favor of the proposal she expressed her support for. -- User:Docu at 16:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Foroa disputes the result of that discussion.[2] She cites guidelines/policies ("a basic rule of the commons category system") trumping a deletion discussion. While some may agree with her, I think others are going to be upset, and it would be better to have the discussion before that occurs. I don't want to see anyone de-admined, blocked or leaving Commons in frustration. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you add a note that you re-opened the discussion? Not that Foroa really participated in the discussion, she just "voted". -- User:Docu at 17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a note that credits you with having closed it previously. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I re-added the note too. Hopefully we can get a bot to close these in the future. -- User:Docu at 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have several problems with that cfd:

• Closing a discussion by just saying that it is undecided makes not much sense
• normally, an (non-involved) administrator closes such cfd, not a user, especially if there is some disagreement
• normally, a bot cleans up, protects and archives closed cfd's
• the fundamental problem I do have is that for some names that exist currently in 13 places, but in practise in 20 or 30 places, augmented with various "Liberty Enlightening the World" variants, we disambiguate. I am really stunned if we have such series of categories and for one of them, we say, in our world (Western and US), we have a special rule that you have to know/guess: the category without disambiguation is the one from New York (I could live with a redirect to the New York one, but it contains already many images that are not in their right category). I can understand that for capitals with a very long history, we don't disambiguate but I think that can be the only exceptions. There is no rule in Commons that gives a priority for a name over another in case of disambiguation, and I see no reason to make exceptions on that because for each of the 700 projects Commons is serving, the priorities might change. The en:wikipedia is not necessarily the reference, because it is very much US/UK/Western world oriented (in that order) and it provides 3 million articles out of the 14 million wikipedia articles. I am moving almost daily such categories to avoid disambiguity without asking any questions (and I am spending a lot of time explaining to users why we cannot give priority to "their" item name). --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Two files by User:Iordanis 777

This user has repeatedly disruptively edited the description pages of these two images, which he has uploaded himself:

• File:Seal of Premier Grand Lodge of England.JPG ([3] log)
• File:Grand Lodge of Greece 480 640.jpg ([4] log )

It seems this user tries to trick an administrator in deleting them. I propose to restore them in the version before his latest edits and protect them. Sv1xv (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar problem with File:ALL SEEING EYE.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I found this unsigned message by User:Iordanis 777 on my talk page:

I cant understand what i did.I havent done or vadalised anything.whats mine is mine.i added in the past some staff and now i learned that i shouldent have due to copywrite.so.dont YOU vadalise my conversation page.i dont like you so don't speak to me again because you dont have any authority to me.

It seems that he does not want his name linked with these images. I explained to him that {{PD-self}} is not revocable and if he has good reason to delete these images, he should file a deletion request. I have protected the files for one month but I believe they can be semi-protected after I receive a reasonable reply by User:Iordanis 777. Sv1xv (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of New Town (Prague)

Please restore the move request and protect the page. This was interested parties can discuss the move request. -- User:Docu at 11:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:MediaBot

Unauthorized bot. Please block. -- User:Docu at 10:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Might be a member of staff, see User talk:MediaBot -- User:Docu at 10:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Because this bot is not identified. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having no operator is nonsense, Please see "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, who must be prominently identifiable on its user page." on COM:BOT. I wouldn't believe his statement. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bryan unblocked it, although I think it should have stayed blocked until a proper request got filed and accepted. –Tryphon^☂ 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Bryan can explain. -- User:Docu at 15:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We needed the bot for some tasks at the Wikimedia France Multimedia Meeting for some tasks that I deemed not harmful. I do agree that that does not stop the requirement that for further tasks the bot should go through a proper request. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you add a short note in regards to the approval process to Commons:Bots and explain who operates it and what it does at Commons:Bots/Requests/MediaBot? Thanks. -- User:Docu at 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

119.30.36.40 (talk · contribs)

119.30.36.40 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user appears to be fishing for a block. Please apply the clue-by-four. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - Huib talk 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The edits continue from 119.30.36.53 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and 119.30.36.55 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, all in the same C class range belonging to GrameenPhone in Bangladesh. Time for a range block? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the range would be near 119.30.36.32/27, but I'll let a braver admin do it. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover of Gorizont Newspaper was deleted by bot. This is the cover of the publication the article is about. Cover was created by author. Please advise.--Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:India disputed areas map.svg

Please semiprotect File:India disputed areas map.svg, where anonymous users have been abusing the image annotation function to zealously push various points of view back and forth. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Electrostatic loudspeaker.svg

Please protect it. I just uploaded it the day before yesterday, and then a Japanese hacker came and modified it the way that it can't be reverted. (though it actually can, but he also reverts it)

Not done - No need for protection, besides you and the bot there where no other edits on the page. Please be more clear if you are sure it was hacked. Huib talk 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

210.11.188.13 (talk · contribs)

Please impose a more extensive block on 210.11.188.13 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, as vandalism from the address continues after two previous short blocks. More than a dozen blocks on English Wikipedia and indefinitely blocked there since 2007. Also currently blocked on English Wikiquote and previously blocked three times on English Wiktionary and once on Simple English Wikipedia. Has also vandalised at English Wikinews and the French, German and Kurdish Wikipedia editions. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This IP address is used by a proxy of multiple schools. I think that an infinite block is not yet justified, even if all edits have been unconstructive so far. If we block this IP address for some longer limited period, we should IMHO add a notice to the talk page that provides a hint how it is still possible to edit Commons from that IP address using an established account — comparable to the practice at en-wp (see the talk page there). Do we have similar templates? --AFBorchert (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have {{blocked school}} here, which can be used on the block reason field so that blocked users can see the information provided on it. I too do not think that an indef. block is justified here but I suggest applying short blocks first, then longer ones if the vandalism/disruption continues. Cordially, —Dferg ^(disputatio) 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the template. I've blocked the IP address for one week. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Taxoimagem.png‎

In my opinion, this is a high-risk file, which is used on thousands of pages on Portuguese Wikipedia (see this list). I suggest an indefinite protection of this file to a sysop level. Francisco (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

 Not done It is not widely used by various wikis. No protection is needed. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Since that image is used in several thousand images on pt.wiki, I've gone ahead and protected it. With all due respect, I think it's best to use common sense in instances like this, rather than examine what the written policy is (which should be descriptive not proscriptive). Killiondude (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Main Page of Wikimedia Commons

Could you please unprotect Wikimedia Commons please because there are a lot of people who wants to edit it now ok. Happy Thanksgiving 75.141.100.115 00:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You may use the talkpage Talk:Main Page to request an edit. Use {{Editprotected}} so that an administrator will find your proposal to change the protected page. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotect File:Brittneylaramee.JPG

Please semiprotect File:Brittneylaramee.JPG, which a cluster of open proxies from Hong Kong is persistently using as an image annotation sandbox and consider blocking the relevant proxies (listed below). This goes back approximately two months, so that may be a good duration for the protection as well. I'd also like to remind all administrators to watchlist Commons:Open proxy detection if you have not already done so.

• 222.166.160.28 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.36 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.65 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.66 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.67 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.68 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.80 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.88 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.126 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.130 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.140 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.142 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.155 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.166 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.168 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.171 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.205 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 222.166.160.231 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Page semi-protected. NW (Talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

212.121.219.1 (talk · contribs)

Please block 212.121.219.1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, who is persistently using image annotations for POV-pushing purposes in maps in spite of warnings. Currently blocked on English Wikipedia, simple English Wikipedia, and simple English Wiktionary. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Kanonkas. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OrophinBot (talk · contribs)

Please block the bot for now. See User_talk:Bennylin#Special:Contributions.2FOrophinBot. -- User:Docu at 14:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped the bot now. It was just a run test. Bennylin (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, request withdrawn. -- User:Docu at 14:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Bennylin (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

file File:Breaking.png , Wikinews logo missing categories

This file is marked having no categories, but it is blocked. Can someone add categories, please ? Best wishes 06:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What category do you propose? Bennylin (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

unprotected, the file is not used in an extent (anymore) that it requires full protection. However, I thought it is possible now to allow editing but forbid reuploads, how? --Martin H. (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Upload protection?. I know it was there, but for some reason it disappeared. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I found your announcement on VP and yes, see File:Wikimedia-button-for-homepage.png, this is upload=sysop proteced. I know it is(was) possible, but ok, my suggestion that the move protection for files is a protection to reupload was wrong. Probieren geht über Studieren ;) --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Added an appropriate cat. Thanks Martin. -Nard the Bard 17:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama

You may want to protect this for awhile. There's an ongoing edit war between a user who insists on adding a private opinion and the prior text of the page that included only settled law. -Nard the Bard 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an opinion, just what is written in the law. Pieter Kuiper didn't even bother to read the relevant law. ברוקולי (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't even cite this "law". All you cite is one legal scholar. That is not enough to make a work free for Commons to host it. -Nard the Bard 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Article 23 specifically says it is free. ברוקולי (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, article 23 says applied art, buildings, and sculptures are free. Not 2d artwork. -Nard the Bard 01:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the article didn't exclude 2D artwork so it is useful art exactly like sculptures. ברוקולי (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it for 2 weeks, but I think this should be moved from AN now and to somewhere constructive.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You protected the wrong version. Please restore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is the exact version that should be without your false claims which contradict the law. ברוקולי (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He protected it at the autoconfirmed level, which won't do much good with any of the involved participants, but hey, might make you think twice before editing... -Nard the Bard 11:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to the full-protection needed (semi is a bit pointless here). Pieter, of course it is on the wrong version :)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

These users are fighting all over the place. I just realized someone must think I've taken sides in some battle; I went to FOP after it entered my watch-list after an uncontroversial edit I'd done, saw this edit battle, and had a 'eureka! moment'. Recently, I was getting weird responses to some pretty chill copyright discussions and what seemed like a low key request, which escalated greatly for little to no (at the time) apparent reason. Now I see that there's a large battle being waged all over the place, and I stepped into this skirmish of this battle accidentally. I don't even understand what this particular edit battle or the larger war is about; seems to be some meta hatred that keeps fuses short. I think I passed by and perhaps stepped into a skirmish in the same war somewhere else. I can't figure out what the ideological stands of either side are, let alone who's right or wrong outside of the little skirmish I found myself in but I feel there's gotta be something generating all the hostility. And I'm not asking the participants to tell me. Rather, I think some bureaucrats need to end this war, not just block edits on individual pages. Is commons like en? Is there an ArbCom? Contributing isn't enjoyable when I know these folks are fighting skirmishes all over the place and I could step on a land mine at any time. - it makes me, and surely other productive editors who get pulled in, unhappy editors. --Elvey (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling! I've been looking at the FOP discussion more closely, and it feels more like 2 groups of people who are fundamentally opposed to one another's viewpoint and are attacking each other's methods, and each other, rather than addressing the issues and attempting to reach consensus. There is an underlying dispute here of which this is one element. In answer to your question, commons doesn't have an effective dispute resolution system when things escalate to this level: there is no ArbCom, there isn't even a real equivalent to RFC. We have the disputes noticeboard which IMO should be the RFC analog, however it has ended up being functionally equivalent to the AN. Consolidating the discussion is probably not possible, but I think it is worth establishing where the discussion has been occuring...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've created a page in my userspace to try and consolidate a list of relevant discussions and asked the involved editors for their assistance. Hopefully this will help the rest of us figure out what is going on...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the validation; I was starting to doubt my own judgment. I don't think further discussion is productive until we have a bureaucrat willing to take administrative action. Where can I find a list of bureaucrats? I've looked and found more of the history; I find I'm not neutral; I've accused Pieter Kuiper of personally attacking Deror avi (and had forgotten about it).--Elvey (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The list of bureaucrats is here--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have no special standing (other than the respect they have from many users) in dispute resolution. Commons does not have an overarching dispute resolution process other than the various noticeboards. So I think letting Nilfanion's process run for a while (in which the dispute is characterised better and a more detailed history is collaboratively constructed) will be a good place to start. At that point perhaps an RfC to gather consensus, and then a few admins working in concert? ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get established on that page. If we can have the history of the dispute and interactions between the users established somewhere it gives the community the ability to work out what's going on. At the moment I've got the basics (links to most discussions), it like to get a timeline done too. Ideally I'd like to resolve the content problem without needing it to go further but I'm not convinced that possible either :(--Nilfanion (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence ascribed to Dr Presenti (as its clear IMO it doesn't match her view). I have also unprotected the page again, hopefully this will settle down...--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Parenti93

