Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 46

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

Urban explorer's photos

Hello,

I report a problem with these 3 files below. These photos have been shot in an old abandoned building which the access is forbidden for security reasons. I contacted the contributor and explain him that it was irresponsible to publish it in WP but he doesn't seem to understand it's a violation of property and this can lead to accidents and engages others to do so. It is a dangerous place and these pictures should be deleted by precaution.

These 2 photos below has been shot in a unsecured abandoned explosives underground store that is now a private property and have not been secured. It violated law on a private property and can lead to accidents for the same reasons. The contributor explained me he was an urban explorer and he had the right to do so, without any authorization from the owners.

I feel concerned because these places are potentially hazardous and forbidden to public. As the creator of these articles (Puits des Combes, Puits du Marais) I wish not to give these informations that can threat people's security.

Thank you --KidA42 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I answered in French to his talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How does the OP here know that visiting these sites is in violation of the law? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

KidA42 -- I'm not sure that's any kind of commonly-recognized reason for image deletion. It certainly doesn't affect the copyright status directly. AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, KidA42 does not ask for deletion. S/He asks that the images should be removed from the article in the French WP. I explain that this should be discussed on WP, not here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Problemas

Olá, por favor me ajudem, têm um sujeito que está usando ilegalmente o meu nome em uma conta suspeita!!! Eu não sou sockpupter! Ele é que deve ser!!!! Por favor, excluam essa conta ou bloqueiem ele do Commons!!! Por favor!!! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Gustavo_neto1 --Gustavo neto (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Agradecido (Please, translate Portuguese to English)! --Gustavo neto (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As per Google Translate: "Hello, please help me have a guy who is illegally using my name in a suspicion account! I'm not sockpupter! It should be!! Please delete this account or block the Commons it! Please!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 09:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest sockpuppet of serial copyright problem user Category:Sockpuppets of Over the Limit

Hi there. The latest sockpuppet in this long line of accounts is User:Fallout perfection. I've blocked the account on enwiki on the basis of identical behaviour. The latest image File:Cesaro vs orton.jpg is a copyvio from somewhere on wwe.com - tineye reports a few hits. Can someone do the honors ? - Peripitus (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File gone + blocked. --Denniss (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response - Peripitus (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Confirming this. --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jhalvico, Latironicoec, Pablo685002

Hi,

I suspect Jhalvico (talk · contribs) to have several sockpuppets used to upload copyvios and remove warnings. May be a checkuser is needed.

Files uploaded by this user were nominated for deletion by @Gunnex: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jhalvico.
Among these Latironicoec (talk · contribs) removed warnings on 2 files: Special:Contributions/Latironicoec.
The same user made this edit as his first contribution, which I find suspicious.
Pablo685002 (talk · contribs) uploaded a picture of the same town, also of small size and without EXIF data.

Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Latironicoec is

Likely; Pablo685002 is

Stale. I've blocked Latironicoec. As you're familiar with the situation, you can address Jhalvico based on behaviour. (Please also try to use COM:RFCU for these in the future.) Эlcobbola _talk 14:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I was not sure if there is enough evidence to request a formal CU. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Yann -- for a highly experienced Admin such as you, I would say that any suspicion is enough to ask for a formal CU. It is easy to do a check and if it turns out negative, no harm, no foul (while I know that some feel strongly that a CU check is an invasion of privacy, the fact is that we don't make a note of negative results and I, at least, can't remember an IP address for more than a few nanoseconds).

And, as we see above, your guess was good. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Iop sm, Palosirkka

Resolved

Hi,

These users seems to be related:

Iop sm (talk · contribs): 1 spam, 2 edits on Palosirkka's pages, 1 copyvio (deleted).
Palosirkka (talk · contribs): blocked for edit warring in April, plenty of warnings about copyvios.

Regards, Yann (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If this were at COM:RFCU--where it should be--I would be inclined to say

Declined. Iop sm has only edited in Chinese (whereas Palosirkka has 18,769 global edits, primarily on en.wiki, fi.wiki and the Commons, and not in Chinese), the single deleted upload is not at all the same subject matter as uploads by Palosirkka, and the two have no overlapping content/subject interests on other wikis. The edits to Palosirkka's pages appear more likely to be random vandalism (per Google translate) than a link between the two. Эlcobbola _talk 21:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I deleted this edit, and blocked Iop sm for spamming. Yann (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012 07 05 Yael Abecassis.JPG

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

In this deletion request I asked to delete File:2012 07 05 Yael Abecassis.JPG. This an horrible picture of a very famous actress in Israel. She has an articles in 9 Wikipedia. She is a very beautiful woman and this picture was taken in a private moment by user who act like a paparazzo. I also took many pictures of Israeli celebrity, but I ask their permission before taken it. @Jcb: closed my request after very short time with the comment "nominated for the same reason three months ago". This is not true. I asked him in User talk:Jcb#Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012 07 05 Yael Abecassis.JPG to reopen the request and he refused and gave me a lecture that I realy do not need..

I am an experienced OTRS volunteer and the deletion request is mine, not the actress and not her agent. Her agent sent another picture File:Yael Abecassis.jpg and after my request she sent another one File:Yael Abecassis 1.jpg. I hope she will send more. No one will use this unflattering picture unless he wants to hurt her.

I gave a valid reason according with the policy of Wikimedia founation Resolution:Media about living people. As I see it, Jcb mixed his own opinion with his role as an administrator. I ask to re open the deletion request. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

DR should be re-opened, IMO the speedy close was not a good one, firstly the image is no longer in use and secondly the image is replaceable both of which were not the case at the time of the first DR. LGA _talk^edits 07:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I also support re-opening the DR. It's a simple question of human courtesy. As we have 2 better images of Mrs. Abecassis, we don't need to cling to this one. In addition, I wonder a bit about the legitimacy of its free license, as the EXIF data clearly state "All rights reserved". --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. I was refering to the disputed File:2012 07 05 Yael Abecassis.JPG. EXIF data say "All rights reserved" and credit some "ilan c". --Túrelio (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the project will suffer in any way if we don't keep the image. I wouldn't know where to use the photo anyway. Somehow looking at a cellphone? Yes, there might not be a big reason to delete, but I second a courtesy delete. Just my two shekel. :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(Not sure why I wasn't notified of me being brought to this notice board). I think we should in general not easily remove pictures on request of the depicted person for several reasons:

The stream of requests would become unmanagable. We already do receive a lot of those requests at OTRS, often including legal threats in the first message.
Possible reusers can be accused of e.g. copyright violation and they will have difficulties to show where they found their file with the free license if the source (we) has removed it.
It's not up to the depicted person which picture of him/her we want to display. I have uploaded lots of pictures from the photosubmission queue on behalve of the subject and replaced them in the EN-wiki article, but in some cases it turned out that local Wikipedians reverted the change because they found the original picture more suitable. It's not a task for Commons to restrict the choice for local communities by removing the pictures the depicted person doesn't like.

I do have some doubts also about the real experience of this self-proclaimed 'experienced OTRS volunteer'. E.g. today she processed File:Oren tsor.jpg, with the depicted person stated to be the author, where this is obviously not a selfie. Permission in the ticket also seems to come from the depicted person rather than from the copyright holder (photographer). I will be away for a couple of weeks. I have requested to Hanay to resolve this cases herself in the meantime. Regarding the involved picture: If you want to start a new DR, be my guest. But the only valid reason for a possible deletion seems to be a copyright problem, as noted by Túrelio. So I think a new DR should be about copyright rather than about the desires of the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well unmanageable or not wmf:Resolution:Media about living people says we should be "Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same." here we have an example of this and the speedy close of the DR was not treating them with "patience, kindness, and respect". This probably highlights the need for us to formulate and adopt a formal policy on Commons:Courtesy deletions. Your concerns about re-use are moot as there will be a record of the deleted file and that can always be checked. As for your last point, I agree with the need to make sure we are not censored by the subject, in cases where a picture is replaceable and the picture does not depict a noteworthy event in that subjects biography, I think we should where ever possible look to accommodate such requests from the subject. LGA _talk^edits 00:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest renominating this image with references to this discussion and Jcb's post on Hanay's talk page.[1] I think that Commons:Courtesy deletions should incorporate wmf:Resolution:Media about living people by reference and conflicting statements, if any, deleted. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-opened the DR now. --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the DR was reopened, I would appreciate if this discussion will be closed. That's all I wanted when I opened it. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Hello @Jcb: I pinged you here the same as I ping you now. why do you say that I did not notified you?

There an OTRS permission that came directly from Dudi Hasson. If you look carefuly you can see -> From: Dudi Hasson [mailto:dudihasson@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:57 AM To: Perry Kafri Subject: Re: FW: Yael wiki picture permission.

I see that now I become a target of Jcb, This is very sad that an administrator that made a mistake instead of admitting his mistake, now target me and say that I am doing a bad job. Hanay (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I showed you an example of where it is obvious that you got it wrong (File:Oren_tsor.jpg). I saw some more. I recommend that you fix it yourself, because within about three weeks I will be digging through your edits if you don't. Jcb (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not got it wrong you need also to look carefuly here the e-mail was sent from=מאת: Oren Tsor ‎<orentsr@gmail.com>‎ תאריך: 25 ביולי 2014 בשעה 16:59=date subject=נושא: Re: תמונה לויקיפדיה=picture to wikipedia to:אל: נתנאל חברוני ‫‎<nhevroni@gmail.com>‎

I hope you remember that Gmail was developed originally in English from left to right, and Hebrew is written from right to left. You realy do not understand what you read. Hanay (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I do know the Hebrew alphabeth. (I studied theology in university). The problem is (as I already told you) that Oren Tsor is not the author of this picture. The author and copyright holder of a picture is the photographer. It's obvious that the photographer of this picture is not Oren Tsor. Permission will have to come from someone else: the photographer. Jcb (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Really how do you know it? Maybe he put his camera before him and the camera took pictures automaticly. Maybe it is a Selfie? He wrote "I certify that I am the author or full rights of the picture". Hanay (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you criticlessly accept such a statement without even asking questions, (I don't like to say it), you should not be dealing with OTRS tickets at all. I have processed many thousands of tickets, may ten thousands, and it's my experience that about 99% of the pictures for which we receive such a statement from the depicted person turns out to have a different photographer. About 1% turns out to be a selfie. A lot of people who send a picture depicting themselves do not have a clue about copyright regulations. That should not be a problem, because we are there at OTRS to ask questions and to explain copyright. But we do have a problem if the volunteers at OTRS do not have a clue either. Jcb (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jcb: There is somewhere a clear assement by Carl Lindberg that if you ask somebody to take a picture of yourself (a friend or a passer-by), deciding where, when and how you pose, you own the copyright, because all the creative part of taking the picture is made by you. I don't know of this particular case through. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I can imagine that would work in some jurisdictions, but I think I have seen only one case where a depicted person claimed to be the author for this reason. The Oren Tsor picture would fail anyway for this rationale. Here we just need to ask the depicted person to get the photographer to send permission. Jcb (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Due diligence requires that when the subject of an image claims to be its author or copyright holder, that we ask the basis for that claim, I think. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we even have a standard one-click answer for that in OTRS. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You made a mistake by speedy kept of DR nominated for the same reason three months ago and kept. which the first DR closer was Kept: no reason given as the the reason was not clear. Instead of admitting a mistake and move on you choose in a personal attack and sayhave some doubts also about the real experience of this self-proclaimed "experienced OTRS volunteer".. that is bad attitude of admin behavior. what would you say if I say that you still did not reduce the number of mistakes since this.

