Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections

Administrator assistance
Vandalism (post | watch) To report vandalism	User problems (post | watch) To report problems with other users you cannot resolve yourself	Blocks & protections (post | watch) To discuss blocks and protections	Other (post | watch) To post messages that do not fit into any other category
To request an edit to a protected page: Add {{editprotected}} to your request on the talk page.	Have an idea or suggestion? Generic community discussion takes place at the Village pump.	CheckUser requests → COM:RFCU. Renames → COM:CHU. Other bureaucrat requests → COM:BN.	Other resources: Need help? Try the FAQ, or the Help desk.

[graph/hist] Toolserver status
Last update 06:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
MySQL rosemary up
MySQL daphne up
MySQL yarrow up
Replag s1 0h 0m 0s
Replag s2 0h 1m 19s
Replag s3 0h 0m 7s
Replag s4 0h 0m 1s
Replag s5 0h 0m 0s
Replag s6 0h 0m 21s
More information...

This page is for any user to discuss blocks and protections. Please feel free to add comments. Remember to sign and date all contributions, using "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.

Please note: for limited protection like en-wp main page, please state file and time span.

Admins: once you've dealt with a request, please make a note, so that other admins don't waste time responding to it.

Policies: blocking policy, protection policy

• 1 Semi-protect File:Miniauge.gif, File:Miniauge2.gif
• 2 User talk:S1
• 3 File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg
• 4 Please block User:This flag once was red
• 5 File protection
• 6 User:Allme128
• 7 Unblock File:Google_Buzz_logo.png
• 8 Semi-protection of File:Nuvola apps iconthemes.png
• 9 Protection of Japan and Korea maps
• 10 Block of Slomox

Semi-protect File:Miniauge.gif, File:Miniauge2.gif

I request semi-protection of File:Miniauge.gif and File:Miniauge2.gif. The former is included on 2000+ pages on de.wikipedia, the latter on some 80, mostly talk pages, as they are/were part of the signature of de:user:Ralf Roletschek. Currently, there is a poll on de.wikipedia (de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Gestaltung von Signaturen) dealing with banning images from users’ signatures, and these files are inviting targets for disruptive actions attempting to influence the poll, and will keep on being inviting targets for vandalism, as uploading new versions will influence many pages and may cause high server load, cf. en:WP:SIG#Images (Ich beantrage Halbschutz für File:Miniauge.gif und File:Miniauge2.gif. Ersteres ist auf über 2000 Seiten auf de.wikipedia eingebunden, letzteres auf etwa 80, meist Diskussionsseiten, weil sie Bestandteil der Signatur von de:user:Ralf Roletschek sind/waren. Derzeit läuft auf de.wikipedia ein Meinungsbild (de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Gestaltung von Signaturen), das sich damit beschäftigt, Bilder in Benutzersignaturen zu verbieten, und diese Dateien sind willkommene Ziele für Störaktionen, um die Abstimmung zu beeinflussen, und werden weiterhin willkommene Ziele von Vandalismus sein, weil das Hochladen neuer Versionen viele Seiten beeinflusst und hohe Serverbelastung verursachen kann, siehe en:WP:SIG#Images). I have just protected the corresponding file pages on de.wikipedia to avoid „shadowCommons“ vandalism. Thanks --dealerofsalvation 11:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit ist Semi, Upload nur für admins ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 11:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)) [upload=sysop] (expires 11:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC))--DieBuche (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:S1

I don't think it's a good thing for an administrator to protect his/her own talk page. If someone is using their talk page inappropriately, that person should be blocked; but removing entirely the possibility for regular users to contact them is a really bad idea for an admin. Please unprotect. –Tryphon^☂ 20:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Done and notified him/her about this section. ZooFari 20:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg

There was edit warring on this file File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg, which is a CIA map circa 1992. Some users insisted in uploading modified maps according to their points of view. As this map is extensively used in WP, I reverted to the original version and protected it against edits and uploads for 2 weeks, to allow things to cool down. My view is that simple editing should be enabled to allow addition of descriptions in other languages while the page must be protected indefinitely against uploads. Any objections? SV1XV (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is good. Saadwand (talk · contribs) and others are edit warring over this and other related files. Warnings on talk pages may be helpful. I asked Saadwand and Abuadab to follow Commons guidance on disputed diagrams. I reverted and protected File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (2002).jpg for two weeks. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Edit protection for unregistered users expires in two weeks. Protection against uploads is now permanent. SV1XV (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please block User:This flag once was red

Hi! Once upon a time I was "This flag once was red". Then I changed username on en.wiki, and now I'm "TFOWR". I redirected the old userpage to my new one back in June 2009, but the old account has been lying dormant ("TFOWR" is a global account across all projects).