I am requesting block for this user. He is not only uploading copyrighted photos but intentionally make cropped, mirrored versions of the original images thus making search for originals extremely hard, and at the same time avoiding tineye search --Justass (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Not before a warning. User now warned, and on my watchlist. --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: It seems user Parenti93 is a sockpuppet of User:Simon Lindh whitch were blocked on 28 September 2009 [5]. Parenti93's uploaded images were used only in english wikipedia user Simon Lindh userpage as well as all contribution were done only to this page [6] --Justass (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you have it confirmed by a CU? --Eusebius (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Forum

Please unblock this page. It´s nonsensical to hinder IPs of posting on this important project page. Chaddy (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears the reason for the semiprotection is that in the course of one week, a banned user using six different IP addresses to evade the ban edited the page a total of ten times, perpetuating the personal attacks for which they were originally blocked. There were no legitimate edits from anonymous users during this time. (I don't know about unconfirmed accounts, though.) The protection expires next weekend and seems to be in accordance with Commons:Protection policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an important project page as I already wrote. You can´t block such a page for one week... Chaddy (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can. It should definitely not be a frequent measure, but seems neccessary in this case as the user is persistent. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the Forum. If Mutter Erde annoys you, ignore him, don't revert him. This is much more efficient than reacting on his behaviour, which is exactly what he wants. There's no need to block good faith IPs just because one person isn't able to behave. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind ignoring him as long as his edits are at least close to productive, but when he starts spreading hate against other users again, the block will definitely be reinstated. I'd rather block a few IPs from editing the Forum instead of blocking a huge range entirely from Commons. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking. Chaddy (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dreesparalyze (talk · contribs)

Please block Dreesparalyze (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for continuing to upload copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I'll take care of that. --Eusebius (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Portada

Please unprotect portada because I want to edit Portada please. Please unprotect it please ok. 75.141.100.115 06:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Question What do you want to do there? --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Portada is Common's main page when choosing spanish as the default languaje. It should remain fully protected indefinitely, just like Main Page, and changes requested at the talk page and performed by admins. Belgrano (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done, please propose your changes in Talk:Portada. —Dferg ^(disputatio) 14:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit of File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit2.jpg

Hi. Can an admin please edit the picture for 2 things:

1. Changing the link [[:fr:Champs Élysées|Champs Élysées]] by [[:fr:Avenue des Champs-Élysées|Champs Élysées]] in the French description
2. Adding the Category:Avenue des Champs-Élysées in the 1940s

Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Karte Deutschland.png

Please unporotect and/or at least move to Category:Blank maps of Germany--TUBS 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Germany moved to Category:Blank maps of Germany. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy. Thx. --TUBS 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Edit/doc

Please semi-protect the above. It seems to keep getting edits from new users that are on the wrong page. -- User:Docu at 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

photo permissions

Hi, I am working on a bio with the subject of the bio and we have used photos that are his personal property. The photos were uploaded in wikimedia and he used the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. All of the photos were taken off of the site by a bot. I am not sure what we have to do to get approval to use his personal property. Can you please advise?

Thanks. I have searched through the documentation and I thought we were doing it correctly. The site is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenio_Advincula "Katagwa (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)"

You are required to provide permission from the copyright holder of the photographs. The copyright holder is not necessarily the physical owner of a (copy of the) photograph who is also the subject of the photos here but the photographer or publisher. The first requirement is to provide at least correct source and author information and not upload photographs someone else created under the here wrong "own work" option as you are not the creator of the photographs nor the copyright holder. If the source and author information is corrected you can proceed providing a written permission from those copyright holders to COM:OTRS, the permission must allow everyone to reuse the image everywhere for every purpose under the terms of a free license, see Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. All of the photographs and pictures are original, not copies. Arcenio Advincula is the owner of all of them with one exception. The pictures that he is in were taken with his camera. He has asked that these be included in his bio. The one exception is "AJA_and_first_patch1961.jpg" which was taken by a close friend of his and I will request written permission from that individual and submit same. If Arcenio Advincula is the owner of the original, not copies, and the photos were taken by him of with his camera, I am not sure who else to ask for permission. He told me that he sent in an official letter claiming ownership and granting permission for use. I have asked him to resend the document."Katagwa (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"

Proposed guideline to unprotect

Would an administrator please unprotect Commons:Categories (introductory text) and Commons:Naming categories (proposed guideline), this in order to improve the text. There isn't much use in protecting it as the person reverting is an administrator ignoring that "references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." -- User:Docu at 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Unprotected. I think ŠJů's edits are not policy change. And Commons:Naming categories is just a proposal. Kwj2772 (msg) 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: historically, there have been never a category naming rule (execept that "all categories should be in English) and this guideline in Commons:Naming categories contained the current naming rule, so the current policy. The proposed changes by ŠJů is just too ambiguous and too wide an opens de door for any name. So, widening category naming rules must be discussed on the talk pages and reach a consensus before it becomes a proposal. --Foroa (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your method. I believe protection should be avoided when you are in dispute and it is not an obvious abuse. I believe you should at least have ask decision by another administrator. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it concerns a fundamental change of the currently applicable commons category naming rule since 5 years. When a user keeps chaning it in a fundamental way without any form of consensus (see the talk page), and the user keeps changing it, the protection of the page is justified. If you want to allow anyone to change current naming rules without any sort of consensus, then you have to ask at least the decision of another administrator before unblocking it. --Foroa (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Foroa, you are who enfroces steadily your own opinion despite of current practices and without a concensus (you e. g. deleted many category redirects and many replaced categories repeatedly in despite of rules). You are deleted even the sentence "terms which don't exist in English should be used in original language or in the most widespread form" What reasonable could be expressed by this your act? You ignore all opionions and arguments of others in discussions. An irrational negativism isn't a good way of constructive cooperation. --ŠJů (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For all disputed changes, the rule on commons is that one reaches first a consensus on the talk pages before changing the main pages. This is even more so on sensistive pages that contains the Commons rules. --Foroa (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

See above for reply. Btw., now you abused your sysop rights to enforcement of your pointless edit of Commons:Naming categories once again. You ignored the objection at the discussion page. --ŠJů (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Foroa protected Commons:Naming categories again. Kwj2772 (msg) 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please guys, discus the text at the talk page without name calling. When that's finished and consensus is reached, the page is unprotected.

Unprotecting it now would only resort in unhelpful edits. Multichill (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The only way to know that is to unprotect it. The edit warring admin should obviously avoid to protect it. Some already improved it while it was protected and Commons:Categories didn't have any problems since it was unprotected.

Is there anyone that actually disagrees with SJu's change? Obviously some just veto it because SJu added it, but that doesn't seem to prevent them from applying it in practice. -- User:Docu at 11:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

212.121.219.1 (talk · contribs) again

212.121.219.1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user was previously blocked per my request. Currently subject long-term blocks on other projects, including one-year blocks at both English Wikipedia and simple English Wikipedia, and I think a longer block is in order here too, since the current disruptive edits have been going on since September and continued after the previous one-week block expired. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, looks like a roadrunner IP, but inactive for 10 days now - so watch out for such disrutpive use of image annotations related to kashmir from 212.121.219.0/19 (212.121.192.0 - 212.121.223.255). --Martin H. (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I watchlisted a bunch of files edited by this anon. Also looked through the contributions of other anons that had edited those same files and watchlisted a few more files as a result. I can't really tell who is pushing what view, but it looks like there are several sides trying to settle international boundary disputes by edit warring on Commons over image annotations on any map that happens to include the Indian subcontinent. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please block User:Simone33Babe

Please block Simone33Babe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for failure to take a hint with the first block and seven warnings, and delete all their uploads, which are copyright violations. Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 15:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

78.55.249.1

Please block 78.55.249.1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user (block evasion by Mutter Erde (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done as Mutter Erde's IP address changes at least once per day, a block would possibly hit someone else. Blocks of his IP address should be, if necessary, instantaneous and not for longer periods than a day. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please block Amazoenas

Amazoenas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user needs to some forcible assistance to stop violating copyright laws. Please clear out the uploads too. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 13:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama

Please protect this page (for a short time) as there seems to be an edit war going on regarding the interpretation of FOP in Israel. I think it should be protected on this version as this reflects the consensus reached at the talk page. Kameraad Pjotr 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Edited page to reflect consensus view, edits away from it in the absence of a change to consensus should be handled by warnings/blocks.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Drork

Drork is actually asking to be blocked (by blanking). See [7] and [8]. Given that he seems to be veering towards attacking me now too, I'd prefer another admin to look at the situation and take appropriate action. Note: I've temporarily protected COM:FOP (and reverted his blanking of a section on that page 3 times now). I'm not going to block him just because he is asking me to.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The strange thing is that he is removing info basically identical to that in {{FoP-Israel}}, a template that Drork himself wrote the text of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Drork for three days, see my reasoning at his talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nilfanion assessment that Drork was asking to be blocked. It was a childish gesture of desperation, and because I myself quite often have done a similar silly gestures, I understand how Drork feels. I am very sure that the user is probably all, but gone now, and is not coming back no matter what. That's why IMO it will be nice, if a good will hand will be extended to him now. IMO it is safe to unblock Drork. Nothing else is going to happen. I am sure of that. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is going to happen, only because Nilfanion changed COM:FOP#Israel back to the version that Drork wants. Including the attribution of an opinion to Presenti that she does not hold. In my profession, that is called misconduct. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are closer to resolving this than we were before. It's unfortunate that some folk still seem to let emotions get the best of them, calling for boycotts and blanking things isn't the right approach. Nor is casting aspersions on people who have been diligently meticulously working through this matter, seeking consensus and wise counsel at each step. So let's continue to try to sort this out collegially. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

hi admin, problem with editing a page.

Hi

The page " http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tibetan_Calligraphy.jpg " has an artwork of mine . I tried to edit it but since i saved it once it didn't let me change it again (to prevent vandalism or something) Some guy uploaded MY WORK as his own and i try to link it to my website " http://www.tashimannox.com/index.php/tibetan-calligraphy/black-on-black/black-hum/calligraphy " If posible i would like it to be deleted, if not at least to be linked to my website and me licensed to me.

thank you admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.narlis (talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

 Done: I've deleted File:Tibetan Calligraphy.jpg, if you would like it (the image) part of the project on Commons under a free license please see COM:LICENSING and you might need to send OTRS (See COM:OTRS) an email. Bidgee (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Trojan's six months block

FYI: User talk:ChrisiPK#Help!. You might want to keep an eye on the new account and shoot on sight, should the old behaviour reoccur. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Really I don't think they should be editing for another few weeks since they breached the six month ban (As shown by Killiondude above). Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Noindexed pages

Please revert the removal to "NOINDEX" and protect the page. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_17#Categorizing_NOINDEX for previous discussion. -- User:Docu at 07:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Protecting the page won't help since Foroa is an admin, but I've reverted the change. Like EvilIP said in the archive you linked, it seems a bit silly to keep all the noindexed pages together without noindex'ing the category. Killiondude (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Foroa couldn't use that to override it, besides it shouldn't be removed by others either. -- User:Docu at 08:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is paranoia. Anyway, as you can see here, Category:Noindexed pages and all other "non indexed" pages are found by the Commons search engine, so what difference it makes if this category itself is indexed. I am cleaning out categories that loop back on their own, so to me, it is more important to have no categories looping back than to have Category:Noindexed pages page not found by google search (Category:Noindexed pages can be found anyway through references to it). --Foroa (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons people may want a page noindexed is because it contains their real name and shows up at the top of the Google results when someone (such as a potential employer) searches for it. They're not likely to be happy if now Category:Noindexed pages shows up as the first Google result for their name instead. If category loops offend you so much, you could always add the category page to MediaWiki:Robots.txt (except that it doesn't seem to be actually working here; I've filed a bug on that.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Foroa's edit to MediaWiki:Noindex-category‎ broke the categorization completely. -- User:Docu at 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been reverted by MZMcBride (talk · contribs), and I have warned Foroa. Tiptoety ^talk 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, MZMcBride reverted Category:Noindexed pages. MediaWiki:Noindex-category‎ was done just after you asked to take it to the talk page first. -- User:Docu at 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like MediaWiki:Noindex-category‎ already supports ParserFunctions. Can't you just make an exclusion for that particular category if you want it to not loop? {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Category:Noindexed pages||...}} --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if parser functions in MediaWiki:Noindex-category‎ really work. Pages disappear after doing an edit to the pages in the category, but reappear later. -- User:Docu at 20:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any disappearance behavior. Is it consistently reproducible? What are the steps? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Foroa's edit it's broken everywhere (click edit and save on any page). Before (October) this only removed pages in user/user talk namespaces. They later reappeared though. -- User:Docu at 21:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:209.146.77.35

Repeat vandal, probable school IP. I think it's sad but we may have to start tracking school IPs like Wikipedia does. -Nard the Bard 22:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked - Tiptoety ^talk 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Maracaibo Basin.png

Can someone please protect this file, or suggest a better course of action? For some reason, the uploader insists on using a deprecated license tag ({{PD}}) instead of the equivalent but more accurate {{PD-user}}. Explaining the situation doesn't seem to help one bit. I'm at a loss trying to understand why it's so important for him to keep the deprecated license tag. –Tryphon^☂ 23:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This matter has a history dating to 2006 at Template_talk:PD. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It won't do much good to protect this file since Reisio (talk · contribs) has made similar edits to several tens of files. I've left a query on his/her talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the following, but invite those concerned to correct my understanding of this matter.