I also concern from your claim that you saw some more like Oren tsors file. So how experienced OTRS volunteer like you saw all the 'terrible' photos and did not take care of them. Why you bringing that now? Geagea (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(A different topic and should not have discussed this way.) Work for hire is a bit complicated; we always have doubt whether they are really work for hire, the subjects don't know the law and think they have the rights, or simply lie. It is good to ask and clarify the second is not true. We have no way to clarify third. For first case, we have to AGF. See a recent case. J e e 02:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Jcb, I hope that when you travel with your family and you want a picture of all your family together including you, and you give your camera to some stranger asking him to push the button, you always ask him also to sign an OTRS permission. Otherwise according to you the copyrights belong to the stranger that you will never meet again becouse he used his tip of is finger to push the button. How far you are willing to go because I dared to ask for help here. Hanay (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(From the airport, so really last message) - I have done so in the past, yes. I did upload several pictures depicting me where I asked the photographing passer-by to fill in his name and sign a CC-BY-SA 3.0 release. So yes, I am that strict, even if I am the subject and the camera is mine. Example: File:Coen en Sander met Jcb.JPG - Jcb (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you want to overdo it is your prerogative. But to force all the world to do it when it is not necessary, it is other thing. By the way, this is a picture of a celebrity this is not a stranger that you asked by chance. I can assure you that if some one wiil ask me to sign on a paper after I took his picture, I will refuse. I will never give my signature to a stranger, I suggest that you also be careful. I wish you a nice vacation. Hanay (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Latest sockpuppet of serial copyright problem user Category:Sockpuppets of Over the Limit

Hi there. The latest sockpuppet in this long line of accounts is User:Hunter Pedigree. I've blocked the account on enwiki on the basis of identical behaviour. The latest image File:DiBiase dream street.jpg is a copyvio from wwe.com as can be seen here. Can someone do the honors .....again ? - Peripitus (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Natuur12 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disactivation of Central Notice

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

The "Video for Wikipedia Articles" project has requested a banner for all german-speaking users on Commons (along with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikiversity) to collect video ideas and invite users to workshops where they can learn how to make quality videos with the equipment they got.

The Central Notice has been requested a few weeks ago on Meta Wiki via the Central Notice calendar and the Meta Request for help from a sysop... page and went undisputed.

Upon activation of the campaign, User:Steinsplitter, after a short debate, disabled the banner on Commons. I tried several times to get more information, the reason from him for doing so and pointed out the democratic process in defining the banner's audience and proper request of setting up the banner. I have been told I should comply to Commons Guidelines and that he didn't like the banner but still no valid reason nor the exact guideline that supposedly was violated has been named. Therefore I ask other admins to look into the issue. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you to disabled it via meta and to ask for local consensus. The CN Banner is linking to a external site and advisable for all users with interface language=de. I see not coensensus to enable such a banner on commons. @Diskussion: I have requested you to disable it and you have sayed that i have "nothing to say" - this very rude, Please stay mellow. And Commons has a own "Watchlist Notice" system for such things. Central Banners are only for important things. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You have asked but didn't provide any reason except "I don't like it". As I linked the discussion already everyone is welcome to read it or run it through Google Translate.

Anyway, I described the project already and made clear, that we reach out to anonymous users as well - they cannot be reached by a Watchlist Notification, obviously.

Threatening me with the comment "you are not a Commons admin" and disabling this Central Notice just out of personal intentions I regard as a breach of admin responsibilities. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the exact truth. I have never claimed "I don't like it". The response is simply: I don't see consensus for this banner. This banner is big and including only a external link. We use Watchlist Notices for such things on commons. And pleas don't use your CN rights on meta to set up banners on commons without local discussion and consensus. And please remember to stay mellow - reverting & discussing is the standard process. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

you mentioned that I was violating Commons Guidelines, without reference.
you said quite clearly that you didn't like it here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Forum&diff=130038603&oldid=130038478
I told already several time that we also aim at anonymous users, as we are trying to generate more contributors for commons in this project
only asking to remove it and simply threatening with your admin rights is not a constructive way

We should end this two-person debate here and wait for others to chime in. I have nowhere reverted anything or have been personal in any discussions, so threating me with COM:MELLOW looks like another intimidation of a Commons Admin, just like what happened before. So far this is a sabotage of our project team by single members of the Wikimedia project which would benefit the most from it (apart Wikipedia). --Manuel Schneider^(bla) 14:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, Please try to stick to the exact truth. Tthis thing of external links adverting is imho bad (=i and the policy don't like adverting). You are twisting my words... (and you have broken the completly dewp hours ago because of this banner - you are abusing your metarights) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I simply linked to what you said, I think that is clear. Again you mentioned a policy without referencing it.

Concerning the link: We can easily change the link to point it to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiTV/Projekte/Videos_f%C3%BCr_Wikipedia-Artikel_%28VWA%29 if that fixes the problem. But that was not what you requested.

Concerning the CSS bug: That was not visible in the test phase and has been fixed long before you made the request to disable the banner. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) 14:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Manual, first of all people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Secondly I think that central notices are not meant for advertisements for some private website. Thirdly, where has this been discussed at Commons? Commons is not a place where you can promote private projects related to a certain community. So In my opinion Steinsplitter did the right thing. And please refrain from certain accusations. They are not helping and they are an act of bad faith. Please stay mellow. Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

this is not a private website, the website is run by Wikimedia Deutschland, also I just offered to put a Wikipedia link there, if that makes any difference. The project team (consisting of Wikipedians, Commoners, Wikimedians of all kinds) has decided to link the project website instead of the Wikipedia page because the website is better to understand and has a shorter link, easier to remember for people to come back
what about the glashouse? What do you mean?
This is a project just like WLM or WLE, a project done by Wikimedians, Community members to get more content to Commons, to find new contributor in a medium rarely used at Commons (video) and to educate these people to do video (because it is harder). It involves our donors money (Wikimedia Deutschland) and german tax money (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung). --Manuel Schneider^(bla) 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining to me why this is a private website.
See here.
No this project is not that big so you cannot compare it with WLE and WLM. Those projects are global. This project is not. And thanks for explaining why this is private a project. And where was this discussed at Commons? Natuur12 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect the project is not big like WLM or WLE. I am happy to set up a watchlist notice. But for a local pagebanner we need Communety consensus. Why you use your metarights to made such huge changes in the commons interface without asking the community? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, as told already twice (and linked above) I did plan and request the banner in full compliance already weeks ago. If you could please set up a watchlist notice - better than nothing. But as long as we are three people discussing here we cannot come up with "Community Consensus". The VWA project team alone has more community members than this discussion. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) 15:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Watchlist Notice, Steinsplitter. Now we need to find a way to address the new users who are not yet contributors. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) 15:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

After discussing this on IRC with Steinsplitter I set up a seperate banner and campaign which runs only on Commons for anonymous users. Thanks for your help. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) 15:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Steinsplitter & Natuur12 both of you should stay with the facts and refrain from false accusations. --92.229.80.44 18:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please make sure that you log in before making such statements. Thank you. Fact is that there was no discussion here at Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

IPs are humans, too. Projekt-wikivideo.de is not a private website. If you don't like the current banner procedures, start changing them instead of blaming Manuel, who only used them accordingly. And attacking a new project (and it's contributors) for being not as big as WLM or WLE is really bad taste and an effort to discourage any contributor to start a new project. @Manuel: I think it would have been better to link to de:Wikipedia:WikiTV/Projekte/Videos für Wikipedia-Artikel (VWA) instead of the external link. --92.226.34.187 21:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I do think that an internal link would have reduced a lot of drama and I still think that this would be better than linking to an external page. Bigger and smaller CentralNotice campaigns for Wikipedia/Wikimedia activities are very common (also on Commons). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

+1 I also mean the CN is the highest form of possible Wikimedia promotion only for very important things. Although I appreciate the VWA can be a very good thing. → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 23:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear all, let me first say that I’m very happy that our project is being broadcast on Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Wikibooks and that it reaches those who share the cause of bringing more video into the Wikipedia. The response over the last hours has been very encouraging.

I’m also happy that it is broadcast on Commons via Watchlist and banner for anonymous users. Thanks to Steinsplitter and Manuel for that dual solution. The VWA project strives to improve the number and quality of videos on Commons, therefore making it known and finding support among the Commons community is just as important as reaching out to new contributors.

And this is what makes me most unhappy about this episode: that we have not done enough to dialogue about the project with the Commons community.

I’m a fairly simple Wikipedian. The inner workings of admins and sysops are still largely a mystery to me. Manuel has been a guide and teacher in this. Yet, though I’m happy about the outcome, I do not follow the central arguments of this debate. Since I would like to understand the decision culture of Commons better, I’d like to ask the following:

From Manuel I’ve learned that there is a procedure for requesting CNs. Now I learn that there is a separate process for CNs on Commons. What is the proper place for local discussion and consensus?
A quick run-through of the Commons:Policies_and_guidelines yields nothing on CNs, only on deletions that, unless narrowly defined speedy deletions, require debate. I’d be grateful, Steinsplitter, if you could point me to the relevant guideline and explain why your deletion did not require a debate.
Noting that http://projekt-wikivideo.de is registered by WMDE, — so it is not institutionally an external and certainly not some private website —, what are the rules on external sites? E.g. http://www.wikilovesearth.de is an external site and had a CN both on Wikipedia and on Commons. From it we took the inspiration that a non-wiki site can be useful for addressing and pulling in new contributors. Wiki Loves Earth is a competition for getting more photos on a specific subject area. VWA is a competition for getting more videos on a specific subject area. What is the rule that makes one ok but not the other?

Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to be picky. Just trying to learn the rules so we can follow them and be more helpful in improving the video supply on Commons.--Vgrass (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again and again: Please try to stick to the exact truth. I don't have deleted something related to this banner here. I don't have modified the local MediaWiki. The banner was switched off on meta. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Honnestly I'm not getting the reason why this project is not ok when WLM or WLE is. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I request that the global block of my IP by TBloemink is checked if it was according the guidelines: it's not an open proxy, just a dynamic IP and I clearly did not vandalize. --92.229.57.20 06:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please keep disputes with stewards at meta and not import them here. This does not belong here and will only create more drama and you already filed a request there. And calling something abuse when you are using a suspicious Ip-adress is really an act of bad faith and using your dynamic IP-adress the way you do is very unwise imho. Plus Commons has nothing to do with steward actions. @Vgrass that website is still not owned by the WMF and that makes it a private website imho. @General: A good discussion about this subject should be possible. However a discussion at the village plump before you place a banner could safe a lot of trouble. Natuur12 (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Plese note: I don't have used my Administrator rights HERE on this wiki to switch the Banner of. A Stewards has switched the banner off on meta. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue ought to be solved first. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Then the user should ask on the VillagePump for consensus. I see a disagreement about this banner. Why it is so hard to understand that i don't have modified CN related stuff on this wiki. Some users should be ashamed - such accusations. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am closing this discussion. No one has done anything wrong, this just isn't a useful conversation. The back and forward about other places is not particularly helpful, nor informative.

If a central notice is to be run on Commons, it should be proposed and discussed in Commons:Village pump where the community gets to have an opinion. Some preliminary discussions can take place on user talk pages, however, they are not decision-making pages. That is where our local consensus takes place, and it would be helpful if people were cooperative seeking a consensus in the appropriate channels. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Stefan4

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

As a follow up to [[2]], I'd like to submit this nomination as evidence of ongoing time wasting by this user. It fits the pattern of Stefan4 seeing Commons' deletion processes as as some kind of free law tutorial space, which just wastes other people's time, as they can't hope to refute hyper-theoretical nominations like this. Frankly, I don't have a clue one way or the other whether or not a photo of a UK bus timetable violates the Database Directive - the point is, neither does he. He's making absolutely no effort at all to bring any kind of case specific legal text/analysis, or indeed actual case law (likely because it probably doesn't exist), he's just performing what en.wiki likes to call, a VAGUEWAVE. Speculative nominations like this fall well below the requirement for significant doubt to exist before a DR is filed. Therefore, imho, a topic ban from DRs is well overdue, unless or until he figures out the difference between a law school (where you pay to have your theories tested) and Commons (where most users I would assume, have absolutely no interest in helping Stefan4 expand his legal knowledge through debating his personal interpretations of the law as it applies to any particular case). If admins don't mind acting as some kind of free law tutor to Stefan4, then rather than subjecting normal users to this at DR, perhaps some venue can be established where he can present his latest theories to you, and you can then accept/reject them as you see fit, incorporating the outcomes into Commons policy as necessary. I've notified him of this report, but if past experience is anything to go by, I wouldn't be waiting for any kind of response from him before you comment. Ultra7 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem you are trying to report? According to w:Database Directive, databases are copyrighted in the European Union for 15 years. A database is a collection of many pieces of information, and a timetable is a collection of many departure or arrival times, i.e. pieces of information. A timetable therefore perfectly seems to fit the definition of a database. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, you shouldn't have too much of a problem proving it with some actual evidence, right? You shouldn't have any difficulty finding any case law to this effect, or any legal analysis dealing with the topic area, or any specific wording in the legal text that unambiguously comes to the same conclusion, if your goal here is really to show there's significant doubt here. The fact is, you can't, yet you expect people to waste their time debating the issue with you at DR - just like you have many times before - with little or no success in these hyper-theoretical situations - because they amount to nothing more intellectual than exchanging personal theories/views/beliefs, none of which can be proven or disproven. That's the problem I'm reporting here. You're interest in DR is clearly not in protecting Commons from actual legal risk, you're only interested in using it to play amateur lawyer. I would rather you satisfied this need of yours by paying for some actual tuition, rather than expecting other people here to provide it for you for free. Ultra7 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, if I were to go over to en.wiki and add to w:Database Directive the line "Photos of bus timetables violate the directive", with an in-line citation to "Stefan4, resident copyright theorist at Commons", what do you suppose would happen? Would the line remain in the article, or would it be removed as unsourced speculation? More to the point, how much time would en.wiki users devote to having a debate on the article talk page about whether or not the statement can go back in, because it's just 'obviously true'? I'm thinking the answer is none. Ultra7 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The very first Google result when searching for "database directive timetables" is an article by Jacqueline D. Lipton, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Research, Co-Director, Center for Law, Technology and the Arts, Case Western Reserve University School of Law (etc.) titled Wikipedia and the European Database Directive. Might this fit your definition of "legal analysis dealing with the topic area"? You might be able to find something relevant in there. Like "[t]he definition of "database" [...] would potentially apply to a paper calendar, train timetable or telephone directory, as well as to their digital counterparts." —LX (talk, contribs) 17:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The point of this report is that Stefan is not putting in the effort to find such links before he files these speculative/theoretical DRs - he's content to start these debates without first proving signficant doubt exists, and then let them proceed without the benefit of any such evidence - this cannot hope to result in anything except a complete waste of time, as such exchanges cannot prove or disprove anything with any kind of certainty/reliability, especially when others disagree using equally vacuous points. Ultra7 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that I've made a minor re-factor after LX's reply, to avoid confusion [3]. Ultra7 (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope, it's a reasonable concern raised for reasonable reasons, as shown. (This is not to say the outcome of the discussion is obvious – just that it's obviously warranted.) The only waste of time here is this discussion. If there is a user problem here, it's your desire to stifle legitimate discussions. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It's arguably legitimate now (although none of this evidence has even been mentioned there yet, and as Fae points out, VP/C is probably the more appropriate venue for such a precedent setting debate), but finding evidence to support the concern after the DR was filed, obviously isn't remotely proof the concern was reasonable beforehand, and it certainly doesn't prove significant doubt existed. Maybe if it was Stefan providing these links here, I could AGF, but he isn't, and he's previously shown he doesn't do this sort of research in past cases as well, so I'm quite within my rights to raise this as a user issue (and I'm not the first to have done so, either). Ultra7 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that this DR is an interesting case and this AN/U report is unreasonable unless there is a decission in a similar case and you (@Ultra7: ) can point it. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not interesting at all. So one random user things bus timetables are databases based on their personal opinion, and another (you) disagrees based on their own personal opinion. You both might personally find that interesting to debate, but since neither of you are legal experts, and neither of you are bringing any evidence to the table, it doesn't settle the issue for Commons either way. DR is absolutely the wrong place to be having these sorts of vacuous discussions - it's a complete waste of time. Ultra7 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem is it's probably true in the UK ... [4] Examples of databases include telephone directories and timetables. So I can understand that you don't care but you are not forced to open a User problem section each time there is something you don't care that annoys you. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I never said I didn't care, and I never said it wasn't true. Ultra7 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The specific matter raised is not evidence of a problematic user, though evidence of a significant difference of opinion, so I am closing this discussion.

The issue here isn't a user, it is our knowledge base, and accumulation of suitable information to better support deletion discussions
@Ultra7: The specific issues should be raised in the deletion discussion.
@Stefan4: It would be useful to support deletion requests with an evidence-base as suggested above to allow for more understanding of the issue
We could do well to better document this learning about databases as has been done for FoP, and I suggest that someone starts drafting. It all helps the next time we go around that loop, and it helps for us to get some learned opinion on the matter, as Ultra7 has suggested that our lay-knowledge is always improved by experts.

— billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User:Tm continues to revert my changes to images related to the Mongol Empire, claiming vandalism.

Yesterday, I reverted the following three images back to previous versions of themselves due to historical inaccuracy. Before I reverted them, they were shown to be displaying the Korean peninsula as part of the Mongol Empire, which by all accounts was historically untrue. To explain further, the Goryeo Dynasty which occupied the Korean peninsula at the time was at best a vassal state, never annexed by the Mongol Empire at any point in its entire history. Cartographic convention is that vassal states are not to be included as part of the territory of any overlord country, rendering the versions of the maps that User:Tm reverted the images back to historically false. These are the three images in question:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_Empire_map_2.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mongolia_1500_AD.jpg

User:Tm continues to edit war based on historically inaccurate claims and has even gone as far as calling my reversions "vandalism." To those of you who end up looking over this case, many thanks in advance for your consideration. Flamarial (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Flamarial: en:Mongol invasions of Korea seems to disagree with you. Considering that that article is well sourced and you haven't provided any sources to back up your claim, I'd have to say that "all accounts was historically untrue" is a dubious assertion. Regardless, you are both edit warring, and it needs to stop. The files have been restored to how they were before, and if you object to them, upload your version under a different name. See Commons:Overwriting existing files. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I was actually just reading that article a few minutes ago. Respectfully, I don't see where in that article it says that the Goryeo Dynasty was annexed by the Mongol Empire. In the very first paragraph, in fact, it states that "There were six major campaigns at tremendous cost to civilian lives throughout the Korean peninsula, ultimately resulting in Korea becoming a vassal state and compulsory ally of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty for approximately 80 years," which supports my claim. Vassal states and allies are not included in the territory of overlord countries on maps by widespread cartographic convention.

Other parts of the same article further support my claim that the Goryeo Dynasty was never annexed.

"Although they reached parts of the southern peninsula as well, the Mongols failed to capture Ganghwa Island, which was only a few miles from shore, and were repelled in Gwangju. The Mongol general there, Sartai (撒禮塔), was killed by the monk Kim Yun-hu (김윤후) amidst strong civilian resistance at the Battle of Cheoin near Yongin, forcing the Mongols to withdraw again."

"In 1238, Goryeo relented, and sued for peace. The Mongols withdrew, in exchange for Goryeo's agreement to send the Imperial Family as hostages."

"With the death of Güyük Khan in 1248, however, the Mongols withdrew again."

"The Mongols agreed to a cease fire in January 1254."

"When the Goryeo court sent the future king Wonjong as hostage to the Mongol court and promised to return to Kaegyong, the Mongols withdrew from Central Korea."

And one of the most relevant sentences from that article states the following:

"When the dictator Choe was murdered by the literati party, the peace treaty was concluded. The treaty permitted the maintenance of the sovereign power and traditional culture of Goryeo, implying that the Mongols gave up incorporating Goryeo under direct Mongolian control and were content to give Goryeo autonomy, but the king of Goryeo must marry a Mongolian princess and be subordinate to the Mongolian Khans."