Earlier today I discovered that I have an impersonator on simple.wiki, so I'm being a wee bit more security-conscious than I have been previously.

So... could I ask someone to block This flag once was red (talk · contribs)?

Many thanks! TFOWR 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I reviewed the information and there are relevant elements showing than TFOWR = This flag once was red.

An not more used account could indeed be a security hole, so the request isn't illegitimate.

Furthermore, this block doesn't create any prejudice to any user or regular site operation, so I accept the request.

Thus, the account User:This flag once was red is blocked indefinitely. --Dereckson (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Dereckson. TFOWR 07:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File protection

Should we change most of our protected files to upload and move protection only instead of edit protection? In most cases, the description page doesn't need protection (unless there's some dispute or persistent vandalism). This will allow non-admins (and bots) to update templates, add/improve descriptions, change categories etc. while still preventing the image from changing. I modified {{protected file}} to generate a different color icon (green for now, but I think en.wp uses purple so I'll change it that) in the top-right corner instead of displaying the standard warning so that users will know they can still edit the page itself. Rocket000 (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem unreasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason this wasn't done earlier is that in the last implementation of the "upload protection" feature there was some bug and everything had to be reverted to full protection. AFAIK the current version is bug free, but I rarely come across protected files.  Docu  at 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Allme128

• 2ne14ever (talk • contribs • Luxo's • VVV's • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) (sockmaster)
• Allme128 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • VVV's • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) (sock puppet)

I need a block on User:Allme128, whom I just blocked on en.wiki as a clear sock puppet of blocked user and serial copyright violator User:2ne14ever. In addition, all images uploaded by Allme128 need to be checked for copyvios; at least one of them is a magazine cover that lacks any licensing information. Regards, MuZemike (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. I will let others take a look at the uploads, though, they appear to be copyvios to me. Tiptoety ^talk 04:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 07:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock File:Google_Buzz_logo.png

This should be deleted and kept on Wikipedia only. The logo currently on Commons is from the old version of Google logos because contributors simply thought that the thought bubble caused it not to work under the current licensing. Like most Google logos, this should be on Wikipedia with the thought bubble and a logo fur (fair-use statement). Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Google logos like this one are ineligible for copyright ({{PD-text}}). If the version with the thought bubble complicates the image so that it does not justify the PD-text license, then yes it should be on Wikipedia. This particular version does not need to be deleted and kept at Wikipedia, however. ZooFari 05:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks so much! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection of File:Nuvola apps iconthemes.png

I just reverted three vandalisms (1, 2, 3) from File:Nuvola apps iconthemes.png. I request a semi-protection of this file, due to its global usage. Thank you. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 07:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Done [1] by User:Dferg Gnangarra 02:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Japan and Korea maps

Could an admin handle the edit warring at these Korea - Japan maps? I have tried showing how the parties can resolve the dispute without reverting but there seems to be a language and/or comprehension issue. I am hoping that protection will focus minds on productive work.