• In December 2005. Duesentrieb suggested that the {{PD}} template be deprecated and more specific templates be encouraged because PD is "too unspecific, and often used without giving any rationale why the image is supposed to be PD". I see broad agreement to deprecate the PD template. Reisio (talk · contribs) objected: "It's my right to release my works as "Public Domain", not "I made this, and it's Public Domain". Also say you obtain a PD image you didn't create and you upload it and go ahead and use {{PD-because|the entity responsible for producing this image released it as PD}} - that's pretty redundant to just plain {{PD}}. ... The best tag for my media is one that says "Public Domain" and nothing more, because that's how I release my media." [9][10]

• In 2007, LX (talk · contribs) suggested preventing the use of PD "in new uploads so that we can get a chance to clean up the backlog". Codeispoetry (talk · contribs) questioned the effectiveness of the proposal, but the proposal was adopted and implemented. Reisio did not participate. [11]

• Zscout370 (talk · contribs) and others are in the process of examining files tagged PD, changing them to more specific tags or nominating them for deletion, as appropriate.[12] In this effort, the tags of some files that Reisio uploaded prior to October 10 2008 were changed to more specific tags.

• Reisio (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to restore the nonspecific PD tag that s/he prefers. [13]

• I was not able to find any policy, guideline or discussion mandating the replacement of PD tags added prior to October 10 2008 with more specific tags. Some think that replacement is suggested by the wording of the notice on the template ([t]his "tag is obsolete), but Reisio does not.[14]

• Those who are active in cleaning up Category:PD tag needs updating favor replacing all PD tags with more specific ones. Reisio opposes this for files that he uploaded prior to October 10 2008. I think it may be appropriate to broaden the discussion, e.g., at Template talk:PD with a notice at Village Pump. But, I will warn Reisio against edit warring.

Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than finding wholly loathsome and intolerable the multiple accusations and warnings about edit warring aimed at me and entire absence of any aimed at Zscout370, I think Wsiegmund has summed up the situation fairly well. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

On the pages cited above and the following permalink, I see broad agreement (Zscout370, Nard the Bard, Tryphon, MGA73, and Bastique) to replace the PD tag with a more specific tag on the files in question.[15] I see no support for Reisio's opposing view. While I have some sympathy for his/her wish to retain the license that s/he originally used and that s/he feels is particularly apt, the likely outcome of the retagging process is that the PD tag will be retained only for those files in dispute, about 15 by my count.[16] It is unclear how Commons would benefit from the retention of an obsolete tag for a small number of files. Unless that changes and if there are no alternative suggestions, in a few days, I will remind Reisio that we value his/her work and request that s/he either change the PD license to a more specific license on the files in question or not revert such edits by others. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is unclear is how Commons would benefit from replacing the tag {{PD}} with {{PD-user|Uploader's name}}. While I have only the time to require an explanation for media on my watchlist, there really should be an explanation given before modifying any {{PD}} media. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"In December 2005. Duesentrieb suggested that the {{PD}} template be deprecated and more specific templates be encouraged because PD is "too unspecific, and often used without giving any rationale why the image is supposed to be PD". I see broad agreement to deprecate the PD template." From Walter Siegmund's post above. Hope that clears it up. Killiondude (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-user|Uploader's name}} is no more specific and gives no more rationale than {{PD}}. It doesn't give a source, and it doesn't prove the name used is truly the uploader or creator. We have {{Information}} for that, though that too cannot be assumed to be accurate. Anyone have an explanation that makes sense? Any kind of sense. ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. PD-user states that the user owns the copyright and is releasing it into the public domain. {{PD}}, in it's former glory (back in 2005), stated it was "released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright." (See here) How is this different? Well, if you examine the wording, there are 3 different reasons for it being in the public domain, all lumped in one template. So, Commons' community decided that different PD tags were needed in order to be more specific. And yes, it gives a source. It says that whoever the user is that released it into the public domain is the author. Admittedly, that might be incomplete if it is a derivative work of another free file, but to say "it doesn't give a source" is false. Now, please don't revert when people change the license from PD to PD-user. Disruptive editing is blockable. There's been many people who agree that this license change is beneficial and who have asked you to stop edit warring over it. Killiondude (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Well, if you examine the wording, there are 3 different reasons for it being in the public domain, all lumped in one template."

Did you mean "3 different reasons for using {{PD-user}} instead of {{PD}}"? Because "being in the public domain" is not under debate — whether or not there is any point in switching from {{PD}} to {{PD-user}} is.

What are the reasons? All I see is "This file has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder" versus "This image has been released into the public domain by its author". How are these different? Are you saying 'file' vs 'image' is significant? 'copyright holder' vs 'author'? What?

¦ Reisio (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1. "released into the public domain by the copyright holder"
2. "its copyright has expired"
3. "or it is ineligible for copyright"

Those are the three things that {{PD}} were used for in the past. Now we have more specific templates for each of those things. {{PD-user}}, {{PD-old}}, {{PD-ineligible}} respectively (or variants of those). Killiondude (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So your argument for switching from {{PD}} to {{PD-user}} is that it is beneficial to Commons to omit "its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright"? ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

{{PD}} was broken up into several other templates in order to be more specific about how the file came to be in the public domain. PD-user omits the part you quoted, because those reasons are in other PD license templates. The argument that the community has agreed upon for this, is that it is better to be more specific in our license templates. Killiondude (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any particular benefit in changing a tag to omit the conditional phrases "its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright", only drawbacks. {{PD-user|Uploader's name}} is more specific, but in an entirely superfluous way. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

{{PD}} says "This file has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder or its copyright has expired or it is ineligible for copyright". Images that should be tagged with PD-user only have "released into PD by the copyright holder". This clarifies the reason why the file is PD, and the license is clearer as a result (is this image PD because you released it into PD or because you don't think it is copyright eligible?). I don't quite understand the need to edit war over this. Tagging an image you created with either {{PD}} or {{PD-user}} is releasing it into the PD. However, PD-user makes it clear that you chose to release it, whilst PD is inherently ambiguous. I'd point out that this is a similar situation to {{PD-USGov}}. What's the point of all the various related templates such as {{PD-NASA}}? The subdividing enables better tracking of the files and allows more specific information.

The benefits to specifying may be small, but the more important question is what actual harm arises from it? What is the drawback you see in specifying that a PD image you have created has been released into the PD by its creator as opposed to saying that its PD because either its creator released it or its expired copyright or copyright ineligible? I can't see any drawbacks to clarifying it aside from the time and effort it takes to do so. If someone else wants to do so why stop them?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? Who decides? Can I get anything I want relicensed by adding a category to a template?
The media already had a creator specified. You haven't added information, you've merely unnecessarily altered the copyright tag. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Reisio: It doesn't matter if you don't see any benefit. It is the community's consensus (both in 2005 and now) that {{PD}} is deprecated, and many, many people have asked you not to use it and instead use the newer license tags.

@Everyone else involved: I have blocked Reisio for a period of 24 hours for again reverting the license change of {{PD}} to {{PD-user}}. This was the fourth time he had reverted these changes. Killiondude (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

{{PD}} is better than {{PD-user}} for this file based on a NASA image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say that (and {{PD-retouched-user}} would be better than both).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe {{PD-NASA}}? In any case, reisio's images are in the public domain, and he is taking ownership of his work (which was released once he clicked the "save" or "upload" buttons, whichever they are these days). Killiondude (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe his resistance is due to him not wanting to be seen as an astronaut. Or as appropriating work done by others. That is not ownership, that is his moral right. Just leave the old tags alone. There are more important problems, like for example many Pikiwikisrael uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How about instead of just taking "Created by User:Reisio" from the page and transforming {{PD}} into {{PD-user|Reisio}}, you make it not only partially redundant, but as redundant as humanly possible? {{PD|creator=reisio|source1=nasa|source2=xrmap|source3=gimp}}? No, wait... that would be stupid. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree we should leave these old images alone. Right now they are in a category where images should be checked. Once image has been checked they should be removed from this category. Otherwise users can check the same images over and over. If he does not think PD-user is the correct license for the images I'm sure someone can help him find the right one. But just reverting to {{PD}} is bad. --MGA73 (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So take them out of the category. I didn't put them in there. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So you suggest we change {{PD}} so it only contains your images and create a new one for all the other images to check? That is a lot of work for no good reason. --MGA73 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How did you get that from "take them out of the category"? Take them out of the category means take them out of the category. :p It is a lot of work for no good reason. Why are you guys doing it again? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I get that because the template adds images to this category. So as long as the template is on the images they will be in the category. Only way to remove images from the category without removing the template is to change the template. That will however remove all other images also. --MGA73 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

…and that would, as everyone seems to have acknowledged, result in less work for all and no difference in the end. So what's the problem with removing the category? ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No that would mean we had to make a copy of the template and add it to all other images than yours to keep those images in the category. Only then we could remove the category from {{PD}}. Just as I said right above. However if you check all other images in the category so only your images is left with PD then it would be easier. --MGA73 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do any of them need to be in the category? ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. That way we can see which images should be checked. If you as author release it as PD then it is PD. But what might be PD-old in some countries does not have to be PD in other countries. Adding a template that gives a detailed reason why it is PD helps users decide if image is PD in whatever country the user is in. --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So in the case of this discussion's namesake, you're suggesting that…

Zscout370 saying the image was made by me based solely on the fact that I uploaded it and said it was by me

…is more detailed than…

the fact that I uploaded it and said it was by me

…? Is that right?

¦ Reisio (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because you use a deprecated way for saying it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the entertainment derived from a good administrator tag team, I'll go ahead and see if MGA73 can see out his arguments himself.
(& no, I don't use a deprecated way for saying anything, I used a community approved template in the past; that and, of course, that using a deprecated way of saying something ["it"] cannot be more or less detailed than any other way of saying… the same something) ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so in your opinion it says exactly the same thing before and after the change from PD to PD-user. If the statements are equivalent, why does it matter what form is used? If others want to "waste their time" changing it from one form to the other why is there any point to stopping them? Its not your time they are using, but their own and if they want to waste it let them. For that matter, the description page is in a format that is outdated, if I changed it to use {{Information}} would you object to that?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"OK, so in your opinion it says exactly the same thing before and after the change from PD to PD-user."

In your opinion they don't? In your opinion more information was added?

"If the statements are equivalent, why does it matter what form is used?"

Because form matters, and so does tampering. Consider Jörg Schilling, who arguably felt CDDL was equivalent to GPL, and whose software is now disappeared from many distributions. Consider XFree86, whose license changed only in credit given and was dropped like a bad habit. Relicensing matters. If users cannot upload media and label it according to the rules, with a community approved copyright tag, and expect that licensing to remain valid indefinitely and not be relicensed, what is the point in licensing or uploading at all?

"the description page is in a format that is outdated, if I changed it to use {{Information}}"

While that would also be a waste of time, I probably wouldn't care, because incorporation into that template would not necessarily alter a single word.

¦ Reisio (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is saying there is a substantive change here at all. The point is changing {{PD}} to {{PD-user}} is not relicensing! The corresponding license to both templates is "public domain" (Not that a release into the public domain is technically a license, but that's besides the point) - so its changing the license from "public domain" to "public domain". As an aside, if you have an objection to re-licensing, did you object to the GFDL -> CC-by-sa-3.0 migration?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't beside the point. The public domain is not a license, but {{PD}} is. What would you say it is, if not a license?

I would have objected to GFDL -> CC had it been a step backwards; it was merely a step sideways (from odd license to odd license).

