Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

Note

• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
  

The discussion around this flag catches my eye. At first it did not seem to be something special. Just the average dispute over the colors of a flag. However when I took a closer look I saw a lot more drama, a cleaned upload log and a blocked user. Of course this editwar is not okay but blocking one party is not working deescalating either. In my opinion all parties should have been blocked or none of them (which would have been the best solution imho) and this is what concerns me. There is absolutely no consensus to do history cleanups either. Non-admins cannot see what happened either. I believed that this discussion escalated because of the tone and I would like to hear some more visions about this case since what happened here is clearly wrong and should not happen again. Natuur12 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I informed Fastily and the persons who where involved in the eddit war. Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained many many times, there are no official sources available for the colour of the flag and photographs are inconclusive as they show various shades used (some show dark and some show light). However, the presidential seal and the flags of the PM, Government, Navy and Army all match the colours legislated for File:Flag of South Korea.svg. It is therefore a proper assumption that the Presidential Standard should also match, that the photos of flags which do not are probably a problem with manufacturing, and that the burden of proof should be on those who want the Presidential Standard to use a different colour to provide some proof that it is supposed to be different. Every time sources are provided to support the Presidential Standard being the same as all the others, they are ignored or excused away. The last time this was discussed, the two users involved were Shibo77 and Shyoon1. Shibo77 contradicted themselves during that discussion by saying it should be the same as the national flag even though they kept arguing for it to use the lighter shade of blue. Shyoon1 has also recently contradicted themselves, strongly claiming that the flag and the seal should be the same, but when confronted with consistent sources over many years of different presidents that the seal is dark blue, they excused it away by saying "ok that's dark blue, but that has no bearing on the flag". When confronted with sources that the flag has also been dark blue, that is explained away by saying "oh those are old flags from old presidents, my photos are current". I have asked several times for some sort of official source, and considering these users speak Korean natively I would expect it easier for them to attempt at finding an official source than I would have any success at, but that request keeps getting turned around and demanded of me instead. Based on all available evidence, everything lies heavily in the direction all of the South Korean government symbols using the same blue as legislated for the national flag.