• File:North Korea launch site in Sea of Japan map.png, should be protected at this revision, which is the same as the original revision. See File talk:Japan sea map.png#Stop edit warring for the alternate version I created that should have satisfied both parties.
• File:Japan sea map.png, this needs reverting to this version and then protection

Thank you. -84user (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - don't make me come back there. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Block of Slomox

Slomox (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring with one user [2] and three other administrators [3] [4] [5]. I believe this constitutes grounds for a temporary block, but since I have been involved in the reversions, will not apply it myself. The direct cause of the reversions is over what we believe to be his personal attack on a user, which is extremely concerning behaviour for an admin, and may justify other censure, but this request is just about the edit warring. Related discussion can be found here [6]. --99of9 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you guys... always finding things to fight about. What good will a block do? If he's willing to edit-war, what's stopping him from unblocking himself? Blocking admins never makes sense. Desysop him if you really think it's problem. Rocket000 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Would you like to name the time when I last "found something to fight about"? I do not remember fighting about anything recently, and certainly haven't with Slomox, who I have never come across before. The "good" of a block is usually just to make a user take stock and cool down, that's all it's designed to achieve. If an administrator overturned a justified block, that would be a clear breach, and I would certainly call for desysop, but I do not think Slomox would do this, I believe he would respect a block. --99of9 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. I meant the general "you", as in Commoners that do things like this. Maybe just a threat of blocking would work? Rocket000 (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago an English wikipedia admin got blocked for 31 hours or something like that. He unblocked himself, and blocked his blocking admin for the same time. Of course he was desysoped at once. If an admin did something the other editor will get blocked for, he should be blocked, and either respect the block, or post unblock request as everybody else will. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what 99of9 said was enough to answer my question. I didn't disagree with him. Move on and talk about the block. :) Rocket000 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact he unblocked himself back in 2008. I am not sure what happened back then, but even if a block was issued by mistake, a proper unblocking process should have been followed.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to bring up stuff from two years ago, I think it's only fair that you do find out what happened back then (it's not that hard to find). See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 7#User:ChristianBier. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, if it's a mistake, you can unblock yourself. In the same way you can undone any (real) mistakes without going through any process. Let's not get crazy bureaucratic for no reason. Rocket000 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Slomox's action. His "crime" was to edit his own talk page. To me, putting a ban circle over Floydian was not a serious personal attack; just a parody of Floydian's own action that stated a simple opinion about images on userpages. More to the point, he was defending Commons from an unproductive idea of running around deleting things you don't like from others' userpages. His "edit warring" remained within a single 3RR bound. There is no reason for a block or other penalty. Wnt (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Wnt. It's refreshing to hear a sane comment on here (getting so rare nowadays). "Personal attack" is so misused and overused, it's getting up there with "troll" and "vandalism". I'm not sure people even know what a real attack looks like. Furthermore, one could just look at that discussion to know Slomox didn't mean it as such. It just seems like an excuse to suppress things you don't like and control others, but what do I know. Rocket000 (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I also see Slomox edit on own userpage as a parody. The whole thing could have gone better but no reason for a block. Lets not waste more energy here. I am going to close this. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No reason to block. My respect for this fellow admin dropped to a 2 out of 10 however. We have enough of this bull on enwp, I see no reason why we should accept this from admins on Commons and be silent about it. Like I said before, he can talk all he want, but to make personal attacks by an admin is never a good thing, and doing it as visible as this isn't appropriate at ALL. And then yourself issuing a block, although technically perhaps allowed was an even larger oversight. If it was so bad, you could have asked any fellow admin to look into it, to avoid a conflict of interest and coming across to the other user as a power hungry admin. Basically, total fuck up and it could have easily been avoided by some common sense on the part of Slomox. TheDJ (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my initial statement? This is NOT about the personal attack, this is about edit warring. Surely we don't need the 3RR to recognize an edit war when we see it? The only reason it didn't come up was because the other party was always polite enough to only revert once. 99of9 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bright-line rules are easy to understand and enforce. I don't see any reason to try and enforce non-bright-line rules here, especially as the initial behavior is over.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, is this really over, when User:Slomox (1) abused his or her position; (2) is unrepentant; (3) and we have every reason to believe they will feel free to repeat this kind of behavior in future?

Most of you, maybe all of you are administrators. I am not an administrator. As an ordinary contributor I want to feel I can trust the administrators I interact with to behave responsibly. If they have to be firm, I also want them to be fair, to be as tactful as circumstances allow, and to set an example for other contributors.

Many of the comments here seem to offer the opinion that since all Slomox was doing was parodying someone who he or she thought had acted badly and who had frustrated them, there was no harm done. I strongly disagree. I want to participate in projects where the administrators hold themselves above responding in kind -- even if they think the ordinary contributor they are mocking has shown bad faith.