I'd like to ask the moderators to please consider this information and to perhaps consider reverting the three aforementioned images back to the historically correct versions. Flamarial (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to other admins ((Edit conflict)): I didn't pick up on it until I read some of the older edit summaries, but this has all the markings of a nationalist battleground issue. Historiographer's involvement (in the 2010 edit war in the middle file) puts this beyond a doubt for me, not that the edit summaries are not evidence enough. I've locked all three files for a week to let this cool down, but it might be a good idea to lock them permanently. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you beyond a doubt that there was a massive edit war between User:Historiographer and other Wikipedians. However, I would like to throw out the notion that the fact that there once was an edit war is irrelevant when it comes to selecting files based on historical accuracy. By reverting these images to their historically accurate states, I am not editing from the vantage point of a nationalist but rather as a scholar in East Asian history simply trying to correct an error on the Wikipedia Commons. For these files to be locked down permanently in their current state would be to lock in a historically wrong map plastered in multiple places on Wikipedia. I would urge you and other moderators to consider the history behind the Mongol Empire and its territory before making such a final decision. Flamarial (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Parabolooidal

I repeat here what I wrote in the village pump 5 days ago:

Parabolooidal (talk · contributions · Statistics) seems to be well intentioned, but he keeps doing a big mess with categorization, removing right categories, putting redundant ones, creating duplicate categories and others with poor or wrong categorizations, etc. I contacted him the 8th of July and someone had already had done it the 30th June but it didn't solve the problem, which is aggravated by the fact that he changes a lot of photos

Some typical examples of wrong actions (which are worrying because are recurrent):

Duplicate categories (usually poorly categorized):

In Category:Badrinath Temple, Bhaktapur removed Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Bhaktapur District and replaced it with generic Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Nepal. --Stegop (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Parabolooidal

I'm using the tags supplied by the Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Nepal with known IDs and categorizing image accordingly. See the following examples:

Big Bell {{Cultural Heritage Nepal|NP-BT-53}}
Badrinath Temple {{Cultural Heritage Nepal|NP-BT-122}}

I apologized to Stegop for my mistake on one day on which I confused "natural" and "cultural" and asked several times on my talk page for information on how to handle these ID tags, but he ignored my questions, just threatening to have me blocked. [5], [6], [7]

Stegop has taken the ID tags I had placed in categories when he changed the category names, putting them in categories he has chosen. If he had discussed the issue of ID's and how to handle them on my talk page, as I asked, then the issue could have been explained to me. Before I started placing the ID templates in image categories, they weren't being used for the upload Nepal images at all. Further, I found many wrongly categorized images, which I corrected and he must have agreed with as he did not change them.

Also I'm unclear if it is correct to change the name provided on the ID in a misleading way. For example am image with the template

English: Bhote Koshi River

{{Wiki Loves Earth Nepal|NP-SIN-04}} is on the image File:Rafting at Bhotekoshi River (10).JPG. But if you look at the bottom of this image, and look at categories this image is in, it looks like the category Category:Rafting on Bhote Kosi is in the category Category:Natural heritage sites in Nepal with known IDs, when there is no known ID specifically for these rafting images, only for the river Category:Bhote Kosi

Incidentally, in going through these images I found many mis-categorized images, so in any case, these need to be checked. Also, in Category:Langtang, I created some of the subcategories using the ID's. However, now with the ID tag moved, there are categories under that ID that don't belong there, so the ID banner for the category does not correctly reflect the subcategories that don't have ID's. For example, none of the images in Category:Langtang Lirung have any ID.

I'd appreciate any clarification on this. I also request that Stegop try to deal directly with me first in an informative manner, or point me to a forum where I can get the information I need regarding the IDs and categories, rather than reporting me, twice now, without attempting to discuss the specific issues first. Parabolooidal (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Maintaining categories is not easy on Commons. Mistake are going to happen, even very experienced user make them. I would like to ask Stegop to help Parabolooidal with his work. If run into problems please don't hesitate to contact any admin or experienced if you feel there is no time to waste. If the issue is not time sensitive, please ask here: Com:VP Thanks guys! :-)) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The problems go on and I am not the only one complaining (see the user's disc. page). How can one explain the obvious things like relevant categories should not be removed when one adds another one (like he did in many cases in Ghana) or many other recurrent mistakes? --Stegop (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jab7842 and strange machinations at Template talk:Speedydelete/en

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)

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)

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

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

File:East Ukraine conflict.png

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)

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)

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)

User-problem with aggressive deletion behavior

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)

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

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 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)

Poking fun at Katharinaiv’s difficulties with English is not a good approach to the matter, especially when including statements such as «Ghana was a Portuguese colony» (hint: it wasn’t).

While creating subcategories under a given category and dissiminating its content there-to is in principle a good thing, nobody can really have an opinion of the claims and counter-claims here invoked without clear examples (esp. diffs). Only adequate documentation can dispel this complain as unwarranted, or enable corrections and repairs that would be positive for all. From Parabolooidal it would be neccessary to see a few examples (diffs) of the described clean up of COM:OVERCAT. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry as I didn't mean to poke fun at Katharinaiv’s difficulties with English. Here is an example with the problems of Katharinaiv’s approach. Katharinaiv is using a portal on the German Wikipedia to determine categories on the Commons: Portal Ghana. The Commons is not organized in the way the various wikipedias are. Katharinaiv has put up for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Shops in Ghana. However, Category:Shops in Ghana should be kept because Category:Shops by country is a Meta category on the Commons with hundreds of subcategories for other countries. Shops in Ghana should be listed there also. Further, Category:Shops in Ghana is part of the Meta category on the Commons: Category:Retail buildings by country. Ghana should have a subcategory in that Meta category like the hundreds of other countries that do. Ghana should follow the Commons category methods of other countries. Commons categories shouldn't be deleted because they don't fit the categories derived at Portal Ghana. Commons categories should be used, not those from a Wikipedia "Portal Ghana". Parabolooidal (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see section below about problems with categories in Ghana, "Problem with categories in Ghana" for some specifics. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Typical example of overcategorization:
File:2010 newsstand Kumasi Ghana 4755542017.jpg - has 6 categories

However, if an editor is looking for Kumasi, none of those categories lead there. The images of Kumasi are pocketed away in these categories. I cleaned up many of these. (I just stumbled on this one now, but it is typical of the way Ghana images are categorized.)

Category: Kumasi in 2010 is categorized by Category:Kumasi in 2010s, Category:2010 in Ghana, and a meta category Category:Kumasi by year containing 10 different years. This is in a meta category Category:Cities in Ghana by year etc. Finally, I added some categories to Category:Kumasi so that any editor wanting to see images of Kumasi by anything besides years could see some categories. I started re categorizing Ghana images because I couldn't find any until I accidentally found all the "by year" categories. Stuffing individual places discourages building the identities of towns and villages. It's as if Ghana only exists in history and aren't living, breathing places. Parabolooidal (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Another typical example of overcategorization:

I tried to fix Category:Roads in Ghana by re categorizing many images more specifically elsewhere, but the category is still huge and makes little sense. Why is File:Washerwomen Ghana.jpg there? That image is in:

Another typical example of overcategorization:File:Benya River Bridge (3558695920).jpg

The fact the bridge is located in Elmina is only found in Category:Elmina in 2009, making it difficult to find images relating to Elmina. This is what I mean by unhelpful over categorization. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem with categories in Ghana

The category Category:Shops in Ghana has been deleted even though the nomination has not reached consensus. See Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Shops in Ghana. The category should not have been deleted because it is part of a Commons Meta category Category:Shops by country and the Commons Meta category Category:Retail buildings by country. Each of these categories contains all other countries, so Ghana should be there also. The category Category:Retail in Ghana is not a replacement for this category. "Retail" is a vague term. I don't mind if the Category:Retail in Ghana" exists, but Category:Retail by country is a relatively small meta category on the Commons, without many entries from other countries and doesn't replace the Shops category. I don't understand why Category:Shops in Ghana was deleted without consensus. I spent a lot of time refining the Ghana categories because they were confusing and not in line with the way other countries use categories. A huge number of images were in Category:Commerce in Ghana, not categorized as to place or type. Almost all images were also placed in Category:Roads in Ghana, consequently also a huge category, so I removed images that didn't belong there and categorized them as to place and type of image. I created such categories as Category:Malls in Accra and Category:Malls in Ghana, Category:Buildings in Accra and many other specific categories. I think subcategories should be as specific as possible. I did this because when I tried to find images in Ghana, they were not categorized as to place and type. I also created Category:Street vendors in Ghana, as Category:Street vendors by country is a common Meta category. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 46#Parabolooidal. I have spent several hours correcting wrong categorizations in categories and files done by this user after having contacting him to be more cautious doing it. I didn't analyse thoroughly his work in Ghana, but I remember noticing the removal of relevant categories in many files, namely those related with years. In many cases he replaces every category with just one, which may be right but it is not the only relevant cat. --Stegop (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Since Stegop is complaining here also, and I'm receiving no response in the way of help or suggestions here regarding Ghana, I will undue all my edits to Ghana categories, so that I will no longer be labeled an "abusive user". Parabolooidal (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that all that you do is wrong. Not in Nepal and even less in Ghana, which I didn't analyze, but you should be more careful with what you do, namely by understanding the corrections done to your edits. Because mass categorizations, even with seemingly "little" mistakes are doubly costly because it involves much work of at least two persons: the first, that did the not so good categorization, and the one that comes after him/her. Note that when you replace a specific category you are often making useless the hard work of someone else. That happened in many cases in Category:Kali Gandaki Valley and related. --Stegop (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed my edits to satisfy User:Katharinaiv and restored that user's categories. I won't categorize anymore images in Ghana nor create anymore categories there. I have requested that the categories I created be deleted. Parabolooidal (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Poohmama2950

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)

@Whym, Miya, and Yasu: Can you please help out here? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Info Although not being an admin, I dropped a quick note on his/her talk page. Yasu (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope that will do it. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

User:1Veertje

Two questions:

Is it normal when een nominator/administrator is corrected by a fellow administrator (see here and here) the first administrator then used her competence as administrator to remove this three images File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg, File:Toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg, File:Amsterdam 42.JPG and replaced them by a blurred version with the comment "blur out copyright violation"?
Is that a correct use of her authority?