This discussion escalated yes, but because of Shyoon1's refusal to stop reverting and discuss, and their irate responses when doing so. They were asked several times to stop reverting and would not, and they personally attacked an admin (multiple times) which is why their block is extended the way it was. There is not a doubt in my mind that 10k (a user with only 4 edits), Jjw (who hasn't edited since March), 콩가루 (who hasn't edited in 2 weeks) and Hym411 were requested to join in the discussion by Shyoon1 shortly after their block because they all did so within 2 hours of the blocking, making the impartiality of their views questionable. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...this is official source (Republic of Korea Ministry of Government Legislation). Did you seriously see this source which many users posted? --Neoalpha (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ignore my opinion. I uploaded one video 10 hours ago so the insistence that I didn't contribute in 2 weeks is wrong. Every can discuss about this so I think opinion and contribution is not related. Please admin source of Korean government Neoalpha showed above. --콩가루 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I provided Korean Government's official link that image is supposed to be light blue. Why are you ignoring it? — Revi_complaint? 03:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ignored anything, nor have I said anyone's opinion should be ignored. What I have said is there are no official sources on the right shade of blue, I don't speak Korean but I have used various translators and none of them say 아청색 means "light blue" but simply "blue". I also said that considering this group of users (3 who have no recent edits) all came in to the discussion shortly after Shyoon1 was blocked I think it's pretty obvious why. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10k, Jjw, 콩가루 are active user of korean wikipedia. How rude are you. ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 03:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Korean Wikipedia, and pointing out that users have not had recent edits here on Commons is not rude, it's simple fact. This is rude. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, your comment has clear intent to disparage their opinion and that is nothing but personal attack. ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 03:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not personally attacked anyone, none of us have (thankfully) except for Shyoon1 which is why they are currently blocked. You don't like what I have to say, but that does not make it a personal attack. You would be better served to avoid further accusing me of something I have not done and focus on discussing the matter of this image. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hym411: Is this [1] the link you've mentioned? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. — Revi_complaint? 03:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said about, the only proof it says "light blue" is your sayso, certainly I haven't found any translation of it meaning that. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please bring written source that it is dark blue. (Regarding hanja, try googletranslation, or ask others.) — Revi_complaint? 04:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have used five different translators and none have translated it as "light blue". Fry1989 ^eh? 05:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I asked two Korean speakers to have a peek and give their interpretation of what the document says. In the meantime: Com:mellow please. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem I mentioned above, every time I ask for something it automatically gets mirrored back to me. I asked for an official source on the colour, and I keep getting told "that's not my job, you find one". I have tried, I can't. What I have found is that the seal (which is essentially the same symbol) is consistently dark blue, that the flag has been dark blue in several examples even if not consistently, and that all the other South Korean government flags are also dark blue to match the national flag. The reasonable and prudent assumption is that the presidential flag should also be the same blue as the rest, unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read File_talk:Presidential_Standard_of_the_Republic_of_Korea.svg#Color_of_the_flag as I and some users updated the official resources which are claiming the current color is not correct. So I still don't understand why they'd blocked just one user, one side of opinions. --Naturehead (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shyoon1 was blocked because they made 5 reverts in under 4 days, with several irate demands attached, instead of discussing the matter and awaiting a consensus, even after several requests to stop reverting. It was done to protect the file from more edit warring as it was clear that they would not stop reverting to get their way. Their block was extended for personal attacks. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I researched some histories and found that you've requested him to stop reverting ONCE before the block, for the last 4 years. I think you should've tried to make a consensus with him even though he reverted it repeatedly. Because he showed you new evidences every time and tried make you understand with editing note. It sounds like 'It was done 4 years ago already'. Everything changes and you need to hear someone's unbending opinions when his/her new edit is far too long from the last edit war. --Naturehead (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything having to do with this happened in the last week, I have no clue what you are talking about 4 years. Shyoon1 refused to stop reverting the file, they were asked to stop, they continued, they brought this upon themselves. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shyoon1 also said that we should disregard another user's opinion simply because of his nationality. That type of disgusting bigotry is not tolerated here. He then also had the audacity to groundlessly accuse Fastily of bigotry, simply because he blocked him. It's not hard to see why he was blocked. Illegitimate Barrister 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't count how many times I've been told "you're not from our country, so obviously you can't know as much as we do and your opinions don't matter", I would have quit Commons years ago. I have never once told another user that because they aren't Canadian, they can't know anything dealing with Canadian content on Commons. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Shyoon1 should be unblocked, not only did they revert war (please remember COM:OVERWRITE applies in this case) but they also made disgraceful personal attacks. Bidgee (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989, Naturehead, Hym411, Salamander724, 콩가루, and 콩가루: @Neoalpha and Natuur12:

(c&p) from my talk page:

== In reply to your inquiry ==

Hi, I found myself lucky that I logged on to my account just at the right time, Haha. Okay, let me tell you about the colors there. You will notice that the first and the second picture are the basically the same, just the second one is a more zoomed-in version. Since it is a legal document, it contains some hanja and the colors are also described by it. Here we go,

1. In the first picture, at the top left corner where it says 銀色(은색), means Silver. This word is also there at the bottom.
2. Since it's the same one, let's go to the second picture. In the left, the word 雅靑色(아청색) is written vertically, however this word with this hanja does not exist in any of Korean dictionary. I think this supposed to mean 鴉靑色(아청색), which Korean dictionary describes as: darker than blue, but lighter than navy blue. I think this picture will help you to get some idea.
3. In the same picture, you can see 金色(금색) in the middle bottom and top right corner. This is easy, this means Gold.