¦ Reisio (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure the public domain is a concept not a license. A release into the public domain is not actually a license either, but that's semantics. The point is, with respect to self-created works, {{PD}} is a "release into the public domain by the copyright holder" and {{PD-user}} is a "release into the public domain by the copyright holder". There is no difference whatsoever between the two, and they are therefore interchangeable. Are you saying there is a material difference between those two templates?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that if they can remotely be defined as "interchangeable", that nothing should be changed, because:

• it's a colossal waste of time
• it's insulting and unfair to contributors ("these are the same, but instead of the one you chose that we approved of at the time, we're going to change to this one because… I don't know, our edit counts will go up!")
• reneging on what wording is allowed is a terrible precedent

¦ Reisio (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

{{PD}} has been deprecated for ages. Reverting edits to add PD again is counter productive behavior. Reiso was blocked for this yesterday, but continued edit warring his right after his block expired. I blocked him for 3 days and reverted his edits. Multichill (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't wish to see this discussion closed prematurely, it is in the middle of its third week and I see little new in the recent discussion. Reisio remains unconvinced that the broad consensus of the community on this matter is correct and has not been able to persuade others of his/her views. On the other hand, s/he is no longer edit warring over it. While this is not the resolution that most of us would like, it may be as much as can be achieved. I think that all parties are to be commended for their civility and patience. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• If a contributor hasn't made himself a statement such as "This image has been released into the public domain by its author, <contributor>", I don't see how we could impose it on him.
  It's conceivable that we create a template that describes the licensing differently, but reverting and blocking a user for refusing that such a statement is made on his behalf seems inappropriate. -- User:Docu at 17:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comunidad Valenciana

Resolved

I was trying to fix a double redirect, but the page have been protected in February 2006 because of a edit war. If the war is over, please unprotect the page so I can fix the double redirect. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 Unprotected - Tiptoety ^talk 01:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Government credits -uploading scans of materials "courtesy: archives...National Park Service"

help! how do i upload stuff i got during a research visit at the "Archives of the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site of the National Park Service"? they freely provide access to photos, plans and plant lists, asking only that reproductions be credited "Courtesy of Archives..." for example, how do i credit my upload of a scan i made File:Oldfields_Border_plantings,_Olmsted_job-6883,_sheet_88,_scanned_11_2007_orig_sz_29x24inch.jpg? the Park Service has not been able to digitize these materials yet, and i'd like to link the examples i have to the wiki articles on "Olmsted Brothers" and "Oldfields." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffvonb (talk • contribs) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

wikimedia commons admins are helping me with this, thank you! --Jeffvonb (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

uploading scans of materials "courtesy: archives...National Park Service"

help! how do i upload stuff i got during a research visit at the "Archives of the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site of the National Park Service"? they freely provide access to photos, plans and plant lists, asking only that reproductions be credited "Courtesy of Archives..." for example, how do i credit my upload of a scan i made "Oldfields_Border_plantings,_Olmsted_job-6883,_sheet_88,_scanned_11_2007_orig_sz_29x24inch.jpg"? the Park Service has not been able to digitize these materials yet, and i'd like to link the examples i have to the wiki articles on "Olmsted Brothers" and "Oldfields." Jeffvonb (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to Commons:Help_desk. If you are not satisfied with the earlier answers to your query, you may ask for clarification (Commons:Help_desk/Archives/2010Jan#U.S._Government_archives.2C_how_to_upload_and_credit_documents_and_images_from_...). But, posting the same message multiple places is unhelpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

File:FISHERMAN.jpg

Edit War on File:FISHERMAN.jpg (click1) between 4 users. Discussion page is used (click2), but not all are responding nor does it help solving the matter.

Have reverted now to last version before Edit War (click3). Please protect File page until dispute is resolved. Thank you. --Valentim (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mustafa BSB (talk · contribs)

The user initially continued to upload files without verifiable source information in spite of getting warned that their previous uploads were eligible for deletion, and they have repeatedly removed the no source tagging without adding verifiable source information, even after getting warned not to do so. Please block Mustafa BSB (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and delete their uploads, which are all unsourced. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, indefinitely blocked and uploads deleted. Bidgee (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I also found File:Husain Shaheed.jpg, which is a file uploaded by the same user. Very strangely, though, It doesn't have a file description page (not even an empty one; it literally has no file description page), and it doesn't appear in the uploader's contributions or logs. Is it possible to delete it? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's like if it's not there! I don't have the tabs to delete. Bidgee (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating the file page fixed that! Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Template - S prot?

One of those that probably doesn't matter that much but if I had the rights I would sprot this. Not major disruption but? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Nice catch. I've semi-protected it. Killiondude (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please block AdrienneFan1

Please block AdrienneFan1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for repeatedly uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings, for recreating previously deleted copyright violations, and for repeated Flickrwashing in spite of warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. Wknight94 ^talk 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please block Alexceltare2 again

Please block Alexceltare2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for continuing to upload copyright violations and for failing to learn anything from the previous three-day block. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Wknight94 ^talk 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please block El javo

Please block El javo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and for Flickrwashing. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. Wknight94 ^talk 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Wisent.jpg

Please protect the image – it appears on the dewiki main page today, and has been vandalised. —Quilbert (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I went to protect it, but it is already cascade protected due to it being on User:Bdk/de. Killiondude (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange. Something must have gone awry … —Quilbert (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Overwriting cascade protected images

File:Wisent.jpg was an de.wp mainpage image and cascade protected with User:Bdk/de. However, it was possible for an autoconfirmed user to vandalize the image with reupload. My technical question: What went wrong here? I heard* of some software changes to make a difference between reupload and description editing - so is the methode of cascade protecting mainpage images obsolete due to technical changes or was it never strong enough to prevent reupload? --Martin H. (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

*After some extensive google searches I finally found Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Oct#Protecting files only from uploading, not from editing the description page, thats what I mean above. --Martin H. (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I just tried it with my second account to reupload an image from the Commons mainpage as well as the german Wikipedia mainpage, in both cases the cascade protection made it impossible. So what went wrong in the Wisent.jpg example? Maybe cache related? However, looks like this is not an issue but some unexplained exception. --Martin H. (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what has gone wrong here myself. As the operator of the LinkFA-bot, which actually updates the page that does the cascade-protection, I know for sure the bot included the image in question. I also know the bot purged the page and thus should have activated the edit protection. Why it was possible for someone to replace the image is unknown to me, though I thought this was impossible. Still, I guess it was a rare occurence, for it seems this is a (very rare incident, especially compared to the time when there was no such thing like automated image protection... --Guandalug (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 Info see also this short thread on de.wikipedia --:bdk: 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Confused: After looking at the code with Special:ExpandTemplates (it was {{User:Bdk/de/images{{#expr: {{#time:35|{{#ifexpr:{{User:Guandalug/Template:DST}}=1|2|1}} hours 5 minutes}} mod 3}}}} at the time the image was vandalized), the page User:Bdk/de/images2 was included on User:Bdk/de, exactly where this image was on. If this cascading protection doesn't seem to work, we might need to reconsider how to protect our images. On en.wikipedia, they have a bot that protects all Today's Featured Articles from moving every day. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope that template actually works as intended :D That one (especially the summertime - part) was a pain. And most of the time (like, everytime I check) the cascade protection actually works. Flawlessly. Of course, I'm not checking it every day any more, since it runs for over a year now. As I wrote above: Unless it happens again, I'm willing to blame an unknown software error :D --Guandalug (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Full protection of highly used templates

Hello I was interested in seeing Template:Userboxtop and Template:Userboxbottom fully protected as they have a lot of usage and bad edits could cause lots of problems for commons servers and userpages Andyzweb (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done It's not as critical as the main page or "Information", but being "technical" templates without any direct effect, there's little to "add" to them or potencial desire to modify it. Belgrano (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please block Bmpowell

Please block Bmpowell (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for deleting vital information that was needed for a group of images.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears the reporting party has been indef blocked by DarkFalls. Tiptoety ^talk 09:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be curious how SchoolcraftT thinks I deleted "vital information" when all I did was tag his images as lacking permissions and reported him to COM:ANB for repeated copyright problems. (He was blocked at en.wiki for the same issues.) His images were subsequently deleted due to the aforementioned problems. All I can figure out is he is lashing out at his block. bmpowell (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

After thinking more, maybe he is referring to the comments that User:Huntster wiped at User talk:SchoolcraftT after SchoolcraftT gave out someone's phone number? bmpowell (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Huntster did not wipe them out. I filed a request for oversight, and had them suppressed. Tiptoety ^talk 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I saw Huntster had deleted the phone number and figured he had also handled eliminating the revisions. Looking at things, I guess he's an admin on en.wiki but not here. bmpowell (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protection request

Please protect 1, 2, 3. {{Editprotected}} can be used if {{Move}} or {{Cfd}} needs to be applied. -- User:Docu at 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to list the same category three times? You've left a note for Diplomatiko (talk · contribs). Perhaps that will suffice. I've watchlisted three categories, but have not protected them. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be 1 and 2, 3. Sorry about that. Maybe the note is sufficient. -- User:Docu at 05:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Wp bn title.PNG

Please protect the image – it appears on the bnwiki main as Wikipedia title in Bangla, in "Bangla" font.Jayanta Nath (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, btw, you might want to consider to delink your main page icons or link them to another place then the image description page. People often click on everything that they can click on, and then the image description page gives them nothing. See en:Wikipedia:Images linking to articles for the technique. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jayanta Nath (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:BlueLine.jpg

Please protect this file. It was modified long time ago according to well-established sources. It is all explained in the talk page of the file. User:Nableezy is trying to restore older versions due to some quarrel he has on en-wp. Drork (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I am protecting the file for a week. This seems to be one of the worse case of edit warring between Drork (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and Nableezy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user I have ever seen with 18 reuploads between two of them most of them in last 2 days. I think the file should be split into 2 files one for each version. --Jarekt (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are other maps showing the borders and line relevant to the SY-IL conflict. This map is about LB-IL issues, therefore it is unnecessary to make another version of this map. Naturally the pre-1967 DMZ between IL and SY are not so relevant to the LB-IL situation, so they were left out. Then again, you cannot refer to the DMZ delineation as an international border, that's simply an error (both in principle and from the practical aspect). Furthermore, if the map is meant to show the UNIFIL deployment area, then it should show it accurately. Previous versions showed the defunct Israeli self-declared Security Zone delineation as if it were the UNIFIL area boundary, and this was another error. Drork (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Block these two guys for edit warring, and unprotect the file. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done again. I created file:BlueLine_ver2.jpg with the alternative version of the file (no clue which version is "right" but we have space for both). I blocked both users for 3 days, deleted dozen of reuploads from file history and unblocked the file. --Jarekt (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg

Unblock or at least fix license info, should be PD-BrazilGov. --Beao 21:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I added the {{PD-BrazilGov}} license --Jarekt (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uploading Pics...some advice or action, please

Hello Admin,

I am working on a Wikipedia (Dutch version) subject GL1500C and wanted to insert 4 pics, which I uploaded to Commons in the file Honda Valkyrie. After going through the (cumbersome) license and authorization routine for the 4 pics (from the same source), I noticed that only one pic could be transfered to my article; the other 3 lacked authorization (!?) while I worked all my messages for the 4 pics together at the same time. The 3 pics are

RUNE Concept Bike 3.jpg

RUNE Concept Bike 4.jpg

RUNE Concept Bike2.jpg

The one that did get through:

Valkyrie Rune Concept Bike1.JPG

I am a newbie and been struggling many hours just to get 4 pics uploaded. Please help me.

TIA,

beer1952

Unfortunately, just saying that someone gave permission is not sufficient. You will need to follow the process outlined at COM:OTRS so the permission can be verified and catalogued. For some, you have not stated which license the owner has agreed

to. Wknight94 ^talk 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Admin,

I don't want to be out-of-line here, but I received the (below) approval by email contact form and send it to 'permissions-nl@wikimedia.org'. There is hardly anything more that I can expect for an advertisement/promotion pic. Q: How come 1 pic is workable and the other 3 are not?

---

Oorspronkelijk bericht-----

Van: Phil [17] Verzonden: dinsdag 16 februari 2010 22:41 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: top-speed -+ contact form +-

Not a problem just add a link to our article ;)

...