Gouwenaar (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not invent too much drama here. While it is true that the creative buildings in File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg are very likely covered by FOP-NL, the large exhibition poster on one of the buildings (File:Toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg) is rather not covered by FOP-NL, as it does not fulfil the requirement " permanently". So, blurring-out the possibly infringing part is a clever solution to avoid deletion of the image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

See also the discussion here. Natuur12 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio, I prefer deletion instead of mutilation. Gouwenaar (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Using admin rights to push one's own private view in an edit war is a kind of rights abuse that should not be played down, but sternly dealt with. While File:Toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg may indeed not be covered by FOP-NL, the images File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg and File:Amsterdam 42.JPG certainly are and these photos should therefore be restored to their original versions. Wutsje 14:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I really wonder why you and JurgenNL think that the latter 2 images are covered by FOP-NL. IMO they are not, as the exhibition poster on the building is hardly permanently installed, which is a requirement for FOP. Of course, the image/artwork on the exhibition poster might be in the public domain. But I see no evidence of this. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that they argue that the buildings are covered by FOP and that the poster is DM. Am I correct Jurgen and Wutsje? Natuur12 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. Gouwenaar (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Wutsje 17:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I created a DR for this image: Commons:Deletion requests/File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg‎. At least, if it appears that it is OK, we can keep it as a reference. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: You're dodging the question whether it's allowed for an admin to use her admin rights to push her personal view in an edit war about an image which clearly shouldn't have been blurred without any form of discussion. @Yann: thanks. Wutsje 17:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wusje, in order to evaluate the claimed rights-abuse correctly, it's relevant to have its premises clear, i.e. copyvio or no copyvio. Anyway, as I am busy in RL and can't help to guess some possible underlying inner-NL conflict, I retire myself from this discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no underlying inner-NL conflict so don't worry :). Natuur12 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg

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

This drama is going no where, no action is required. Come up with an agreement at File talk:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg or follow COM:OVERWRITE by uploading it under a new file name. The file is protected until 26 October 2014, if there is any further overwriting without a unanimous consensus, the file will be protected for a longer period of time. I've seen a lot of allegations towards User:Fastily but very little evidence (diffs), it seems more like cherry picking has been done to support their argument. Bidgee (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@Hym411: Is this [8] the link you've mentioned? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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,

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.
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.
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)

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

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)

Good idea and

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Fastily

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

@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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As we can see Fastily deleted the file history several times (the reasons "Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup" or "to improve page load time")[9] 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)

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)

Did you read my comment? Other than these two from Korean users, please provide me the state source you actually have. If you keep argue you have, but you can't still provide any to me, this is nothing more than making up a source in order to justify your edit. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fry1989: This thread is about Fastily not you (there are dozens enough about you)! Yes he imposed this about me but I've no Interaction Ban with him! So thanks for your friendly warning but this is meaningless. If I'm wrong everybody can correct me. → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Did Fastily and Fry1989 ever discussed with the original uploader to change the color or what? I could not find any. They are the one who did not processed any debate to change the color. And Fastily's action is seemed to be suspicious and questionable indeed as you provided me the full history of the file. I think this is a clear example of the abuse of adminship. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not posting something just to please you and your blindness when A) I have posted them enough times already and B) we are already beyond using these sources for our discussion. Secondly, your comment about Fastily incorrectly implies that A) we discussed this matter in advance which we did not and B) that even if we had we are somehow required to notify the original uploader and get their consent which we do not. You are wasting your time beating a dead horse. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is not a dead horse. Please stop generalizing. Now you are attacking with me blindness just like Fastily blocked me. That is a personal attack, indeed. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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~~ not 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)

There are just as many users who agree there was every reason to block Shyoon and to extend it for their disgusting outburst afterwards. Beating this dead horse is a waste of time. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No, Although you warned me, but you were not free from the edit war. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not edit war. I reverted the file 2 times, as did another user which is the point at which you should have stopped reverting and attempted to gain a consensus. Instead, you reverted the file a total of 5 times in 2 days and made it quite obvious that you would continue reverting anybody else who changes the file, which is why you were blocked. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No. You also conducted the edit war, therefore you are not in a neutral position. And when you change the color to navy blue first time in 4 years ago, you never discussed with anybody. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Think what you want to think, it won't change anything. You were blocked for edit warring because you chose to continue reverting the file, You were asked not to, you ignored it. Nothing you say will change that, and there are many users who agree that you were rightfully blocked. This is nothing more than a soapbox for Geagea to stand on and a place for you to whine about how unfair is it that you were blocked. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It means you don't even want to participate in the discussion seriously. No, it was not. It is true that you and Fastify thought me as some kind of vandalist and tried to make one-sided discussion. Is it fair to block one-side? Do you think it is fair? No. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to participate in the discussion far better than you are, you are still rejecting other users sources that you don't like. You care more about proving me wrong than you do fixing the problem, you made that clear by such useless comments as this one which contradicts your source that they do match, and this one. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your source also support the color matching of both presidential flag and governmental flag. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess posting an opinion on this topic was not a good idea, as Fry1989 pointed out, it is only beating a dead horse, rather than closing the case involving an apparently inappropriate sysop activity. I suggest both parties stop this endless debate here, and wrap up the original color discussion. I will also stop commenting on this thread. --10k (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

54 edits deleted from the file. That include 16 uploads and reuploads. Three first files uploaded by User:Nudimmud. User:Zscout370 deleted 2 single versions apparently 2 of his own uploads. The rest done by Fastily.

from the files log:

04:14, 27 October 2011 Zscout370 Deleted old revision 20111027014700!Presidential_Standard_of_the_Republic_of_Korea.svg: Accidental creation
04:15, 27 October 2011 Zscout370 Deleted old revision 20100612193732!Presidential_Standard_of_the_Republic_of_Korea.svg: Accidental creation
03:41, 27 October 2011 Zscout370 protected the file Counter-productive edit warring
23:29, 27 January 2014 Fastily unprotect the file trying unprotection
23:29, 27 January 2014 Fastily deleted the page Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup
23:30, 27 January 2014 Fastily restored 6 revisions and 2 files restored: hiding some old revs to improve page load time
22:17, 2 July 2014 Fry uploaded a new version
08:50, 23 July 2014 Shyoon1 uploaded a new version
04:04, 24 July 2014 Fry uploaded a new version
12:12, 24 July 2014 Fastily deleted the page Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup
12:13, 24 July 2014 Fastily restored 4 revisions and 3 files restored: scrub edit warring from history
09:31, 26 July 2014 Fastily protected the file Counter-productive edit warring.

We can easily see that Fastily misused his admin tool to help Fry to take over highly used file. this background we can understand Fastilys actions. He made a wrong action of blocking Shyoon1 instead of protecting the file. And he blocking him again for a single personal attack with no option to apologize account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page (the first step of Shyoon1 after his block he apologize in front of Fastily).

@Fry even though you have been explained a lots of times what it is edit warring you still claim that you only revert Shyoon1, And more of that, from looking just the late of your work I can see that you still edit warring her and and her and her and her anf if I check more I'll find more. Fry, you find a new way to keep edit warring notifying Fastily and he came and block. This ruffian behavior must be stopped. Geagea (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep pretending there is a conspiracy that nobody else can see, you have absolutely no evidence of one. There was no previous discussion of this matter, no plotting to "take over" files, no plan to entrap a user and get them blocked, no abuse of tools to hide my actions...no ANYTHING that could possibly be called a conspiracy. Your inability to establish a conspiracy having taken place is exacerbated by the fact that you need to bring up previous unrelated disputes I may have had with other users to paint me in a bad light. If you truly could prove a conspiracy regarding this matter, you wouldn't need to do that. Whatever beef you have with Fastily or me doesn't make a conspiracy just because that's what you want to see. So unless there is anything productive left to be said, I believe it is time an admin close and collapse this discussion. The file is being discussed on it's talk page, a resolution is nearing, there is no further need for this. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop determining all by yourself. When the resolution was reached? I never heard of it. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides Fry1989's swearing, Geagea's history clearly explains that Fastily's action is suspicious. Until July, when Fry1989 updated the color to navy blue, 6 revisions and 2 files restored: hiding some old revs to improve page load time? Without asking the opinion of original uploader? The file looks like Fry1989 is an original uploader, so this has to be fixed and revise the history to the original version. And also, I already said hundred times, when Fry1989 changed the color, he never opened a discussion, he did not bring out any source to support his flag, so the current version is need to be deleted from the history. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no rules that I had to. This conspiracy theory has already been debunked in the eyes of everyone except possibly Geagea, but even they have moved on. It's time an admin close this silly off-shoot as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If this one is closed, I guess I will ask block again. As always, bring sources. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

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

I think this can now be closed. Fry1989 used a word that he did not expect would be offensive. Shyoon1 has now said that he/she finds it offensive. Now that he knows, Fry1989 is not using it again toward Shyoon1. Done. --99of9 (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this link, Fry1989 said a swear to me. It is "bitching." Whatever the definition of word is, the usage of this word in the discussion is highly inappropriate. I ask admins to regulate his action or further, please. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You complain about things that do not matter and accuse me of things I have not done. I have told you twice what "bitching" means in the English language and if you are offended that is by your own choice, I will not apologize. I have put more effort into compromise and consensus regarding this matter and the various sources than you have, and all you do is further accuse me of trying to push "my favourite" even though the source was brought by another user 10k who was originally supportive of you until they found their source. The proposal that I have made was originally their proposal. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What about you? You did not provide any source, either. Don't try to justify yourself, please. And you also said a highly inappropriate word, that cannot be pardoned. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WHO CARES!!!!!! This is what I'm talking about, you are complaining about something that does not matter. 10k has a source, a very good reliable one, and that is what is being discussed now, but you still can't get over your accusations that I haven't provided sources, even though I have and even though it doesn't matter any more. We are talking about 10k's source, which is the most reliable source we have. Your source is not reliable because your image is blurry and different parts of the flag are different shades of blue, it can't be trusted. 10k's source is an official EPS file with one shade of blue encoded into it. You care more about complaining than anything else, because you won't even recognize that what you're whining about doesn't matter!. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Now, this will be a good evidence that you don't want to listen other people's saying, you only want to upload the color you like, and now you have said a swear. Remind that 10k's source is not official, Naturehead's source is, too. And you said who cares? I seriously care of what word you have said to me. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Do I really have to say it 10,000 times that my "favourite" would have been the current blue that the file is protected as, but as a gesture of compromise I am willing to look at other sources and reach some form of agreement? If I wasn't willing to compromise, I would not be supporting 10k's original proposal. Remembering of course that 10k original joined the discussion in support of you, they are not my friend and I have had no prior interaction with them. But for some strange reason you accuse me of choosing this colour, and trying to push it as "my favourite". It is you who is unwilling to compromise, to look at other sources, to do anything but complain about me. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Favorite is favorite. You only recognize 10k's source as the official while others also posted couple of written sources from the Korean government. It is true that you don't recognize them. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So you are able to read my mind now? I didn't know you were psychic. You make it more and more obvious with every word you type that you are unwilling to compromise, unwilling to look at other sources you disagree with, and care ONLY about attacking and blaming me. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, but I am actually attacking your illogical attitude that completely ignores other people's reference based on your own criteria. And as Geagea said, you also made up the history record of the file, you did not provide any reference when you changed the color from light blue to dark blue. In fact, you said an inappropriate word to me. Who is the one attacking personally, not logically? -- Shyoon1 (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

FFS we are complaining about "bitching" now !; please will an admin close this down now, it has gone way beyond the point that anything meaningful was going to come out of it. LGA _talk^edits 04:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is initial of very inappropriate word. Thank you. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Bitching" as a verb or verbal derivative is slightly derogatory, but no more so than "Whining", "moaning", "whinging" or some others. It is not really the same word as "bitch" as a noun. Ask the French about the difference between "un baiser" and "à baiser"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

For those not aware, "bitch" in any form is considered shocking in most of North America. I would not use it in an international context, though in the UK saying that someone was "bitching" is merely like saying they were a whiner. People should be sensitive to how words like this might create a hostile environment for others, and if someone did not back off after objections had been clearly explained to them, then this can be seen as a reason for action under Blocking policy.