If you have further questions, feel free to ask me. :) Have a great day. - Nike787 (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That should be sufficient to end the discussion about the colors. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nike787, thank you for your comment. I would suggest adding it to the discussion at File talk:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea and  Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:ko:雅 says it is "clean, pure" - ask him to see this and ask to comment again. (of course, see history - I never edited) — Revi_complaint? 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a dissenting oppinion on the talk page. Simply, 雅靑 is differ from 鴉靑 and I found the government is officially using brighter color than existing version of the file. --Naturehead (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment simple solution is to have two copies of the standard, add the commentary and these links, and let the wikis decide which they want to use. Commons is not the arbiter of which is right, and should not be preventing the users from one version or the other.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple and impractical, don't pretend you don't know why. Not that it is of any consequence, if you had looked at the discussion on the talk page you would see that we are approaching a resolution. Fry1989 ^eh? 07:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: People should be very wary in saying that some sort of automatic translator trumps native speakers' knowledge of their own language. No, I'd never say "You're not Canadian, you can't have an opinion on Canadian matters" but I would say that, for example, a French Canadian would probably be more likely than an Anglo-Canadian to understand shades of meaning in French. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this whole debate. Don't you guys ever thought about citing original sources? Here are the photographic sources from the Presidential Palace of Korea (Cheong Wa Dae). Clearly, blue shade of the Presidential Standard is lighter than the blue shade of Taeguk (the Yin and Yang symbol) on the National Flag. As an original uploader of the file, I can clearly say that current version according to User:Fry1989 is WRONG. --Nudimmud (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First data:

• 00:06, 26 July 2014: Fastily blocked user Shyoon1 in for 3 days - account creation blocked.
• 00:09, 26 July 2014: Fastily notify user Shyoon1 in his talk page
• 02:48, 26 July 2014‎: User Shyoon1 made 2 comments. His last comment was personal attack over Fastily.
• 09:07, 26 July 2014: Fastily extended the block of Shyoon1 - expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page.
• 09:07, 26 July 2014: Fastily notify user Shyoon1 in his talk page
• 09:31, 26 July 2014‎: Fastily protect the file
• 09:40, 26 July 2014: Fastily made a notice in the files talk page: I've protected the page for 3 months, or until consensus regarding the flag's color is attained. In the meantime, please refrain from making any reverts/changes.

As far as I can see User:Shyoon1 never warned as he should be according to our Commons:Blocking policy. Not for the first block and not to the second block. So User:Shyoon1 should be unblocked.

secondly, It is more than clear that the first unbalanced block without warning bring to bad personal attack against Fastily. The personal attack was wrong behavior of Shyoon1. If you are frustrated from admin action there are ways to handle this. But after user:Fastily was attacked he become an involved admin and the best way to act was to bring the case to other uninvolved admin. Otherwise we have to established new project - COM:JAIL :-). Anyway, I also see that Fastily's action were just after notifications he received from User:Fry1989.

Admins actions in Commons based on policies and guidelines and also on the experience we achieve with the time. There is a certain way we handle canvassing and there is a way we handle with dispute maps and flags. User:Billinghurst tell us exactly the way how to handle with this kind of cases: simple solution is to have two copies of the standard, add the commentary and these links, and let the wikis decide which they want to use. Commons is not the arbiter of which is right, and should not be preventing the users from one version or the other. Instead of that we saw Admin pouring oil on the fire.

I'll say more than that. Admins are not gods on the Olympus. admins are only people that have tools to serve other users. they (we) have more restrictions and we have to be an example of how to behave and apply our policies and guidelines. We all the time have to remember that we are dealing with people's behind the nicknames. We have to explain our actions. We all the time have to prefer warning instead of block.