On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:00 PM, beer1952 > wrote:

> > email= > name= Beer > comment= > > Dear Mr/Mrs, > > I am writing an article on Wikipedia (Dutch version) about the Honda > Valkyrie motorcycle (Topic name = GL1500C). > In order to illustrate my article, I would like to kindly ask your > permission to use the following TopSpeed pictures of the Honda > Valkyrie Rune Concept Bike models: > > http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200704/2004-honda-valkyrie-rune- > 48_180x130w.jpg > > http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200704/2004-honda-valkyrie-rune- > 47_180x130w.jpg > > http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200704/2004-honda-valkyrie-rune- > 46_180x130w.jpg > > http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200704/2004-honda-valkyrie-rune- > 45_180x130w.jpg > > Kind Regards,

Ah, okay, I don't have access to that e-mail list. I've forwarded the issue to COM:OTRSN#Uploads of User:Beer1952 where people do have access. One issue I see right away is that there is no specification of which license is agreed to. Is it COM:GFDL? Or Create Commons? Or public domain? Etc. See COM:L for more info. (P.S., now I see that all of your images have been deleted. Don't worry, they can bive restored once this is cleared up.) Wknight94 ^talk 05:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New section

Please un protect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr.rajeev5 (talk • contribs)

Unprotect what? Wknight94 ^talk 13:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please block Viriditas

Please block Viriditas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for giving fantasy sources, trolling, and especially libelling. See [18] and [19]. Might be a good idea to prove his own uploads, whether he has always given the real sorces. If nobody wants to block him, somebody might give him a lesson, why it is important to add real sources. 78.55.24.136 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about, but I'm starting to wonder if you are the same user as User:Mutter Erde. Might be a good idea to take a deep breath and relax and try to gather your thoughts before posting again. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A source is a source and a libeleler is a libeler. That's easy to understand. 78.55.210.92 12:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

When you edited as User:Mutter Erde, you were blocked indefinitely for this type of behavior. This block log says it all. You aren't going to change, and you have no plans on ever changing - except for your IP address. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, please do not change source links as you did here and here. In case of source links, authenticity is more important then how many ads are on that site or if it is possible to get it from somewhere else. Please note also that Mutter Erde was as far as I know (and I know this case quite well) perfectly trustworthy regarding his uploads. The block is not related to this point. I've reverted the changes you did to File:Kim Novak-Pal Joey2.JPG. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The source links were changed to link to a commercial free version of the source, and I later uploaded a better quality version of the screenshot. Could you please explain why you restored a poor quality version of the file and a source that contains commercial advertisements? Can you also explain why I should not revert your strange edits? Why would you restore a poor quality image and a link to commercial advertisements? Please explain your changes. Lacking any explanation as to why you defend the restoration of a very poor image and a commercial link, I've restored the new file which also reflects the new source, which lacks commercial advertisements and allows users to choose different file uploads. I also question why you are defending Mutter Erde and his cavalcade of socks who do nothing but make personal attacks. The current source file and the image upload match, and there is now a better version of the file and a better version of the source. This change was made at the suggestion of User:Clindberg at 3:15, 15 February[20]. To quote Carl Lindberg, "Uploading a separate, better image from the newer source is better for all involved."[21] And that is precisely what I have done. Please explain your actions, AFBorchert. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this again, it's possible I failed to heed the "separate" provision of Lindberg's comment. In that case, I will restore Mutter Erde's version and upload a new version. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Update

Because there was an objection to uploading a better image from a different source over the lower quality image, I've uploaded a new version of the screenshot from a better source, File:Kim_Novak-Pal_Joey_3.jpg. I've also replaced all occurrences of the older, lower resolution image, File:Kim Novak-Pal Joey2.JPG. However, indefinitely blocked user Mutter Erde continues to edit from an IP address, and keeps removing the new, higher quality image and replacing it with the older, lower quality image. My only option at this point appears to be nominating File:Kim Novak-Pal Joey2.JPG for deletion. Does anyone have any other suggestions? The goal here is to improve the image, and I've uploaded a new image that accomplishes this task. How do I prevent a blocked user from continuing to disruptively revert back to the older image? Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

To switch images across multiple projects, enforcing the switch through edit-wars (see here, here, here, here, and here) is highly disrupting and a continuation of your disrupting edit-warring at File:Kim Novak-Pal Joey2.JPG. Submitting this image for deletion just to "win" the edit-wars would be a next step of disruption. Please consider yourself warned that any continuation of these disrupting activities at Commons will get you blocked.

Please note that it is perfectly acceptable to upload alternative images as you did with File:Kim Novak-Pal Joey 3.jpg. However, instead of enforcing the use of this version through edit-wars, I would recommend to suggest the new version on the talk pages of the articles using it and to wait for some time. This gives the communities the opportunity to consider which of the two images is to be prefered. You should switch images then only if there is a consensus for a switch or simply no reaction after some due time.

Please note also that leading an edit-war with a blocked user makes it not acceptable just because you have a conflict with a blocked user. Please consider also that blocks are in ME's case per-project only and that you had edit-wars with him in projects where he has not been blocked yet. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke, AFBorchert? User:Mutter Erde is indefinitely blocked on Commons for his disruptive behavior. I attempted to upload a higher resolution image and replace it, and he began reverting not only my upload, but every instance I attempted to replace it with. There cannot possibly be a single argument against trying to improve an image upload, and Mutter Erde has been reverted by at least one other user. I really don't understand what you are trying to do here and why you are defending this user. There is no "enforcement" of any kind here. There is a single, disruptive blocked user attempting to prevent the improvement of images but repeatedly restoring a poor quality image and removing a high quality replacement. Why are you allowing this nonsense to continue? Are you really suggesting that I need consensus to replace a poor, low quality image with a higher quality one? The burden of proof is on Mutter Erde, who is replacing a higher quality image with a lower one, for no reason other than to disrupt. One does not need consensus to improve an image. However, one does need a reason to remove it and replace it with an image of lesser quality. What is Mutter Erde's reason, AFBorchert? Does he have one? No, of course, he does not. Why are you defending his bad behavior here, AFBorchert? Consensus was already reached in the original discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing#Kim_Novak-Pal_Joey2.JPG: "uploading a separate, better image from the newer source is better for all involved." What part of this do you object to, AFBorchert, and why? Are you actually objecting to replacing a low quality image with one of higher quality? If so, why? Consensus has already been reached. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

...Consensus has already been reached. With whom? Please give sources (I mean real sources!) 78.55.62.165 10:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Intentional avoidance of discussion will not be allowed. – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside comment. Since this has now spread over to en-wiki, here's some feedback from an en-wiki admin: I'm treating the edit-warring by the ME IPs as obvious disruption and will be using semi-protection to support Viriditas' replacements on en-wiki pages, which indeed appear to be an obvious improvement, in the absence of any good-faith argument why the older version would have been superior. Not to interfere in admin proceedings here, but I must say I'm astonished to see AFBorchert making blocking threats when he himself was previously actively involved in revert-warring against Viriditas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

emm, which en-admin? where? when? permalink? Is it really so difficult to give clear sources? Additional question: How many admins are working on en? 78.55.62.165 13:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, which en-admin? Me, of course. Link: here. @Kwj2772: is it not customary on Commons to roll back obvious block-evading socks? Why are we talking with this person anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread focuses on Viriditas's behaviors in Commons such as changing sourcelinks. Block-evading issue is a second matter. I think he is interrupting normal discussion by bringing block-evading issue. Block evading issue should be reported separately. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why "report" it when multiple admins (e.g. you) are already aware of it and could deal with it here and now? (Is Commons a bureaucracy?) And hardly a "separate issue" when the block-evading user is the person who started this whole thread and the whole conflict. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We tolerate constructive edits by ME and block him when he continues to be harassing. I've blocked him multiple times. (But please note that ME gets a new IP assigned to every day. Hence the effect of blocks does not last very long.) In this particular case, I welcomed that ME opened this case to drew our attention to it but I do not concur with his wordings which fall into his well-known pattern. I object to his part to this crosswiki edit-war through all the projects (including en-wp, pt-wp, no-wp, hu-wp, and fy-wp) and I opened the case at en-wp to draw the attention of en-wp admins to this case. I do not take party to either side but simply want to have edit-wars avoided or stopped and policies to be followed. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: This is my revert of Viriditas where I restored the original source link of this image. As I have explained above, we prefer to have the original source link for images provided by the uploader. It does not matter in such a case that the uploader has meanwhile been banned. This is an essential piece of information of the license information which is also to be preserved in case of PD material. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, and I take it Viriditas accepted it too when it was explained to him. Doesn't change the fact that you were still revert-warring against him – not about the source link, but about the image version itself. – Also, if you are in fact active as an admin here, I have to ask this: in your en-wiki posting [22], you implicitly accepted that the IP is in fact the banned user, and that his behaviour is "intimidating and harassing". If you are aware of this, why have you been tolerating his editing here, harassing Viriditas? Why were the IPs not blocked immediately? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

When I saw ME's edits here, his edits were older than 24 hours — in such a case a block would possibly hurt someone else using ME's previous IP but surely not ME. Regarding the other point: Alternative versions are to be uploaded into alternative files. Usually, we do not like to see uploads over existing images and changes of source links just because someone prefers another version or another source link. Uploads of banned users are not excluded from this just because the user has been banned later on. Where I reverted Viriditas, I enforced Commons policy when I got aware of this conflict due to this entry at our noticeboard. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that administrators, in case of edit-warring conflicts, must first carry out conserving (and possible restoring), stabilising and protective measures before explaining and engaging discussions. --Foroa (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I endorse AFBochert's actions and opinions on this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2010021610052123 (re User:SchoolcraftT)

Since someone protected this user's talk page, it's damn hard to post the requested OTRS ticket information there for someone to review. In light of that difficulty, I'm posting it here for someone to sort out. We have received acceptable permission for the following images: Strike that. The permissions do not seem to be from the apparent owner of the images. A message has been sent requesting contact with/from the owner.

• File:Cemetary.jpg
• Holly river.jpg
• Senior center.jpg
• Potato knob.jpg

All of these were deleted by User:DarkFalls. Felicitations. ···日本穣^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed this. Based on the opinion of several other admins with OTRS access, I do not believe the email to be a genuine permission. As the uploader has a history of copyright problems, I will not restore the images without firm proof. —Dark ^talk 06:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page and disabled talk page editing via the block settings instead. Tiptoety ^talk 04:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lakes of Canada‎

Would an administrator revert the copy-and-paste done on the above page and on Category:Lakes of Canada‎ by name and remind Foroa to discuss such things before without revert warring ? I initiated a discussion on Category talk:Lakes of Canada‎. In the meantime, the pages should remain protected. -- User:Docu at 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was done for "demonstration purposes", to prove some point. The concerns about its quality were not addressed. Please remove it asap. -- User:Docu at 23:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:PD NASA

As I linked it in Commons:Categories#Categories_marked_with_.22HIDDENCAT.22, please change the edit protection to autoconfirmed. -- User:Docu at 14:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. Protect Category:PD NASA itself? Is that typical practice? If so, why? Wknight94 ^talk 14:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It tends to be edited more frequently. autoconfirmed should be sufficient though. -- User:Docu at 15:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's only been edited once since mid-2008. Wknight94 ^talk 15:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I just linked the edit view 40 minutes ago. Obviously, we could use some other sample. -- User:Docu at 15:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see where legions of anonymous people will flock to that section of an obscure project page and start editing mercilessly because you added one link. It's not as though you added a naked picture of Megan Fox. But maybe others will see it differently. Wknight94 ^talk 15:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to protect it - although I also see no reason to edit the category (besides I personally dont like the license category beeing mixed up with the content category). Not edited, not vandalized, not high traffic page, no prevented edits in the abuse log. For what it worth: I added it to my watchlist. --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if edit views appear in the traffic log. Anyways, I prefer it to be on Martin's watchlist instead of autoconfirmed ;) -- User:Docu at 16:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I added it to mine too. Wknight94 ^talk 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and thanks Wknight94, four eyes are much better. My watchlist is a bit large and not necessarily a save harbour for categories ;) --Martin H. (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected this noticeboard temporarily

I protected this noticeboard temporarily. Dynamic IP addresses are engaging something trollish discussions, which reverted over 4 times and revert-warring is being continued, so there is no way other than semiprotecting. This protection will expire 4 days later (13:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)). Sorry for inconvenience if you are using normal IP addresses. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Exclusive Economic Zones United Kingdom plus deps.png

The newly registered user Bambuway keeps vandilizing File:Exclusive Economic Zones United Kingdom plus deps.png without engaging in any sort of constructive discussion on the talk page. The file needs to be protected. Godefroy (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected for one week --Justass (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:WiNG/Licensing

This is my own custom license tags, I don't know why somebody have to protect my custom license. Please allow me to edit it. --WiNG (WiNG) 03:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK Unprotected. – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests

The following protected pages have been detected as requiring updates to category links:

• File:Open Clipart Library logo.svg is in Category:Computer software logos, which is a redirect to Category:Software logos

RussBot (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done weeks ago. Wknight94 ^talk 13:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

edit war in File:Etzel diryasin.jpg

I still don't know how stuff works here, but File:Etzel diryasin.jpg is under edit war. I have no idea how to resolve this and I guess these stuff has no resolution. Tomer A. (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just stop editwarring. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, that's what I did. Therefore the text is now not Neutral and not in its stable version. Tomer A. (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I found no evidence for Tomer A.'s allegation of bias and asked that he desist from edit warring. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

SchoolcraftT (talk · contribs) Socking/IP Evasion

Indef blocked SchoolcraftT (talk · contribs) keeps using IP addresses to evade his block, most recently at 4.248.57.125 (talk · contribs) and 4.248.58.25 (talk · contribs). A fuller list of IPs he has used is at Category:Sockpuppets of SchoolcraftT. Since he appears to have dial-up and keeps jumping IPs, blocking him would probably be impractical. Would it be possible to temporarily semi-protect the pages he keeps editing? bmpowell (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also at 4.248.61.55 (talk · contribs) today. bmpowell (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Please complete File talk:Kenyon Cox nude study3.jpg ASAP as it's today's FP. For some reason, the original image was omitted. -- User:Docu at 04:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done 1 week Gnangarra 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The request was to edit the protected page, not to protected it. It should already have been protected through cascading protection. -- User:Docu at 04:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Gnangarra 04:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- User:Docu at 04:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

muslim -> Muslim

Hi. Could anyone correct the English description of this protected file where "muslim" should be written "Muslim". Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kayamukan => User:Shavetharan

Would an administrator move this back and delete the redirects? The user wasn't renamed. -- User:Docu at 06:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Deleted. Looks like user already done this numerous times --Justass (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

24.144.50.124

Why Am I blocked can someone explain this as i have not committed vandalism.

