Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:AN/B • COM:AN/P • COM:RFPP

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

  • For page protection requests, please state protection type, file name, and proposed protection time span. See also: Protection Policy.
  • Before proposing a user be blocked, please familiarize yourself with the Commons' Blocking Policy.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/B|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


Topup10

A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

User:JosephC5

JosephC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Block for reuploading at least 12 copyright violating images of Costa Rican buildings that were deleted in this DR and this DR. They have deletion notices on their talk page going back to 2017 and have been blocked twice before for unfree uploads. By this pattern, I believe that this user just refuses to accept that there's no FoP in Costa Rica. — Rubýñ (Scold) 21:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked Joseph for 3 months (3rd block) and mass deleted all his uploads. Taivo (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

DUCK socks?

Hello,

NeoArchivist888 (talk · contributions · Statistics) and ByteChronicleXYZ (talk · contributions · Statistics) seem to be socks or meatpuppets. Evidence: same kind of spam-like AI-made uploads with similar names and appearances. That would be against the rule of w:WP:SCRUTINY, assumed applicable here per the link to EN-WP on COM:SOCK. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These additional accounts are doing the same:
Marbletan (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done All blocked, all files deleted. Could you please create a request for check user, to catch sleepers and block the range(s)? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thank you, Yann. Here is one more: DataMancer777 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . I'll create a checkuser request now. Marbletan (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now started a checkuser request: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/NeoArchivist888. Marbletan (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Avenue 2018 sock

New account uploading the same kind of unwanted content as past User:Star Avenue 2018 socks; repetitively dark and blurry photos of Hong Kong at night, as if someone has just walked along taking photos and then uploaded the whole camera folder to Commons. Belbury (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Abch222

User has racked up 10 copyright violations. I'm also skeptical about the rest of their images being their own work – some are missing relevant metadata which is suspicious. EthanL13 | talk 21:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any action is required. The user has not been warned and has no recent activity (last edit is 4 months ago). If anything is wrong with their rest of uploads, take the files to DR. --Ratekreel (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought the notices on the talk page sufficed as warnings. He has been warned now so I suppose this topic can be archived. EthanL13 | talk 13:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EthanL13: I, too, thought the notices on the talk page sufficed as warnings.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think so. Nothing in those notices indicates any possibility of a sanction. Barring blatant vandalism, egregious harassment, etc., we need at least one explicit warning. Just "we're deleting your file because it doesn't belong here" doesn't amount to a warning that you are liable to have your account blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When nominated for deletion, sure. But images marked as templates results in this message on talk pages: "Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." Personally, that reads as a sufficient warning. EthanL13 | talk 20:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a sufficient warning. I believe all levels of the relevant user message template should be used before bringing them to this board unless the case is so obvious that warning is not required. Ratekreel (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratekreel: I guess you are outflanking me on the other side. If I see something that blatantly looks like vandalism from a user with no constructive edits, I don't see any need to go one warning at a time. I'll go right to a final warning. And if it's bad enough (e.g. racist remarks, obscenities aimed at individual contributors, etc.) I'll skip right past the warnings and block. But copyright violations are often from well-intentioned poorly-informed people, and we want to give them a chance to learn. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratekreel and Jmabel: So this edit I made three years ago was in vain?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you linked adds the word "warning". I have no idea why you say that "was in vain". Are you saying that alone is sufficient warning? I think there is a strong consensus among the admins that it is not.
Again: very often people violate copyright because they don't understand how it works, not because they are willfully doing something wrong. Someone needs to engage with them so that they understand what is going on, not just punish them like a mysterious force from above. At some point, failure to achieve competency becomes a reason for blocking in its own right, but we can't assume users will arrive competent.
Copyright is complicated, and people are taught almost nothing about it in school. I grew up the son of a publisher, and I've been involved in Wikimedia projects over 20 years, and had published a fair amount even before that, and I still keep learning new things about copyright, especially in countries other than my own.
They say that for everyone that asks a question openly, probably ten people had that same question and didn't ask. Think about that when you consider how many really naive questions/presumptions about copyright we get on the help desk and VP/C: "It must not be copyrighted, because there was no notice," "It's really old, like from the 1980s, so it must be out of copyright by now", "the company that published it no longer exists, so it can't be copyrighted", or above all, "It has to be in the public domain, I found it three different places online". These are not people being disingenuous. These are people we have to help learn if they are going to be useful here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I deleted 2 files speedily due to failed license review. I and Yann both nominated something for deletion as well. Yann warned Abch. Currently that's enough. Taivo (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks. This might be possibly be the source of the one you've nominated. EthanL13 | talk 16:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User 173.165.191.21