Anyway, I agree this thread has gone on too long and it just seems to be an excuse for two people to enjoy arguing as there seems nothing here being requested needing admin action rather than having discussion somewhere more appropriate. AN/U is not a boxing ring to knock lumps off opponents. Commons is a big place, either agree to avoid each other, resolve your differences and get on with creating content, or get married so that you can argue in the privacy of your own home like everyone else. --Fæ (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As Fae told, in the international context which discussing about the presidential standard of South Korea, the usage of word "bitch" in any form such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or adverb, is just highly inappropriate and I feel offended seriously. Well, I will wait for the judgement of admin for now. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fæ perhaps you should visit the file talk page, where you can see that I am trying to resolve this issue in a proper fashion and am faced with irrational obstinance from a user willing to contradict their own sources in favour of attacking me and my proposal, and chooses to be offended by something even after it has been explained to them what context it was used in. This user is more focused on taking offence and attacking me as some sort of blame for their being blocked than they are interested in resolving the issue at hand. Now will an admin close this useless discussion and stop giving them a soapbox to stand on? Fry1989 ^eh? 22:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fæ -- Both Fry1989 and myself are North American, and we're not shocked.

Shyoon1 -- As someone who presumably does not have English as your mother tongue, maybe it's not your role to tell mother-tongue English speakers which English words are offensive. "Bitch" as a noun can be grossly offensive in some contexts, but only mildly insulting (or even a sort of backhanded compliment) in other contexts. The degree of insultingness is quite attenuated in "bitch" as a verb (which ordinarily merely refers to the activity of uselessly or excessively complaining). In surfing slang, "bitchin'" is actually quite positive... AnonMoos (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that bitch or bitching is controversial, as would be bollocks or gobshite, though almost any word might be found acceptable or amusing by many depending on context. The point is, it does not matter much what the writer of potentially vulgar word feels about it, or how often they use the word with their friends, if the recipient makes a clear objection you should back off and find other ways to make your point, or walk away/ask for help if you cannot understand their problem with language. If you persist regardless, then this falls under what the Blocking policy states about "creat[ing] a hostile environment for another user".

By the way, English is my "mother-tongue" but I would not dream of lecturing non-native English speakers that they cannot explain to me what words they find offensive. This is an international project and English is used in many different ways around the world; we should respect that difference, not behave as if native English speakers have a special authority here.

Anyway, enough of a tangent, I'll not be writing any more on this thread as it is far too long already to be of much value. --Fæ (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have "backed off", I have not used the term again except to explain the original context of my initial use of it. I will not apologize however, because whether I call it that or "whining" or something else, this user is more intent on complaining about points of the discussion that are now irrelevant than they are intent of finding a resolution. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Shyoon1, please and move on. I think that it's rather hypocritical to request someone to apologise for swearing when you've made some rather unsettling comments yourself, also Administrators do not make/force editors to apologise (nor block them if they fail to do so). If you keep this up, you will be blocked for disruption. Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why this one has closed. Fry1989 said he would not apologize. He used a swear word and do not apologize? No. This thread should be continued and I will continuously ask that Fry1989 should pay what he did. If he does not want to apologize, then the block is the answer. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are to prevent actions, not punish or to extort apologies. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If you don't stop the aggressions towards Fry then another block is indeed the answer. Work on the flag and stop this headbanging NOW. --Denniss (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will stop it, but do not forget I am not only one who is aggressive or headbanging here. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you really are the only one. Fry wasn't the one who restarted this tired old discussion after it was closed by an administrator. YOU did. Illegitimate Barrister 19:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Shyoon1

Shyoon1 is obviously unable to overlook their block and is attempting to harass me as revenge. Their above comments make it clear they want me blocked either to punish me or to extort an apology for using a word they object to, a word I have not used since. They choose to continue being offended by it even after it was explained by multiple users which context I had intended it's use to be. Even after Denniss's comment to stop harassing me, they left this comment saying they will again ask for me to be blocked if that discussion is closed without them getting the result they desire. There is also the problem of this discussion where I have been extremely willing to compromise, but Shyoon1 is completely unwilling to see reason and keeps arguing over previous points of discussion that are no longer relevant. This user is too blinded by anger over their block to see any reason. Can an admin please do something about this nonsense? I would ask that this entire AN/U discussion be closed, and that my proposal be effected on File:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg and the file be protected from editing permanently. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Strong support – I'll have to agree. This is getting quite out of hand. Illegitimate Barrister 19:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This has gone too far. Sorry, I am not two or three persons. I am just one. so do not use "they". It looks like I am using sockpuppet or something. And you don't want to compromise and seek to change the color that does not state that the presidential flag should be like that. Unlike anyone, you never brought any sources, so who should have problems? Unlike you, I never argued I have a false evidence. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because I do not choose your source does not mean I am unwilling to compromise. I support another user's source which I initially did not, that is a clear sign of compromise, and I have attempted to explain to you several times why your source is not acceptable (it is a heavily compressed and pixelated JPEG that is inherently inconsistent). You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the problems with your source, you continue to demand I provide sources when that is irrelevant and even though I have and you constantly ignore them like they don't exist, you contradict yourself and your own sources in order to try to place further demands upon me, and you repeatedly demand I be blocked for referring to your never-ending complaints about irrelevant things as "bitching", either to punish me or to use the block as a tool to compel me to apologize to you for using that word which you object to, which I will not do. Your sorry isn't even meant in earnest, you use it as a preface for further complaining about me. I'm thoroughly convinced that had I supported the source you like so much, you'd change your mind and support a different one just to be difficult. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Back to the discussion, your opinion is just hard to accept. As I told you in the file talk download the manual and look up page 7. I do not have anything to say. And you also did not have any reference when you changed to your current "favorite" color, now you tried to change the topic in the file talk and still prefer to change the darker blue. You said I never listen, but you do as well. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I HAVE downloaded it and it is still a pixelated JPEG, it's inconsistent. I've told you enough times now and instead of accepting the truth you try and twist this into a new accusation of me not even trying to download it and see for myself. You are impossible! Fry1989 ^eh? 03:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Strong support I agree and have called for it before (here); I would have been BOLD done it myself except for the certainty that User:Shyoon1 would have reverted it.LGA _talk^edits 23:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are one who used FFS, initial of "for xxxx's sake." -- Shyoon1 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Tm is harassing me and has accused me of vandalism.

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

No harassment is going on, Tm only restored the deleted comments once, when he was placing a incorrect warning (Flamarial's overwrite wasn't vandalism).You can blank your talk page but archiving is strongly recommended. You ignored COM:OVERWRITE, if you disagree with how the image is displayed or dispute what it displays, then upload your version under a new file name. Also English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not Commons policies and guidelines. No action is required, therefore this discussion is closed. Bidgee (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tm recently left a notice on my talk page accusing me of vandalism. I have tried to reason with him using logic and arguments based upon history, but he continues to ignore my posts, instead resorting to actions like this. In his post on my talk page (User_talk:Flamarial), he accuses me of vandalism without stating any reason why, and he has refused to communicate with me via the post I made on his talk page. He has also accused me of vandalism when I chose to revert images due to historical inaccuracy, but each time I clearly explained the reasons why I chose to revert these files. I am more than open to mature and open communication; it seems that this user does not share the same mindset. Apologies if this notice sounds a bit hostile, hopefully it is at least somewhat understandable why I would be annoyed by this. Flamarial (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that he also edited my talk page after I blanked it out, adding everything back in. I believe that he is not allowed to do this, but please correct me if I am wrong. Here are the relevant policies regarding this matter: [[10]] [[11]] Flamarial (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I investigated Flamarial's recent contributions and I did not notice vandalism. Flamarial acted in good faith and explained thoroughly his/her decisions. Tm acted in bad faith and accused Flamarial in vandalism without reason. Flamarial has never been blocked, Tm has been blocked a lot of times, mostly for edit warring. The file in question has been protected in the past and must be protected again. I am not sure, which version to protect. I'd like to revert into Flamarial's version and protect it, but as I am not specialist, I'd like some other comments. But I want to add some other things:

Commons is not en.wiki. Policies of en.wiki are not always relevant in Commons. But user page harassment made by Tm is nevertheless a bad thing.
User page blanking is usually not a good idea. If somebody wants to get rid of it, then archiving is a proper way to act. For example, in Russian wiki most warning templates have a little message: this template is not meant for deleting and it must be archived. (There are some exceptions, for example, when the user quits wikipedia indefinitely, for example if he is blocked indefinitely.) Tm made correctly, restoring Flamarial's user page. Taivo (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding earlier, I was mistakenly blocked for a short while. I did read up on relevant policy before blanking, which does seem to state that I am allowed to blank my user page if I wish [[12]], although, as you state, it is preferred to archive them. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that since I am allowed to blank my user page, User:Tm was not in the right to revert my page back to an earlier point where the posts I removed were added back in. User:Tm has both reverted my page without my permission and added a false and truthfully baseless accusation of vandalism to my talk page, which I feel to be harassment. [[13]] [[14]]. Also, please see my comment below (the one after the mistaken block) for more about my arguments and why I chose to revert the file. Thanks for your understanding. Flamarial (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A related discussion occurred on July 30.[15] The current conflict is over File:MongolEmpireDivisions1300.png.[16] On June 9, Tm (talk · contribs) reverted another user twice with no discussion or explanatory edit summary. SLS AMG at Gran Turismo 5 promotion 20090926.jpg&action=history [17] Tm has a history of blocks for similar behavior.[18] Flamarial, please notify affected parties on their talk pages when you bring a discussion to this noticeboard.[19] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Siegmund: What has to do my reversion in June 9 to do with this discussion? The reversion in question (the same reversion made by AutomobilePassion and Taivo) was a reversion of several editions of an IP that kept removing the Category:Automobiles with open doors when this image show clearly an Mercedes-Benz C197 with open doors, so i dont understand your comparison. Tm (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I didnt harass Flamarial and didnt act in bad faith, as it is very, very hard to assume good faith to his actions, and not call them vandalism, per:

1 - When the file in question (File:MongolEmpireDivisions1300.png in the original form showing the Korean peninsula as part of the Mongol Empire), was, in 2010, victim to another attempt to upload a different version without the Korea peninsula as part of the Mongol Empire, by other users, and even then it was said in Village Pump that with this filenames it should be kept the original images]. Flamarial, didnt read or plainly ignored the background, and tried to revert to the 2nd version when, per the commons policy Commons:Overwrite, specifiacally, in Commons:Overwrite#Controversial_or_contested_changes says "Changes to a file that are likely to be contested should be uploaded to a separate filename". This attempt to put his version by the backdoor (Commons) is even worst when this file, in its original version, is in use in:

2 - This user a few days ago, in relation to three other files (that were locked for a week) of the same subject and in this same noticeboard was advised to, if he feels that this files are inaccurate or plain wrong, that he should upload his versions under a new filename and then, in each Wikipedia where this files are in use, should argue for its replacement. Tm (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Info Flamarial blocked as a sockpuppet of Pava. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Info Flamarial is not a sock of Pava.

This probably ends the case. But, Tm, if you revert somebody next time, then explain, why the edit must be reverted. For example, Flamarial explained his/her actions. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hedwig, before blocking ~~Pava~~ Flamarial with the accusation of being a SP, have you requested a check-user? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 07:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock and also for your apology, Hedwig. Flamarial (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding earlier, I had been mistakenly blocked from editing and was unable to respond for a while. I'm glad to say that I'm back now. As for User:Tm's comment above, frankly, I find it offensive when he states that "it is very, very hard to assume good faith to his actions, and not call them vandalism." I have tried by best to be civil and act in good faith all throughout my time and contributions to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons and have only made edits that I believe to be constructive, educational, and based on historical fact, doing my best to account for neutrality and keeping a neutral tone to the edits I make. I honestly find it quite unreasonable to say that it is "very, very hard" -- with two 'very's, even -- to assume good faith to the edits I've made and the tone of voice I've kept here, but if anyone is willing to give me any constructive criticism as to why it might seem to way to other Wikipedians/Wikimedians, I would be more than open to hearing them to see what I could do better. Indeed, it seems to me that User:Tm is accusing me of acting not only on bad faith, but "very, very" much on bad faith, which ironically appears to be a statement based on bad faith itself. This is just how it seems to me, but maybe I am biased on this and perhaps others might see it differently. Regardless, I did attempt to communicate with User:Tm about the historical facts and reasoning behind his reverts, but up until now he had and still continues to leave that part of the issue unaddressed. For the record, there is an ongoing discussion about the topic that I started on the relevant Wikipedia page here: [[20]] Flamarial (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Hanibal911

This user has consistently edit warred to include an incorrect version at File:East Ukraine conflict.png.

He has edit warred against: User:Merecive, User:Alex1961, and now myself. He did so after I politely asked him to stop edit warring and to use the talk page, which he ignored completely. I provided a solid source showing that the rebel leader admitted the DNR is surrounded, and that several towns were now the site of heavy fighting between the sides, but he reverted to an incorrect older version anyway.

I ask that this user be blocked on account of continuous edit warring/COM:OWN issues, refusing to discuss his changes, and (of course) adding incorrect material. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - 1 week. User was warned. Doesn't respond to messages but continues to revert. If he continues after this block he will be blocked for a longer time. Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war over football kits

between Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs) and apparently various sockpuppets of blocked user Futbase (talk · contribs). Somebody please deal with this pointless back-and-forth. Lupo 10:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked some socks. I am protecting the file. I can be opened upon request without any problems. Rizky Iconia got a warning on his talk page as well. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked some more and added one more waring to the conflicting parties. Also in general a kit created without Logos should not be overwritten with a Kit containing Logos as not all projects permit this under fair use. --Denniss (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Afghansia

Goes around creating useless categories with bizarre non-English names (see Special:Contributions/Afghansia). Needs a warning (possibly in his native language, if anybody can figure out what that is), and deletion of the bogus categories... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories nuked, referred user to the sandbox. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing my username from முஹம்மது அம்மார் to Mohammed Ammar

My account is unified login account. As I renamed my account in other projects, please rename it as "Mohammed Ammar". Thank you--முஹம்மது அம்மார் (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NigelHowells

This brand new user is creating nonsense DRs, probably just trolling. Ultra7 (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this is already solved. Natuur12 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

IP adding election spam to files

This user is adding election comments to files in the Fredericksburg, VA area. Have reverted some but he/she continues to add spam to others. Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No longer spamming just these files, but others. Please block-seems to be here to campaign on Commons. We hope (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done ~~IP got a 2 week break.~~ The election in Fredericksburg, VA is on 4. Nov 2014. I changed the block to expire on the 5th. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like he/she won't have any need to campaign here after that! :) Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Leopard2014

Leopard2014 is likely another sockpuppet of Григорий225. See also COM:Deletion requests/File:Крушение поезда в московском метро 15.07.2014.jpg. YLSS (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - blocked him indef. Looks like a duck to me. Maybe Jameslwoodward wants to do a follow up CU since he did one of the previous CU's? Natuur12 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Marito nico

I blocked Marito nico (talk · contribs) for 3 months for copyvios (2nd block). All his uploads probably need a review. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccer kits revert war

There's still a slow-moving revert war going on on soccer kits. See e.g. [21] and check the file histories of the soccer kits there. Also looks like block evasion by Rizky Iconia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user reappearing as Rizky Shaimoery (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Lupo 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked the sock, obvious duck, still thinking what to do with the main account. Looking in to it further since a lot of the "soccer kits people" have had previous warnings because they continue to editwar. Natuur12 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked Tonse12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user as well since this is account seems to be created for this editwar. This should stop the editwar for now but I don't know which version is right so someone else may judge about that. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the main account Rizky Iconia indef, considering this latest sock is atleast the 4th sock he's used. The above sock Rizky Shaimoery had on it's userpage "back soon," so more socking is likely. @Magog the Ogre: , @Trijnstel: , @Tiptoety: CU may be needed here. INeverCry 19:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rizky Iconia ;). Thanks for changing block btw. Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder who's sock Tonse12 is? I also noticed that the post above this one concerns kits... INeverCry 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Tonse12 is also a sock. Hold tight - I'm running checks and have a few more socks to block. Эlcobbola _talk 21:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Lanuskit, Ficheirokits, Interkits, Jooooooao, Juventusfans, RMFA12, Tinhaleiras, Tubler123, Uruguayana2.0, and Vakovakovako were also socks and are now blocked. Category:Sockpuppets of Futbase should now be populated with all known socks. Эlcobbola _talk 21:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan

Corkythehornetfan's constantly been uploading copyright-problematic images, whether too complex for PD-simple, PD-USGov not supported by source, or obvious copyvios. This isn't something new, either; the images I linked are all recent uploads, but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Lyon_County,_Kansas&action=history shows a lot of images being deleted last November after Corky added them, while the last three edits there consist of Corky adding two photos, which then get removed by bots after they're deleted here. The images I linked are unambiguously problems with Corky, and while I suppose it's possible that he was just adding links on the National Register list to bad images uploaded by other people, it's not at all likely. As this user's contributions are full of copyright issues, I expect a long-duration or indefinite block to be in order. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The logos I only upload if they are marked Copy to Commons on the English Wikipedia. Otherwise, I won't do it. As for the photos, it'd be nice if the users here could be more helpful and not rude and just say that it's been nominated for deletion. It'd be nice to have them say "Hey, could you please find a license for this photo, please." If you notice it, just tell me and not report me. I don't intend to do it on purpose, just that I'm not sure. How do I find a license? No one can be nice and help out without me asking... if it is a reoccurring problem, maybe try helping the users out and give them suggestions. Corkythehornetfan^Talk 23:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You're continuously uploading photographs and tagging them as being Creative Commons licensed, or as being in the public domain, when they're quite obviously not that. Remember: in no case is an image CC licensed unless there's a statement with the image releasing it! And we can never tag something as being PD-USGov without an explicit statement that it's a work of the US federal government. The problem isn't that you're failing to identify the correct license: it's that you're claiming that all-rights-reserved images carry Commons-acceptable licensing or that they're in the public domain. Permit me to suggest that you upload no photographs whatsoever, except for ones that you've taken yourself, until you understand the situation better. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll stop uploading photographs, as long as I won't be blocked. Is it okay if I still transfer files from the English Wikipedia if they have a Copy to Commons tag? Corkythehornetfan^Talk 02:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing against you personally; if you're willing to do that, I won't object. Please remember the warnings at {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} regarding eligibility here: you mustn't assume that an image is suitable here just because someone else has tagged it with this template. Please continue uploading things that are just plain text, but please be careful with things with originally arranged text (example), since they really are eligible for copyright protection. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I know, you're just doing your job on here... I respect that. Is the example photo you mentioned Copyrightable? If so, I'll move it back to Eng. Wikipedia and request for it to be deleted on here. Corkythehornetfan^Talk 04:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This does, tangentially, raise another issue, which we would need to primarily address at en.wp, but could maybe be somehow helped here, too? (after all, we're all on the same team...)
{{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} is applied by some users on a large scale, without enough care. Yes, there is a subsequent duty of care on the user transferring it, but the combination leads to the horrible scenario, which does happen:

Image exists at en.wp and is in use.
Image gets tagged "Move to Commons", when it should be best kept as fair use
Image is moved without proper consideration of that, by a user who thinks they are helping by moving files in a backlogged category, with "official" looking tags
Image is deleted at en.wp as now redundant
Image subsequently deleted at Commons (as non-free usually...)
Big hole in article, missing image that could still be fair use at en.wp but now exists nowhere.