Your IP address is 24.144.50.124

So what's the idea? I should have gotten an email about this false report.

sincerely, Thomas W. Maguire thomaswolfgangyahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.50.124 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This IP is not blocked here on this project, Wikimedia Commons. However, the range 24.144.32.0/19 (thats all IPs from 24.144.32.0 to 24.144.255.255) is blocked on the English language Wikipedia project, see block list there. Administrators here on Commons can unlikely give you any information regarding this block. --Martin H. (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I asked the blocking admin at en:User talk:Rlevse#24.144.32.0/19, so done here, not a Commons issue. --Martin H. (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A month for an IP range seems a lot. -- User:Docu at 07:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Depending on background and use of course, but yes. --Martin H. (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Domaleixo (talk · contribs)

• Insults [23] and repeated upload of deleted copyvios.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• More insults: [24]-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• The user just uploaded the same copyvios for the 3rd time.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• The user just uploaded the same copyvios for the 4th time, using new filenames to evade protection: [25].-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• The user started reverting the copyvio tag in the files: [26] [27]-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• The user just uploaded the same copyvios for the 5th time, using new filenames to evade the new protection: [28]-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Horrible insults: [29]-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Used sockpuppet IP/open proxy to evade blockage and upload the copyvios over other files: [30]-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Domaleixo

Please watch (or Block) that user. He are remove copyvio notes of files uploaded by himself, files thar have been deleteded over and over again and him re-upload them. Béria Lima ^Msg 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done - 1 week. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Pilipilili

Please block this user and delete uploaded copyrighted images. 10 violations - I'm tired to place {{Copyvio}}. -- TarzanASG ⁺¹  12:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, clearly using commons to upload copyrighted files to use on ru Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Todays featured picture on en.wiki

This one is cascade protected but protection is apparently delayed. Please fix or ignore if I'm wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Protected for one day NW (Talk) 04:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Blleininger

For Admin_mop.png

I was hoping to replace {{Svg}} with {{mop.svg}}.

Not sure the mop I came up with will please, but thought I'd make it available and see where we went? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blleininger (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blleininger,

Can you specify the image you'd like to put the tag on ? File:Admin_mop.png does not exist. –Krinkle^talk 23:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, you meant File:Admin mop.PNG. You can place {{mop.svg}} on File:Mop.png. Since it's not the SVG of File:Admin mop.PNG but only from the Mop itself. So feel free to add it –Krinkle^talk 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see I wasn't very clear really. But I see the Admin mop.svg I uploaded has already been added to the Admin mop.png page as an alternative. And I already added the svg available template to the mop.png page. I'm not really satisfied with that mop so probably will work on it some more. It's come out to light and it is very heavy. But I wanted to get it up and maybe generate some suggestions.

-talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blleininger (talk • contribs) 04:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Panorama POTD

To implement Talk:Main_Page#Panorama_POTD for today, would you replace Main Page with Main Page/switch and protect Main Page/std. It should return back to the usual layout automatically. -- User:Docu at 04:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:RKBot

Resolved

Please block the above bot to make sure that open issues will be addressed before the full upload is done. -- User:Docu at 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have put a short block, as I was unsure the duration required - could following admins please place a more realistic time in view of my limited knowledge of the open issues - thanks SatuSuro (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the duration is an issue. The operator can deblock it himself once they are resolved. Just make sure you don't use the "Autoblock any IP addresses used" option. -- User:Docu at 05:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank for the advice SatuSuro (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you set this to indefinite? -- User:Docu at 09:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. But with the hope the issues can be discussed SatuSuro (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually there was no need to stop the bot, since it was not running at all. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

MY apologies then - I thought I was taking a request for an operating bot :( SatuSuro (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's still listed as "running" for 35000 files on Commons:Batch_uploading/Minerals_from_Rob_Lavinsky_on_mindat#Details. -- User:Docu at 10:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked no immediate issues, that necessitated an indefinite block Gnangarra 12:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg

Change to Category:SVG coats of arms of Brazil|*

Favor mudarem para Category:SVG coats of arms of Brazil|*

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gire 3pich2005 banned: I request collegial advice/decision

Hi. I have blocked this user for having created socks in order to re-create deleted pictures, and then indefblocked him because he said he would do it again and again. This user is apparently a dedicated contributor in the Farsi Wikipedia, and has not behaved like a vandal here apart from these actions. He is of course very upset, and thinks that the sanction is inappropriate and that I made it personal. I would like opinions from other admins, so that a collegial decision (confirmation or modification of the block, or something else),which I won't be part of, can be taken and explained to the user. I thank you in advance for your work. Story begins here. --Eusebius (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

i will try to talk with him --Mardetanha ^talk 08:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it would be a good idea if in the end, the conclusion is presented to the user by someone neutral, that is neither me nor Mardetanha. --Eusebius (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone here? --Eusebius (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No permission

File:ChelyabinskAirport.jpg has "no permission". I contacted with author of the file and he sent a permission via email on permissions-commons. Then I redirected the copy of the permission author sent to me to permissions-commons. What should I do to protect my file from deleting and cancel "no permission" status? No permission flag is still on the page.

Thank you. --Вильдан (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You can replace it with {{OTRS pending}}. -- User:Docu at 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Oneoftheone

Repeated uploading of incompatible copyrighted images after several notices and warnings (most recently, File:Themonsterleaf.jpg). Is adding permissions of no known restrictions (perhaps in the hopes we won't notice and let files slip by, perhaps because just doesn't have clue?) Doesn't respond, and no change in behaviour noticable. Please consider a block. Thanks! :) fr33kman -s- 01:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User is active at this point in time, has just uploaded the copyvio File:Jonaspractice.jpg from Flickr. I have added a sec ond level 4 warning. fr33kman -s- 01:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, and all copyright violations deleted including three more uploaded after you posted this message. Gnangarra 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, let's hope it invokes a change. :) fr33kman -s- 07:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unable to redirect a page

Below Wiki link has all the Cormorant Species names http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cormorant

Few among those are already present on Wikipedia database. For example "Rock Shag" on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Shag I just want to redirect users when they click "(category), Phalacrocorax magellanicus, Rock Shag" on the former page.

Can I do it? Or someone else has solemn authority to these kind of stuffs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KotDemon (talk • contribs) 08:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) 08:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kpelo1994

Repeated uploading of incompatible copyrighted images after several notices and warnings. After deletion of an image, upload it again, without respect of the project. He was blocked at Portuguese Wikipedia for the same reason. Please consider a block. Thanks! Mwaldeck ^msg 03:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

all deleted, blocked for 1 week, Gnangarra 04:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Mwaldeck ^msg 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect File:Bookshelf-40x20.png

It is no longer in use at m:www.wikipedia.org template (File:Bookshelf-40x201 6.png is), so does not need to be protected.--Svgalbertian (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The template is still used at www.wikipedia.org. I think it should be still protected. --Jarekt (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is no longer in use at www.wikipedia.org, the image used there is File:Bookshelf-40x201 6.png. --Svgalbertian (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Unprotected. and It is verified that the file is not used on project portals. Regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of Russia.svg

The current version of File:Flag of Russia.svg by User:Zscout370 is not valid SVG, and does not show in Firefox, but I can't revert it to the previous version. - Erik Baas (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Idem: File:Flag of Ukraine.svg - Erik Baas (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Showed in firefox, but I will fix it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You did, but the files are still not correct: you just can not leave out some headers. Please revert both files to their previous version, as well as File:Flag of the Netherlands.svg . - Erik Baas (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does nobody respond to this ? There are files with errors on the server, errors created by User:Zscout370, I can not correct them because they are protected, he does not answer on his talk page (but simply deletes my remarks), and even here there's not a single response. :-( - Erik Baas (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's valid svg according to w3. J.smith (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT valid SVG: [32] (read section "Congratulations"). Trycatch (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Result: Passed, 2 warning(s)" - It passed. It's valid. Not saying I'm opposed to fixing the lack of Character encoding, but if 3w declares the file valid I'm inclined to take their word for it. In any event, try {{Editprotected}}. J.smith (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"In other words, the document would validate as SVG 1.1 if you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes." (bold face by w3c) Trycatch (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Even worse, the previous version of this file (and the others) was valid SVG! Why was it changed in the first place ? And why does User:Zscout370 not answer any questions about this on his talk page ? - Erik Baas (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no reason whatsoever to replace the valid code. The file was protected about a year ago. Since then admin Zscout has uploaded numerous new versions, but he should gave respected the protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how this is necessarily an issue. If the code meets basic W3 standards, and we get a more efficient flag, then everything should be fine, right? (not rhetorical) Blurpeace 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The code does not meet W3 standards, see comment by Trycatch. And how is it more efficient to nibble away a few bites? It does not affect the size of the png files. And it relies on the rendering software to make the right assumptions. All this playing around (20 versions since the file was protected) is a complete waste of time. And it entails a risk of mistakes: Zscout had turned the Dutch flag upside down. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

File:India-locator-map-blank.svg

I strongly disagree with the way the artist has depicted the fact that the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh is being considered disputed. The Tawang region in Arunachal Pradesh is claimed by China. Why is Taiwan then not shown in a similar fashion on any of the maps. Arunachal Pradesh had an election which was adjudged a model elction free and unbiased, the polling percentage was upward of 85% in most and 90+ in accessible areas. This is gross injustice and a smack in the face to those who have participated overwhelmingly to indicate that they are a part of India. For clarity you can add a pointer that China has a claim on Tawang region based on the fact that since the 6th Dalai Lama who was reviled and derided by the Communist leaders was born in Tawang, hence the case for Tawang to belong to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.206.150 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved this comment to File talk:India-locator-map-blank.svg --Jarekt (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Kpelo1994 (2)

Repeated uploading of incompatible copyrighted images after several notices and warnings. After deletion of an image, upload it again, without respect of the project. He was blocked at Portuguese Wikipedia and here a week ago for the same reason. Please consider an another block. Thanks! Mwaldeck ^msg 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. The editor clearly has no intention in contributing to the project constructively. Blurpeace 03:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncategorized protected media

I suggest adding Category:Image gradient to the following: File:WikiMediaPlayerGradient3.jpg, File:WikiMediaPlayerGradient2.jpg and File:WikiMediaPlayerGradient.jpg. -- deerstop. 21:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please revert File:JJ Thomson exp2.jpg and protect, or block User:Kurzon

User:Kurzon is uploading his version of JJ Thomson's experiment on top of the original drawing, that had been uploeded in slightly modified form in 2006 by User:Mortadelo2005. I have reverted him a few times, and tried to talk to him on his talk page, but he just keeps on doing this. Could someone else now revert him? and could an admin either lock the file, or block Kurzon? Kurzon's version is also on File:JJ Thomson exp2.png and on File:JJ Thomson Cathode Ray 2 explained.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Protected for one week. Kameraad Pjotr 14:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

File:NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg

Needs indefinite full protection. High risk image used in templates. -68.219.13.52 22:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Done - Huib talk 08:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Effect of global lock on unattached accounts