1. you should not respond in kind because it sets a bad example for newbies, who should look to you for the kind of behavior they should emulate;
2. you should not respond in kind because it is not an equal battle. if you must parody others parody your fellow administrators -- where it is a fair fight.
3. you should not respond in kind, even if you think the other party has acted in bad faith, because on some occasions you are going to be mistaken and be alienating someone who made a good faith mistake.

Some of the comments here, and back on the thread on the village pump point out that the contributor who first raised Slomox's use of imagery to mock them was an unsympathetic character, who raised their concern in an unsympathetic fashion. Well even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Without regard to that contributor's wrongful action in editing third parties' user pages without consensus or permission to do so, they should not be mocked. That was unprofessional. Various people have defended Slomox's parody, saying, essentially, that his real meaning should have been obvious, and it wasn't a personal attack. Well, the individual who was the target felt they were being attacked. That is sufficient to make this use of mockery a mistake, one that sets a bad example for newbies. Do we want newbies to claim their use of mockery was OK because they saw an administrator claim their real meaning was clear?

If we can express our concerns in a civil, clear policy compliant manner that is what w should use. If we can't express our concerns in clear policy compliant manner I suggest those concerns should remain unexpressed. Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here. An administrator creating anti-user images is completely unacceptable. ANY USER creating anti-user images is unacceptable. I also agree with Floydian that political images should not be allowed on userpages as a statement - I made such a proposal a few months back after the latest no-israel flareup. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Mattbuck. Completly unnaceptable from any user (and even worse from an administrator) in my humble opinion. In other projects where I am active that kind of behaviour would lead into an inmediate block for personal attacks. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to block Floydian for calling him an asshole?[7]--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How is Floydian's behavior relevant to a discussion of whether Slomox crossed the line into unacceptable behavior?

Aren't ALL contributors encouraged to not respond in kind when they perceive they are the target of incivility? Aren't all administrators asked to step aside when they feel their emotions have become engaged, in order to prevent exactly this kind of perceived abuse of authority? If Slomox came to a low opinion of Floydian's character or judgment surely he or she should have kept those opinions to themself -- given that they had already put on their administrator hat, and exercised their administrative powers. If Slomox wanted some kind of action taken because they felt Floydian insulted him or her surely they should have asked an univolved administrator to look in, and take the appropriate action -- in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest?

I know I am human, this is why I make an effort to own up when I realize I made a mistake. As an ordinary contributor I don't expect our administrators to never make mistakes. I do expect our administrators to do what we should all do -- openly acknowledge when we recognize we made a mistake. Owning up is important for various reasons, including that it builds trust. When someone acknowledges a mistake it is less likely they will keep repeating that mistake. And when they don't, it erodes trust. So far Slomox seems completely unrepentant, which suggests they have every intention of continuing to use parody to blow off steam, even though doing so to non-administrators is a kind of bullying.

Just to be clear here -- are you disputing that Slomox's use of parody is consistent with our policies and conventions on civility? Geo Swan (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't talking about Floydian's behaviour, but about Dferg's hypothetical behaviour. This discussion isn't just about Slomox, it's also about how certain users have responded to his behaviour as we're obviously not unanimous on the subject. Rocket000 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My last night comments were about blocking an admin in general. I've never looked at the provided differences. I did today. That admin should be blocked and before that desysoped. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Against, I understand Slomox posting as an humorous edit and dont see the problem. Note the satirical use of anti-flags on Slomox userpage, note the initial comment by Floydian ("You are the first user I have come across that is using the anti-flags in a well meaning way"), note the direct reaction. Incidentially I have Slomox talkpage on my watchlist, I saw the posting by Floydian and I saw Floydian's editing behaviour. He was vandalizing other peoples userpages, I was about to answer and warn Floydian. Slomox' reaction appears to be a cynicism on Floydian's combination of vandalism and plaudit for correct use, it not appears to be a personal attack. --Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My view exactly. Rocket000 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

All in all a waste of time. Let's close this. Slomox will not be blocked because of this - really. --High Contrast (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)