After this case I am not sure that User:Fastily fully comply after Commons policies and guidelines and the conventional solutions to problems that we achieve with the time. He "shot the gun too fast", he did not appropriately warn user before block, he did not fill that he have to explain his actions any time it's needed as he should do it this thread and her. Geagea (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not warned? Sure I'm not an admin, but I did warn them of two possible outcomes if they continue to revert the file and they chose to continue. As for the extension of the block, it's pretty obvious why that was garnished. This user made personal attacks and accusations of racism while ironically saying to another user "you're not from my country, how dare you involve yourself like you know anything" which is kinda racist, or at least very nationalistic. While Shyoon1 has been blocked, the other users involved in the discussion including myself appear to have neared a resolution, Shyoon1's presence if anything like their actions before the block would be disruptive to that.  Oppose Fry1989 ^eh? 01:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to mention, for those who are such big fans of the idea, that the King David solution is hardly a solution at all. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Yes, I humiliated Fastify. I am sorry about that. Second of all, if Fastify tried to solve with other ways, I could follow his opinion, but he just blocked me without noticing me. Since Fry1989 is not an admin, his caution cannot be counted. Fastify not only discussed the blocking matter with Fry1989, but he did not follow any policy when he blocked me for the first time, so I also support Geagea's opinion. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules that an admin must first warn you before you are blocked for certain behaviours, and Commons is littered with non-administrative users providing warnings to other users about their actions which may lead to some form of protection. That you do not respect me doesn't mean you weren't warned. You made it clear that you would edit war on that file for eternity to get your way and that is why you were blocked. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well, you also discussed about the edit war with Fastify, so you are not free of resposibility. And please see my comment on the file talk page. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin must warn before blocking, see Commons:Blocking policy#Before blocking: user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template. The blocking policy says also that blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one; "cool-down" blocks are not condoned and blocks are a last resort for behaviour. Admin not allowed to behave like a sherif and shoot immediately. User:Fry 1989 you are not sherif deputy, your warning is not count as appropriately warn. Just remember that two years ago you also blocked for edit waring (which you keep doing) but only after alot of warnings. User: Shyoon1, you may upload your version in a different file and suggest your version to wikipedia. Geagea (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does that say an admin must provide the warning? And do you have any evidence of blocks being overturned where a user was warned by another user but not by an admin? I didn't think so. I can provide many cases where users were warned (for whatever behaviour was of concern) by other users to stop doing it, and were subsequently blocked without further warning by an administrator. You appear to care more about criticising me than recognizing why Shyoon1 was blocked, something everyone else seems to be able to see and agree with. IDK what beef you may have with Fastily, but nobody else agrees with you. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) No I have to agree with User:Fry1989, the instruction is that the admin needs to "ensure that the user has been appropriately warned" that can be by any editor and it is not limited to being warned by an admin. As far as I can tell User:Shyoon1 was warned here continued to revert here so was blocked, nothing wrong with that. User:Shyoon1 then made a series of edits to their talk page which were both ill advised and totally inappropriate which resulted in a longer block and the revoking of talk page privileges. If there is any question to be ask about how User:Fastily handled then it is was this extension by Fastily a breach of the principle that an involved admin should not act ? In this case any reasonable admin would have, in my view, done exactly the same (may be for even longer) so the answer is no, it was a reasonable action. LGA _talk^edits 02:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So according to what you say if Shyoon1 warn you now then the next step of Fastily will to block you as you was edit waring as well. Geagea (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LGA, user:Fry1989 was one side of the edit wearing his notification can not be considered as appropriately warned. And more, Fastily should not need to block the user, he can simply protect the file as he done.Geagea (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file was reverted to a specific version by multiple users and Shyoon1 was alone in reverting against it, and they also made it clear they would revert anyone who changes it because they don't agree with the file. That is why they were blocked, they were edit warring against multiple users without a consensus and did not properly try and gain one. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Yes it can, and User:Geagea I think it is time that everyone considers dropping the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. LGA _talk^edits 03:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Fastily did not ask the noticeboard to block me or what, he just simply blocked me as he liked and as Fry1989 asked him to regulate my action. Since he never processed any appropriate procedure, his first block of me is simply wrong and may be thought as the abuse of adminship. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Fry1989 also had an edit war. the history has been erased, but that presidential flag file was first uploaded by User:Nudimmud. But, now the file is seen that Fry1989 uploaded the file first. I am very suspicious that why Nudimmud's version was erased, and why there was no punishment or anything to Fry1989 when he tried to change the background color from light blue to navy blue in 2010. Lastly, He argued that state source indicates that the background color of presidential flag should be same as the blue part of South Korean national flag, but there is no such clause in any Korean law or codes. So, he provided the false evidence in order to justify his edit. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily does not need to ask the noticeboard for permission to block a user, that is at admin discretion, and I warned you that if you kept reverting I would ask for some sort of intervention. You were blocked because you wouldn't stop reverting. You chose your actions and you got the consequence, and you got very rude and ugly about it afterwards. Any previous revision history is irrelevant because it happened years ago (2010 is 4 years ago, completely irrelevant to now). I also provided no such "false evidence", it's clear you didn't even properly read my arguments. I said that it was a reasonable assumption that the flag should match all other South Korean flags, in lack of any evidence to the contrary, and that I had several sources which support it matching, which I do that I linked, but you ignored or tried to excuse away by saying they're too old. You don't even understand the issue at hand, and you choose to ignore any sources that didn't agree with your interpretation. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new info means that it is simply a conspiracy of Fastily and Fry to help Fry to take over highly used file. The file have to revert to the original upload as no consensus about it. Fry may upload new version and convince wikipedia to accept it. Geagea (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy? Now you're just jumping off the deep end. There never was any conspiracy; I had sources and reasonable assumption on my side, I changed the file accordingly. Shyoon1 reverted the change without any sources, 4 times in 2 days, refused to look at or excused away inconvenient sources that showed what they didn't like, edit warred after being reverted by multiple users, and made it clear they would continue to revert the file to keep it how they want it. They were blocked accordingly. I highly suggest you do not pursue this thread of conspiracy further, for your own reputation, because it's making you look silly. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file says that the first file uploaded by you in 22:17, 2 July 2014 but the file history says that the original uploader was user:Nudimmud in 14:50, 21 December 2009 with the light blue. Why? Geagea (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file's history was RevDel'd by another admin named Zscout370 years ago to clean-up it's history. That's why. Zscout370 has not been with us for some time as they have real world things to attend to. Are you going to accuse them of being part of the great conspiracy too? Be careful, you don't know what you're unravelling, could be dangerous! (maniacal laughter). Fry1989 ^eh? 05:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the last admin action of Zscout370 was in 04:15, 27 October 2011 Deleted old revision 20100612193732!Presidential_Standard_of_the_Republic_of_Korea.svg: Accidental creation. But your file is from 2014. That action is by Fastily. Geagea (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Zscout370 RevDel'd a majority of the file's history quite some time ago, I can assure you. When Shyoon1 reverted the change back to the lighter blue the first time, I asked Fastily to RevDel that revision to prevent further edit warring, and they agreed. They only RevDel'd two revisions, one that was uploaded by Zscout370 and the 1st revert made by Shyoon1. You don't even know what you're talking about and you're throwing around baseless accusations of some conspiracy, so I think I'm done here. There is no point in further entertaining such silliness. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very suspicious about this. I remember the flag remained light blue until you changed the color to navy blue in this year. During that process, you never asked any consensus, this is the reason that you convinced me before in this file talk. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And can I ask you again, Where is the source you always talking about? Assumption cannot answers everything and your assumption cannot be justified. In order to change the color, you had to find out sources like users in file talk did, but you never tried. At least I could not find that you were eager to find any sources about the presidential standard of South Korea. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As we can see Fastily deleted the file history several times (the reasons "Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup" or "to improve page load time")[2] The first deletion was indeed from 27. Okt. 2011 by Zscout370 with additional indefinite protection. But then the first deletion (immediately afterwards after unprotecting) on 27. Jan. 2014 comes from Fastily and his very first action was deleting the upload history again. This action is questionable, then also after this again comes the concerning questionable upload (but the real full story-line can only shown by an admin). → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhelion, our Interaction Ban is still in effect, please respect it as you have already broken it once before. As for the other users, I will only say this once: There is not, nor has there ever been, a conspiracy regarding this file. Anybody who believes otherwise is seeing things that are not there. I have posted my sources many times now, Shyoon1 continues to pretend they don't exist or that I didn't post them, but that is completely irrelevant now because we now have these two sources which we are using to reach an agreement on the flag. Further baseless accusations of trying to cover up some big secret conspiracy will only serve to disrupt such an agreement. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no excuse that User:Fastily blocked shyoon1 without warning. The warning comment by Fry1989, who was another party of the edit war, should be considered a threat rather than a warning, as his comments are not neutral any more. Regardless whether the policy requires a warning or not before block, apparently shyoon1 did not expect the block, possibly because he did have sufficient understanding on edit war, and this reflects Fastily's failure to use block as a preventive measure. As the block on shyoon1 over, this debate has no benefit for either party, but it should be noted that the way Fastily block shyoon1 was inappropriate, and Fastily should understand the concerns on this block raised by multiple users. --10k (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, User:Jab7842 has modified Template talk:Speedydelete/en in a misleading way, and afterwards marked is as a “Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup” speedy, after which an admin deleted it. Prior to Jab7842’s edits, the talkpage was not a redirect and had proper real content (for a template talk page, anyway).