See Special:Contributions/173.165.191.21, suspected block evasion for IP user: Special:Contributions/2601:CF:8200:5830:0:0:0:0/64. This user kept adding irrelevent infos to category pages. I already manually reverted their edits back in January, but they did the same thing again. Tvpuppy (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I reverted edits and blocked the IP yesterday. Taivo (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Amruthaaa

Uploading further copyvios after two warnings by GreenMeansGo 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 12:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Everything is either deleted or nominated for deletion. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Please see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AzWikiThinker. VRT ticket notwithstanding, please consider whether File:Rahid Zahid Alekberli.jpg should remain. I see it as SD F10 advert (each of these editors appear to be Rahid Zahid Alekberli. The enwiki drafts are unlikely to go anywhere since "both" editors are indeffed there. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"They" have edited on multiple WMF sites. If the threshold for global locks has been passed please consider a GL request 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Commons sockpuppetry

Both editors seem remarkably interested in uploading (and reuploading when deleted) pictures relevant to the same individual. Certainly something worth explaining. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw the photo on the Em Visão magazine website, which is free to use and upload. I don't know if another editor is doing the same, but the goal is to correct Davi Santiago de Souza's encyclopedia. Enzo Duart (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Enzo Duart If you believe that the the file File:Davi Santiago de Souza.jpg shoudl not be speedily deleted as a copyright violation you shoudl use the big grey button under the deletion notice on that page to challenge speedy deletion. However the source page clearly states "© Todos os direitos reservados" which is stating that the photo is not free to use.
This thread is simply asking administrators to check the relationship between both the named editors. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 14:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Enzo Duart is indeffed. MentorZero is blocked for a month. Uploads wiped as CSD G10 (spam). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Honestly1816

Looks like a new sock of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nv7801 - similar MO (fake flags, particularly of US cities). Omphalographer (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Already blocked by Achim55. Yann (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slavic europe.svg

Constant and continuous slow-moving edit war between numerous accounts Zinderboff (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that the differences are about (1) whether to recognize Kosovo as independent of Serbia, and therefore with a non-Slavic official language and (2) whether to mark some borders within Ukraine for de facto control (or perhaps Russian territorial claims, its hard to say which because there is almost no overt discussion.
It amuses me perversely that it seems that the party that wants the map to show the almost totally internationally unrecognized claims of separate status in Ukraine is the same one that wants to ignore the recognition of Kosovo by the majority of countries in the UN. (Also, assuming we should show Kosovo as a country: I'm pretty sure Serbian is co-official in Kosovo.)
At some point, if we cannot get agreement on one map, we probably need to split this, because not all Wikipedias should be forced to one or the other view of the sovereignty issues. I imagine we could come up with a form that somehow marks disputed sovereignty.
I'm guessing this is far from the only map where we have some question about showing these particularly places as separate states or not. Is there any solution that has been applied successfully elsewhere? - Jmabel ! talk 05:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think splitting the work into a new map is probably a good alternative rather than constant reverting. The arguments stated for not including Kosovo seem to be entirely based on international recognition, though as Jmabel stated the same parties are fine with showing completely unrecognised separatist claims in Ukraine. Zinderboff (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I've split the file into File:Slavic europe (Kosovo unshaded).svg and File:Slavic europe (Kosovo shaded).svg, linked the two with one another as alternate versions, and put in a warning that further edit warring will result in a block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone make a version where Kosovo is both shaded and bordered? As mentioned earlier, Serbian seems to be a co-official language in the country, meaning it could be included in a version of the map showing it as an independent country. Zinderboff (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there one in the file history? I could split that out. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's sort of a version from 21:30, 8 November 2014. It shows Kosovo bordered, but unshaded. This version also has the problem of thick borders and the unrecognised state of Transnistria, which is a whole other can of worms.
As for version which include Kosovo *both* shaded and bordered, there doesn't seem to be any in the file history. Zinderboff (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Belated remark: part of the problem on Kosovo is that the term "national language" isn't necessarily the same as "official language". I suspect we want a distinct shading (maybe diagonal stripes or such) for Kosovo, because while Serbian is co-official, if "national language" is supposed to be singular then that would certainly be Albanian.
FWIW, just to show how complicated this can get, the U.S. has no official language, and the many efforts to make English "official" have always failed; still, I don't think anyone would doubt that insofar as there is a "national language" there, it's English. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

privacy violation

Hi, can you please hide this two versions? I warned the user.

Thanks, - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Ratekreel --Bedivere (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sockpuppet of MentorZero

Uploaded File:Assinatura de Davi Santiago de Souza.png in November. SPA. I think that is the final one for the present, but time will tell.

Thanks you The Squirrel Conspiracy for playing w:en:Whac-A-Mole with the others earlier. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 23:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections&oldid=996431664"