The SUL account status utility shows that Thekohser's accounts on Commons, enwikisource, and usability are unattached and unblocked, so the lock may not apply to them.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done: I've blocked him at Commons. This was necessary as his local account is unattached but belongs nevertheless to the same person. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 22:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Chafis

Repeated uploading of incompatible copyrighted images after several notices and warnings. After deletion of an image, upload it again and again (the last one was today) without respect of the project. Please consider a block. Thanks! Mwaldeck ^msg 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thekohser (talk · contribs)

Jimbo Wales asked for a global ban of Thekohser which was implemented on 3 May 2010 by Drini but on 5 May 2010 lifted by Pathoschild, leaving the decision to block him or not at the individual projects (see this discussion and this log). I've blocked him at Commons per the above request to implement the global ban on his unattached account at Commons. I am not really familiar with the story behind the global ban but this seems to be related to this case at Wikiversity. Thekohser asked now to be unblocked. Any thoughts? --AFBorchert (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that Pathoschild only lifted the global lock to block his accounts individually[34] NW (Talk) 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As NW points out, it is part of how the locking and the blocking works. He is effectively globally banned here regardless if his block log specifically states so or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In his comment Pathoschild wrote global lock changed to local block to let local community change it. Hence it seemed appropriate for me to raise this here. So far, he his block was lifted at de-wp (see here), en-wikinews (see here), and en-wikisource (see here). --AFBorchert (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

enWS blocked in line with the global lock, and unblocked when the unlock was lifted (technical reasons). We should be able to judge our need for a block on our local needs. Is there a need to block locally? Will a local block inhibit this user's ability to utilise other WMF sites if they need to upload images? I haven't seen evidence here to support a block, though I haven't looked for any local evidence.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Every recent contribution I have seen by that user amounts to a breaching experiment at some level or another. Given his off-wiki harassment of others and lengthy history of block and ban evasion I would not want to see him unblocked anywhere. He is here for his own agenda, not ours. JzG (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand this recent comment by Jimbo Wales such that a global ban continues to be in effect and that it is just a technical question how it is implemented. I do not think that we should unblock him locally if he has indeed a serious history of inter-wiki issues and off-wiki harassments. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a block that can safely remain in place. Globally it isn't really our issue - locally I don't think the project will be brought to its knees by the lack of contributions from this user. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

However, the block shows that COM:MELLOW is unctuous hypocrisy. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No evidence to support a global ban has been provided, but really that doesn't matter. As it is clear that no global ban is in effect, there should be no block on commons. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Category redirect bot

Please block the above bot. It appears to be malfunctioning as it doesn't follow the 7 day waiting period per Commons:Bots/Requests/Category redirect bot (a request that doesn't seem to be approved). Samples: redirect => edit; redirect, edit. RussBot regularly does all these operations (without any problems BTW). -- User:Docu at 04:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, looking back on both bot flag discussions, they both seem to still be open yet both bots are flagged. But somehow RussBot has that "seven day provision" code that mine doesn't. Whatever the case, I may simply decommission my bot in favour of RussBot. A mass reverting of my bot's edits may be in order, at least for now. --O (谈 • висчвын) 05:18, 10 May 2010 (GMT)

I forgot to add that at the time of Docu's post, the bot had already stopped editing. I can guarantee that it won't move any more content across categories. If a mass revert is requested, the bot can do that. --O (谈 • висчвын) 05:24, 10 May 2010 (GMT)

Ok no problem then. The problem isn't really in moving most category that the bot moved, but having a bot running from toolserver "several times a day" (per its description page) that moves all files in categories were someone just added a {{Category redirect}}.

At some bot we had a problem with RussBot when for some reason the 7 day wait stopped working and people started adding redirects to move categories. It has been fixed since and works fine.

If occasionally you review and move some of the non-empty redirects, this would actually be a good thing (some don't need the seven day wait). -- User:Docu at 05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco.svg

Needs protection. High risk image used in many pages. --Flad (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Krinkle^talk 01:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be a bit problematic. There was some dispute over Flad standardizing colors of flags, so him requesting his own version to be locked could be seen as controversial. --DieBuche (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:DYK Medal.svg

Move this protected file from category:Wikimedia user awards to category:Wikimedia medals. Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 17:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Huib talk 18:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hum (-_-) not exactly. And now from category:Wikimedia awards to category:Wikimedia medals (^_^) Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 19:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :( I failz Huib talk 20:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

高須クリニック広報 (talk · contribs)

This username belongs to the actual organization "高須クリニック". Although I warned this user about it on his discussion page, he does not reply. This user has uploaded the three tiny photographs relevant to this group. However, each of them has only very low resolution and is missing evidence of permission. For your information, And the same account is carrying out advertisement and publicity work ("広報") at Japanese Wikipedia. This account ought to be blocked per Commons:Username policy#Company/group names and COM:BP#Use (Inappropriate usernames). --Akira Kouchiyama 04:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC), rewrite a little --Akira Kouchiyama 05:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you wrote them that message in Japanese. I'm not sure if the email address mentioned in the policy is the best one to use though.

I don't know the details of images they uploaded, but, if they were their images, it would have been preferable that they wouldn't have been speedy deleted shortly after you tagged them with "permission missing" and left them the message. -- User:Docu at 11:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

About this user name and missing permission information, another user had also warned more than one month ago, in Japanese. However, this user has not replied to it. In the notification to him, I made reference also about that. Regards. --Akira Kouchiyama 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I supplement information a little more. Around 11:00, 11 May (UTC), after several hours have passed since I tagged three files, this user added this URL to File:Takasukatsuya.jpg as a source. It was his only editing after I tagged. But, at that time, he had almost infallibly noticed my message, I think. And the most serious problem is that perhaps he has used the false position as a username. Thanks. --Akira Kouchiyama 15:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

At Commons, the username isn't necessarily inappropriate.

If the account is linked to the organization, they would have to send an email together with the necessary permissions for whatever they upload(ed) here to OTRS.

The edits you note at Japanese Wikipedia make it likely that the account is linked to the organization. Even if the edits at ja_wiki are probably not what you would want to see there, we appreciate that they upload images here (if the individuals on the images are somewhat noteworthy).

Thus, it should be explained to them how they have to go about this. I can't say if the initial note (in Japanese) explains it, but it doesn't seem to mention OTRS. Once this is done and we don't get an answer, the account should be blocked. Maybe the usual week for "permission missing", plus whatever the current delay on backlogs at OTRS would be reasonable. -- User:Docu at 06:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The initial notification written in very polite and modest Japanese had advised him on the method of identification different from OTRS concretely. The message says as follows.

"Supposing you are actually the press officer of this group, please prove it by suitable method, such as announcing about having uploaded the images to Commons on an official site, and report to this talk page. Otherwise, since the sources of these images are almost unclear, and they may have infringed on the right of publicity, the deletion requests may be submitted".

After all, User:高須クリニック広報 reacted to neither of two languages, and did not speak at all. As for me, it is impossible to support the user who rejects the discussion at the place of the collaborative work. --Akira Kouchiyama 13:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Gauguin portrait 1889.JPG

This file is protected, but infos and category should be changed (same cats and painting infos as File:Paul Gauguin 109.jpg, except for source and permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolo (talk • contribs) 08:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I unprotected it except the protection against reupload to prevent that 1st of april troll to add his stupid personal photo again over the painting. Improve whatever you want to improve :) --Martin H. (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SieBot

Can this be blocked until we are sure it was fixed (see User_talk:Siebrand#SieBot_bug for details). People are using it despite the notice on User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Bot_malfunctioning. -- User:Docu at 15:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Partially resolved. -- User:Docu at 16:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Aenhard

Please block him. He is uploading several copyvios after warning! ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 18:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Main Page

After this http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=rollback&from=LukasHemming&token=5ad329ec6c61b9b1ff6cd6b90034c2e6%2B\ surely the main page talk page be protected? SatuSuro (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The main page is protected. Heck, it has cascaded protection. And your link doesn't work. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He's referring to Talk:Main Page. The single instance of vandalism has been reverted and I hid the revision since it had a phone number. It was the account's only edit so I did not block. Protection doesn't seem real necessary on a talk page. Wknight94 ^talk 04:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, per en.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks for that, I understand that protection of talk pages is not necessary, eternal vigilance is SatuSuro (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

semiprotect Retouched picture template

Template:Retouched picture/de was vandalized. This template is widely used and does not need to be edited by IPs. Please semi-protect:

• Template:Retouched_picture/lang and all linked languages.
• Template:Retouched_picture/layout

Thank you --Saibo (Δ) 02:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --99of9 (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Permission error (blacklist)

I was blocked from uploading This File from Flickr, using Bryan's Flickr uploading tool. I have reviewd the blacklist page and cannot see any matching names or file extensions.--Mercurial (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This line in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist

File:I?MG[P_]?[\d\s]+\.JPG <reupload|errmsg=senselessimagename> # Canon, Pentax

would match such a filename. –Tryphon^☂ 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you. For the future, if a filename is anything like IMG_123.jpg it will generate "senselessimagename"?--Mercurial (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo alpha transparency issue with IE6

IE6 users are posting complaints that the new Wikipedia logo is not transparent anymore (see 1, 2). You can try for yourself using IE NetRenderer. The issue in short is that IE6 does not support transparency for PNG-24 images. The original logo and the new logo up until May 20 were PNG-8. I can go into the technical if needed, but there are there solutions.

• Revert to PNG-8 (logo will lose some color depth)
• Custom CSS (I have not fully looked into this, and would not know how to propose a fix)
• Make the default background of the PNG, match the default skin (this changes the background color for IE6, but the change is not noticeable in newer browsers)

I have provided the third fix here, and just need someone to uploaded it to here. I already have an editprotected request on the main image, but have not received a response. I will be happy to explain this more technically and address anyone concerns if needed. Cheers!--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps one of the many JavaScript fixes, wich benefits the other transparent PNGs on Wikimedia aswell (such as PNG-renders of Vector-files, PNG-renders of PNG-files). It could be put in either Common.js or as part of the global common.js for Wikimedia. –Krinkle^talk 15:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A CSS or JavaScript fix is ideal. Someone should post the request to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org. In the meantime, I think the replacement PNG is an acceptable mitigation, as it reduces visibility of the issue and has no negative effects to the other users.--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded the tweaked version. I'm familiar with the workaround (which I can verify is standards-compliant and has no adverse effects) and sorry that I didn't think to include it myself. —David Levy 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks David. I have also opened a ticket to try to get a CSS/JS hack for this as well.--Svgalbertian (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples in Template:Rename

Someone recently created File:A better name.png without uploading a file. I think it should be deleted, and then it and File:New name.jpg protected against creation. These are used as examples in {{Rename}}, and they would be far too generic names for actual images anyway. Derlay (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done seems reasonable--DieBuche (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Spreading false statements

The following post was created through malice and we wish it to be removed. There is no truth to the ticket ticket:2010060110003938 that originated from the wikimedia site. Creating the link below: http://www.rss.raw2an.com/wikipedia/143487-wikipedia-articles-for-deletion-anushka-wirasinha.html

The statements are untrue and amounts to libel and it is harming the author credibility. The author never made any untrue statements as the writeup suggests and we would like to know the origin of this ticket and writeup and ask that it be deleted asap. It has been created by "myegy".