I have no idea what is going on and what is Jab7842 trying to achieve (also, cf. Commons:Requests for rights/Denied/Confirmed#Jab7842), but I don’t see any reason to delete a valid talk page with a fulfilled edit request (I don’t think those are commonly deleted), and I suspect some shady business might be involved somewhere, so I’m just mentioning it here and recommending to be cautious.

--Mormegil (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do to his edits he seems not to be a new user and user is bocked for abusing multiple accounts on enwiki. Because i see only vandalism edits and one previous warning i have indef. blocked the account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same editpattern: Special:Contributions/SLV100 (blocked atm), a sock? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A block definitely needed. I was misled by this account in deleting this page. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to take place war of edits in file East Ukraine conflict.png. The question is whether I can upload the earlier version of the file under a different name (of course after registration)? The file was licensed under GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. However I don't know thether the license is applicable to previous versions of the file. --195.50.31.213 19:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the map is getting updated several times a day, as needed(?) @EugeneZelenko and Ahonc: Can you have a look at the sources, please? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This map and sources reflects official Kiev POV. File renaming will be reasonable since it's hard to claim truth only by one side POV. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to complain about the behavior of the User:Parabolooidal. His manner is equate to an "ulcus cancer", because around his appearance dies the existing category trees how the flies. There are deleted important categories, which shall serve as collection and base point for further subcategories. In this special cases it concerns the city-categories in the Ghana portal. Here were destroyed structures how "markets by city", "housing by city", "commerce by city" "city by time" and the displaced pictures to great parts placed in "shops by city..." and "street vendors by city" and other unexactly categories of an own creation for Ghana. At that are deleted my own deletion-applications without any explanation and categories which were deleted by administrators are presently again a half hour later. The single result is a contribution to the creation of the state of a greatest-possible chaos under hundreds of pictures which were already categorized on order structures so that one can find searchrf pictures rapidly beside of a contentual points of view. After this manner were destroyed several weeks work in only two days and that without of any communication in the prefield about sense or nonsense of faulty categories. Is that the professional policy of Commons co-workers with administrator rights....?

In special case it concerns the categories:

• Category:Retail in Ghana by city, the term "retail" shall correspond to the German "Einzelhandel" - a translation which is used also in other country portals of the Commons.
• Category:Housing in Ghana, the term "housing" shall correspond to the German "Wohnungswesen"
• Category:Markets in Ghana by city, here shall get showed real places of the retail, equally if developed with buildings or not
• Category:Ports and harbours in Ghana, an harbour is seen in his entity as "building", because what shall be else there
• Categories how: History of city by period]], and there subcategories according to century, decade and year, for instance corresponding to the example category:Magdeburg by year
• Category:Beaches of Ghana and Category:Coasts of Ghana and its subcategories are deleted arbitrarily from the already categorized pictures (Beaches are not a part of a coast...?)

That all concerns mainly the cities: Accra, Elmina and Cape Coast, where the mentioned "...by city"-categories were deleted at the single pictures. All this categories were created after the categories in other country-portals - So, there is no cause to destroy these in the case of Ghana. Has the deletor ever studied at all? If yes, then the subject of his studies was neither architecture nor economy nor urbanization and urban structure planning or so similar nor he is an entrepreneur which have to pay the working times of other persons nor he has a view on the present result of the work of others . Please, stop User:Parabolooidal in his destructive behavior! We can speak about all, but arbitrary destroy and deletions can not be the serious policy of the Commons. --Katharinaiv (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from COM:AN. Here looks more appropriate. — Revi_complaint? 06:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katharinaiv, seems you’ve been doing a great job at categorizing and creating categories, but it would be useful if you linked to examples of the behaviour you’re complaining about. Parabolooidal should also offer his view (which I really hope is not the inane and miopic excuse that «those categories were empty or underpopulated», favored by cat tree vandals — a few admins included). -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Parabolooidal

I think Katharinaiv should have tried to discuss and compromise with me on my talk page first before posting about me at other forums. I was trying to use categories in a way that is similar to their use in other countries and to follow their examples. I believe the Commons should use categories that the common user of various background and education can understand. I started by trying to find images of specific towns, villages such as Winneba and Category:Busua but I found almost none. Then I found that almost all the images were hidden away by being categorized under huge Ghana global categories. For example, images for beaches for various places were all in a huge category Category:Beaches of Ghana and were not broken down to location in Ghana such as Category:Beaches of Winneba, and Category:Beaches of Busua; e.g. the 35 images of beaches of Busua were all in the huge Category:Beaches of Ghana.(I added those subcategories; I don't think huge categories, not subdivided are useful. Busua had two images before the beaches there were added, and someone looking for images of Busua had no way of knowing that 35 Busua images existed elsewhere, and maybe in other global Ghana categories as well.) Also, other countries don't use German language translations of words as a rationale to determine sub category names: e.g. the rationale that the term "housing" shall correspond to the German "Wohnungswesen" used by Katharinaiv above. "Retail" is only used for meta categories in other countries e.g. Category:Retail by country. There is also a meta category Category:Street vendors by country I was willing to discuss the use on my talk page, after Katharinaiv sent me a hostile message there, but that editor chose not to discuss with me.

I did not delete Category:Beaches of Ghana, Category:Housing in Ghana and or other accusations made above. I tried to break down a huge category into subcategories. I also removed parent categories from categories, per instruction that the least number of categories should be used for each image, and images should be be in both the parent category and the subcategory. Is there a rule somewhere that German translations should be used as category names. (Ghana was a Portuguese colony so I don't understand this rationale.

I don't understand this from Katharinaiv: "Has the deletor ever studied at all? If yes, then the subject of his studies was neither architecture nor economy nor urbanization and urban structure planning or so similar nor he is an entrepreneur which have to pay the working times of other persons nor he has a view on the present result of the work of others ." Are such studies a requirement to categorize images on the Commons? Also, do "Portals" make the rules? No one has ever mentioned "portals" to me before and I didn't even know they existed on the Commons. (I know Portals exist on Wikipedia, but the Commons isn't Wikipedia.) Parabolooidal (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone who reads/writes Japanese please make contact with User:Poohmama2950 and try to orient him/her on what Commons is about? Probably well-intentioned, but every single edit so far has been either a copyvio, breaking a template, incoherent, or two or more of these at once. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]