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems"

Wrong project. This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. The article en:Anushka Wirasinha was deleted already, for privacy the deletion discussion en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha is blanked but visible in the version history stable link. If you have an issue you may go to Wikipedia but this is the wrong place. --Martin H. (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional: Someone already did on Wikipedia, en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Anushka_Wirasinha. Plus: You may have mentioned that you are on the wrong project but you still started to post your problem on various pages. I removed it, no reason to clutter our admin boards with such unrelated issues. --Martin H. (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It originated as a ticket on the OTRS. how are OTRS ticket disputes handled...is it wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.48 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OTRS is used by all Wikimedia projects, on Commons it is used to store copyright permissions. See meta:OTRS for a description. --Martin H. (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For complaints, or to dispute how a ticket was handled, you can contact one of the OTRS administrators listed here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Oshki

Hi! A category (Category:Armenian monasteries in Turkey) has been added to Category:Oshki in October 2009 but is constantly removed by two users since end-April 2010. I tried to discuss the issue on the talk page with these two users, but it seems of no use as they keep repeating the same things, which I have already addressed; in the mean time, they keep removing the category. I therefore request Category:Oshki to be protected as long as the issue is not settled on its talk page.
NB: fyi, one of the two users only stopped behaving in the same way on WP:fr after he have been warned that he could be blocked, should he carry on to do so.
Sardur (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The user is pushing Armenian POV. Ignoring 16 neutral reliable sources and giving 4 armenian sources. Please, let him stop doing this.--Gaeser (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation, as anybody will see it on the talk page of the category. Sardur (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons protected edit requests

Hi, would an administrator do the request at Talk:Main_Page#Panorama_POTD_(2010-07-01) while it's July 1? -- User:Docu at 07:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Morocco (orthographic projection).svg

Needs protection (High risk image used in many pages). --Flad (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done less than 20 uses globally doesn't justify protection. Doesn't even have a history of vandalism--DieBuche (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Flad is referring to the frequent reversions of whether the disputed territory is included in the map. In my opinion commons should have two files, one with, and one without (both linked in other versions). Then re-users can choose whichever one suits their editing needs. Protection is not required when there are still options for resolving a disagreement. --99of9 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I reminded User:Morancio not to overwrite images.  Docu  at 10:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I just uploaded the new version apart but it just didn't show up properly. The file history of the original may need a clean up. cheers --Flad (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. On the subject of maps of Morocco, a place I know quite well, should we perhaps avoid showing the border with Algeria as being definitive? On maps of the country published in Morocco itself the majority of the Mar-Alg border is not shown at all as it's disputed. Perhaps we should use a broken line south of the 150km or so from the Mediterranean coast? Anatiomaros (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SchoolcraftT

I believe that blocked user SchoolcraftT is abusing his talk page editing privileges. I'd like to ask that the block on him editing his talk page be reinstated. bmpowell (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of this, preferably via diffs? Tiptoety ^talk 16:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some examples from today

• Claims other users were slandering him in pointing out his past sockpuppetry [35]
• Alleging "cover up" by OTRS/Wikimedia Commons [36]
• Claims that he uploaded images based on statement that Dr. Anderson owned images, when in fact he had previously claimed that he himself (SchoolcraftT) owned them [37]
• Deleting comment pointing out his past actions [38]
• Falsely claiming personal attacks against himself [39]
• Deleting others' comments again, falsely claiming they are a personal attack on him [40]
• Suggesting he deleted comments because he cannot handle criticism [41]

bmpowell (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not here as well. This is pretty much how he behaved in the other place, which resulted in an eventual indef block. He obviously hasn't learned from that experience. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. He just does not seem to learn. Tiptoety ^talk 19:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Added: I've now read his talkpage. The deleted edit where he accuses me of vandalism, I had to get an edit of his reverted because he had pasted an OTRS email into his talkpage, including the name, address, email address and phone number of the third party on the ticket. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that happened both here and on en.wiki. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava blocked

I notice this hasn't been mentioned here yet, so i'll do so for the sake of openness. User:Ottava Rima has been blocked first for two weeks by Rama, the block was then extended to indefinite by Gmaxwell. TheDJ (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd honestly disagree with this block, although Ottava has a history of being persistently combative, because it elevates the conflict and because he hasn't ever expressed his concerns in a way that is out-of-process (just uncivil). I think part of staying COM:MELLOW is being able to cope patiently with provocation of this sort. He has recently offered some useful feedback e.g. on the proposal at Commons talk:Sexual content. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We blocked him for a month (iirc) and it doesn't seem to have changed him. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My conversion from two weeks to indefinite was explicitly intended to halt the elevation of conflict, and I hope it has that effect. There is no good done by the constant drama of repeated short term blocks when the blocked party sees nothing wrong in his actions and has expressed no desire to change his behaviour— or worse— when the problematic behaviour begins to define their interaction with the community (e.g. taking on the identity of "the guy they hate"). In cases where the issue at hand is just an occasional bit of poor judgement or an overheated temper we should be maximally forgiving and even try to avoid placing a block... but in cases where there is no end in sight for the drama, it's simply more healthy to make the block indefinite and invite the user to either return with a new name _and_ personality, or with the old one when they are willing to recant their old ways.

The chain of repeated blocks just builds an environment of hostility: The blocked user becomes more and more angry and convinced that the project community is personally trying to hurt him, the community becomes more frustrated at each other, nothing improves, and we get trapped in an endless cycle of fighting. At some point a break must be made, to fail to do so is emotionally abusive towards everyone who is involved.

I can't claim to know exactly when the right point to make a break is... It is the point when you know that the future will only be more of the same unless something makes an unexpected change, but it is seldom easy to know that. In this case we have the predictive benefit of the outcomes on other WMF projects and while I would always hesitate to invoke evidence from elsewhere in isolation and as the _only_ evidence against someone I equally believe we would be fools to wilfully ignore it. We should consider all available information in combination with, in support of, and contrasted to our own views and experiences then apply our own standards. In this case I think it is somewhat easier than in some others, because the blocks keep happening and the user is pretty much emphatic that he has done no wrong and will not be changing.

I'll gladly undo the indefinite block myself if provided with evidence that a change in this pattern of increasing incivility and abusiveness ending in blocks is forthcoming, that is why the block is indefinite: I do not know when it will end, only that it should not end while we (and the user!) would be subject to more of the same.

--Gmaxwell (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Ottava refers to this block at meta:User talk:Sue Gardner#Commons and Pro-Pedophilia. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted a rebuttal there. Not sure it'll do him any good, Sue has made less than 10 edits in the past year. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gmax-I'm not sure I'd have gone that far but I understand your well-stated reasoning. See my comment at KP's deadmin RFA that Ottava file. Pjotr needs to be more careful. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we currently have both a KP (Kameraad Pjotr) and a PK (Pieter Kuiper) discussion going, i think we should avoid acronyms, it can be a tad confusing at times. TheDJ (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Look DJ, it's quite simple - L blocked PK over revenge DRs after talking to RL, and in an unrelated discussion at sex a PP was identified and blocked by MH following AC blocking at WP(EN), this was transferred to AN/B where he was unblocked by KP who OR nominated at A for dA which has roundly been rejected by all participants. OR then went on a spree of accusing me (MB), and anyone else who disagreed with the original block of paedophilia, got blocked by R (changed to indef by GM after review of BL), went crying to SG on M who told him to naff off and is now arguing on IRC. What exactly is confusing you? -MB (T) 01:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Joking aside, the use of these acronyms is actually a minor problem - just check this edit by Rlevse :)--Nilfanion (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support block for indef. We could perhaps argue if the original block was ok etc. but Ottavas behaviour on IRC and especially here [42] makes me support a block. He says "that pedophiles are okay decide to block me" and "it is disturbing when Commons allows people who think that Pedophiles do not wrong to be admin" is way out of order. He calls the users that do not agree with him for pedophiles! I find that totally unacceptable and we should not allow such personal attacks. --MGA73 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair that's not how I would read those statements - rather he's upset at admins who think pedophiles "are okay" or "do not wrong". Dcoetzee (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I am unsure why you are reading them so charitably. Ottava also wrote me to claim that he was writing the mass-media to inform them of my "promotion of pedophilia".. And he posted these claims on several other online forums. :( Even if the claims were limited to asserting that I thought "are okay"/"do no wrong" these certainly don't reflect my views— I'd consider them vicious slurs. Because of the level of public concern about this subject in my country if claims like these were widely spread it could cost me my livelyhood. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose indef block. An indef block seems a bit too much, too hasty, at this point in time. Agree with above comment, by Dcoetzee (talk · contribs). Also, Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) appears to have had his own user talk page access revoked, so he cannot even respond or post an unblock request. That should be undone, as it appears to have been made without prior abuse of the user's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm allowing Ottava to edit his talk page. I believe this should be uncontroversial. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • A block should be in place, definitely, but not indefinite. He must promise (I dunno) to not get into controversial threads, or something. Ottava showed to be a great content contributor at the English Wikipedia, he is trusted with Sysop (Custodian) at Wikiversity and Importer right at the Simple English Wikipedia. He should just not involve in things he should not. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. It means we don't know when it ends. In this case I think it should end if there is a commitment to change behaviour in some way, but ending it before then isn't helpful. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) has posted a statement, at his user talk page [43]. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a long and boring point by point response to what I perceived to be an effort to complain about me in order to distract attention to his own behaviour: User_talk:Gmaxwell/OR_response_20100709. I think it's uninteresting and that you probably shouldn't read it unless you actually do have some concern about my involvement.

I think it may be informative to point out that in all his words, Ottava said almost nothing about his past pattern of behaviour which has resulted in much criticism and several blocks here, and said absolutely nothing to imply that his future behaviour would not be more of the same. It is this continued lack of self-awareness and complete lack of interest in improvement which causes me to believe that an indefinite block is in the best interest of both Ottava and the rest of commons. At this point we have no rational reason to believe that continuing to issue periodic short term blocks will do anything except cause increased resentment and hostility. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And he does not comment the part where he says "that pedophiles are okay decide to block me". I'm dissapointed that 2 admins defend such statements. If we allow (support) that users call other pedophiles then I think we would have a rough tone on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose indef. The point has not been reached where a nuclear option is appropriate. Both users should probably avoid each other, but at this point a indef would be premature and unwarranted. Geoff Plourde :D (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Geoff, I'm curious as to which users you are talking about when you say "both users"? --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You and Ottava Geoff Plourde :D (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you've significantly misunderstood the situation, but I can hardly blame you for missing that considering that your only two non-userpage edits this year were showing up to support Ottava in a poll. :) This didn't arise out of a dispute between me and Ottava. In any case, he's unblocked now, fwiw. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock proposal

After talking with some admins via IRC, and with the acceptance of Ottava, I propose a few restrictions for Ottava to get him out of controversies for at least 3 months.

User:Ottava Rima should only edit uncontroversially, in the main, File: and User: namespace (including their respectives talk namespaces). Ottava should show that he has constructively edited Wikimedia Commons for 3 months, and after that time he will be able have to ask his mentor (hence User:Diego Grez) if it is an appropriate time to request the relaxing of the restrictions. Therefore, a new discussion should be prompted here (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections). If consensus is gained, Ottava will be able to edit again the other namespaces guardedly. If Ottava attempts to edit outside any of the already mentioned namespaces while restricted, he should be re-blocked at any admin's discretion. Thoughts? Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds perfectly acceptable to me. Ottava has already agreed to this? --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible and reasonable proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he just did. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have lifted the block. With the his own acceptance of the terms, I didn't see any reason to wait to work out the mentorship details since it was only really applicable at the end of the restrictions. I think I should refrain from participating in that discussion. Cheers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call. --JN466 00:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal sounds fine to me. The only issue I have is Diego Grez (talk · contribs) being Ottava's mentor. No offense but judging by his block log, I do not think he is a suitable candidate. I would rather see someone else fill that role. Tiptoety ^talk 01:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I should just monitorize him. After all, since these blocks, I have progressed lots. :-) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues with this. fr33kman -s- 01:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, I think the proposed unblock (and conditions) is fine; the choice of mentor is certainly not. A well established, and never blocked person should be the mentor. fr33kman -s- 02:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That I have been blocked once doesn't mean I'm not able to manage a situation like this. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case it does. Ottava is/has been considered under a cloud; the same thing for you. Your socking issues, block, etc., makes it hard to support you in this situation. Ottava needs a totally clean mentor. fr33kman -s- 03:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I would like to see an administrator be the mentor here, not a previously blocked user. Tiptoety ^talk 16:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I share the concern. Diego has had a lengthy period being mentored by a very capable individual, so I'm sure he's learned a lot about mentoring. If he were offering to mentor a newbie who'd had a disastrous start, I'd support him, but I don't think he's ready to mentor an old hand, who needs careful handling and a mentor with some authority. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's great that Diego wants to help, but in this case, someone much more experienced might be a better approach. Ottava will run rings around anyone but the most patient and phlegmatic mentor. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep him blocked. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment It seems is ok to call other user pedophiles but not to nominate copyvios... I can not agree to that... --MGA73 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am missing on something,I have never looked at all the diffs of Ottava on the subject, but I did look at the ones they got blocked for [44] and [45]. I see no problems with those differences alone, but as I said I have not looked at everything, and maybe I am missing on something. Did they really call somebody a pedophile? Where? Could somebody please explain what is going on here? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read this one, the Kuiper one and the paedophile import topics - they're all more or less related. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It is hard to answer in few words the questions I asked. Well, I have much more interesting things to read than those topics.I probably should not have posted here at all. Sorry about that.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Tetraethylmethan.svg

Please semi-protect this file. Reason: [46], [47], [48]. I don't want to do it myself. --Leyo 08:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done -mattbuck (Talk) 10:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Only one week might be a bit short. --Leyo 10:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's more trouble just give me a shout. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)