We should probably look at ways to make that scenario less likely to cause harm (even if that harm can be fixed by reuploading to en.wp - that may not be an easy remedy/procedure understood by all good faith users, and requires access to the deleted image or another copy). Begoon - talk 16:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In the past, w:Template:MTC was added to lots of files by bots operated by Commons admins User:Fastily and User:Sven Manguard, based only on templates which were present on the file information pages. Later, User:Piandcompany continued with this bot tagging. More recently, User:Sfan00 IMG has tagged lots of files manually, but errors do not seem to be too uncommon in his tags. For example, some images may be deleted on English Wikipedia per COM:NETCOPYRIGHT.

I think that we have three ways to go further:

Continue tagging all files which are marked as free in both the United States and the source country with w:Template:MTC. In this case, the template should maybe be modified to more clearly stress the need for review before transfer.
Only tag files which are clearly free in both the United States and the source country, and only tag files after a careful review. Is there any point in doing this? If I carefully review the copyright status of a file, then moving it to Commons takes only minimally more time than tagging it with w:Template:MTC, so it is better to move the file to Commons immediately instead.
Remove all "move to Commons" tags.

This is maybe more of a problem on English Wikipedia than on Commons, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK bot tagged files set an additional template parameter which adds a red box cautioning any would-be transferees to thoroughly cross-examine the contents of any file bearing said tag. IMO no need for a block of Corkythehornetfan, they don't seem to have acted in bad faith; fwiw borked transfers are easily reversible within a few clicks. -FASTILY 03:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

GilboNormand

In spite of deletions and warnings @GilboNormand: keeps on uploading deleted images, such as this one. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 06:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, blocked for a week. Indeed, no useful content from this user. Yann (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

GilboNormand asked for unblock in the userpage and I unblocked him, considering his explanation. If he uploads next photo about himself, feel free to reblock. Taivo (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gunduu

I blocked Gunduu (talk · contribs). He blanked many pages. Before that he seemed to be a normal user. After I blocked him here, he switched to English Wikipedia and got blocked there too. Account might be compromised. Feel free to unblock when appropriate. Multichill (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The block reason seems inappropriate to me. This user always contributed in a positive way to this project and blocking him as a vandalism only account is imho offensive. The block reason given here makes much more sense. Please change the block reason to something more accurate because this is not a vandalism-only account. Using the correct block reason is important and sloppy blocking is not okay. A block is justified in this occasion but the correct reason has to be provided. Natuur12 (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the blocking reason. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User Brucebruce

The user User:Brucebruce keeps uploading copyrighted porn images from various porn sites, marking them with pornographic texts on german (unuseful comments in discriptions field, e.g. "Weil sie geil ist" = "Because she's horny"). No use for wikipedia commons & repeating copyright infringement --Grunpfnul (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Substanciate your accusations instead of hearsaying, and please nominate his images by a DR instead of speedy deletions as you did in:

File:Nude woman spreading legs to show shaved vagina and anus.jpg (that survived an Deletion request in the same qualification)
File:Pregnant woman with shaved vagina.jpg

Tm (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've undeleted these after Tm raised this on my talk page. I do have doubts about the uploader, some of the images had hits (using Google and TinEye) but just because those sites pick-up lower resolution, doesn't mean that no higher resolution exists elsewhere (if a site disallows search engine bots via robot.txt, then it will not be displayed). I also fail to see a valid argument with these been "educational" (DR]) and I do wonder why the uploader has a unwillingness to email OTRS. I think a single DR for the whole images is needed. Bidgee (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I deleted one. Porn images without proper information raise sufficient doubt to meet speedy deletion. It can be undeleted if permission comes. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yann, you deleted File:Pregnant woman with shaved vagina.jpg three hours after your fellow admin Bidgee found reasons to undelete it. You guys sure give us the impression that this business of file deletion is way more serious than a coin toss. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Brucebruce himself blanked the page, removing all relevant information regarding copyright (the source and the license). Regards, Yann (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yann, so Brucebruce himself blanked a page — a blanking that can (and should!) be trivially undone by any user. That blanking doesn’t change the fact that Commons has and agreed-on scope and that CC licenses are not revokable. What’s your point again? -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

He probably blanked the page because the license and source were wrong. Also this image does not have EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I’m guessing that you refer to File:Pregnant woman with shaved vagina.jpg (I’ll move this exchange into the proper place in the thread, then), an image you can visualize and I cannot. I suppose this image is distinctly different from the rest, in terms of model (this one is a pregnant lady while the others’ is not), lighting, etc, so that its lack of EXIF cannot be waived, yes? Those reasons for deleting it after Bidgee found it okay should be recorded somewhere — a closed DR would be fine, if only you didn’t when all speedy on it. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The matter of possible copyvio is moot after the uploader was able to produce hitherto unpublished images obviously shot in the same session. That gave us data to research on (EXIF, file structure, and contents of each photo) and makes better proof than OTRS.

Once the copyvio suspicion is dropped, all we have left to delete these on is scope. Now, some people feel that naked ladies are yucky, but that doesn’t give them any reason to misuse AN/U to air their grievances. I suggest Grunpfnul should be given some time off to read COM:SCOPE and COM:PORN, to pen an apology to Brucebruce for dragging his name to AN/U and for calling him a pornographer and a copyright violator, and, maybe, to go over to Conservapedia and consider his options there, where this kind of “smut” is, I hear, severely repressed.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 08:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I surely have no problem with naked ladys and you should change the style of your argumentation - the face of the lady is truely viewable, so where is the model release for this sort of picture? Has she agreed to be uploaded on wikipedia commons, spread wide open? You should calm down and think about it. I don't see a model release here for this sort of publication. --Grunpfnul (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Grunpfnul, my style of argumentation is just fine. You, on the other hand, need to not intersperse you comments inside other peoples’, respect previous DRs and file new ones only when and as appropriate, and really not abuse the AN/U for these unrelated matters. You need to close this thread here, and then go and file a new DR for all these images of Brucebruce where you address the lack of expressed consent of the model, instead of bogus copyright violation claims in an AN page. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Acceleron124 is a vandal

Acceleron124 deleted the text of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikipedia_Summer_of_Monuments page and replaced it with "wiki look at the poop" and an image of feces. For further information, check the rev history (btw sorry I made a mistake while restoring to the pre-deleted page and there are a few extra edits under my name, ryan5685)

Please ban him and his ip address. Thanks! Ryan5685, 23:49, 4 September 2014‎

Done I've blocked Acceleron124 and semi-protected the page. The IPs are dynamic, so blocks aren't really worthwhile. INeverCry 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Eiji Mendoza (talk · contribs)

Almost all edits from this account since it was created on 27 August have been clearly disruptive. This includes using image annotations to make unhelpful comments which have had to be reverted by others and two false deletion requests, one for a non-existent copyright violation and another claiming an image is an attack page. --Fæ (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Done User blocked, DRs speedy kept/closed. INeverCry 07:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989

Sarafloyd96

Keeps uploading copyright violations and adding them to IT Wikipedia, even after more than 10 warnings, one for to each copyright violation. Tm (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And to add up even tried to delete this thread. Tm (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I've nuked her uploads and will leave a warning message on her talk page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ejensyd

Is this an ok edit? On one hand, the user is free to think what they want; on the other hand, to me it sounds at least borderline offensive, and Commons is not really a place to demonstrate their political convictions, so that I am really in doubt. The user was previously blocked for a month for harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the offensive statement and warned the user. INeverCry 22:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh great. If it is a minor issue that a regular user uses their page for off-topic soap-boxing, it becomes huge if an admin intervenes. INeverCry, expect to be bombarded by reports of thousands of such user-page borderline misuses — you’ll be expected to act the same way for each of them: Censor and warn, censor and warn, censor and warn — and the moment you stop doing it, you’ll be taken to AN/U. As I said below, it is better to leave it as it is. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

This user costumized the Babel box about Russian in his/her profile to say that although he/she has a good level (ru-3) however he/she doesn’t want to use the language of agressors and occupiers. I think this should be left alone: It is true that this could be construed as a misuse of a user page — after all this modified ru-3 babel box gives the same practical result as ru-0 or no ru at all, strictly considering only the interests of the project (in this case, that users are able to select the best choice in languages for p2p communication). However, if this kind of strict enforcement of user-page-as-a-project-tool aganist user-page-as-an-area-of-self-expression is going to happend as a rule, it is going to be bad; if this kind of strict enforcement is going to affect only a few selected users, it is going to be even worse. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My only intention in removing it was to try and prevent Commons from being a hostile enviornment. I would be willing to do the same thing with any similar reported case, regardless of the user's nationality or what country/people is being disparaged. INeverCry 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just did what I thought was the right thing to do. INeverCry 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hemant Shesh

Hi, Hemant Shesh (talk · contribs) has already a lot of warnings for copyvios, and some of the remaining are still suspicious. Help with reviewing would be nice. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hemant Shesh... not easy because he has already uploaded many of his photos elsewhere, mostly to his panoramio –⁠moogsi (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:RomanM82

Resolved

RomanM82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) nominated for deletion photos, which I uploaded. He doesn't like their quality and thinks that it gives him a right for nominate my photos for deletion. I think that the actions of RomanM82 are destructive. Please, try to explain him the rules of Commons. --Interfase (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. From hundreds of your pictures, I nominated some dozen or two of them, which are blurry, ovelighted, or dark etc. We should keep some minimum standard of quality on Commons, or at least i think so. And thank you for telling on me on admin board ;)--RomanM82 (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Where was it written in Commons that the photos with poor quality must be deleted? --Interfase (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Per COM:EDUSE. See Commons:Project_scope#Examples, at bottom:

Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.

INeverCry 21:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Done No action necessary. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass upload of copyvios

Resolved

Hi everyone. I'm hopping over from en.wiki following a user who's just created a page copied from a press release on a town's website. I see that they've also uploaded a slew of images that are all copyrighted to the website (for example, here's one). I'm not familiar with common's policies so I'm just going to leave this here for you. Dusti^*poke* 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nuked (c)vios, left info on talk page --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: - I see there are several still up. Dusti^*poke* 21:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

True. No hits on google and all taken with the same camera. Do you have evidence that there is copyright infringement? Let me know and I'll deal with the remaining uploads accordingly. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin role

Is it appropriate for an admin to, after nominating a file for deletion, but having the discussion not go his or her way, delete a file him or herself, ignoring the discussion points? I think not. (The admin in question refuses to discuss the issue, though I brought it up using exactly those words, claiming that the question is hostile!) --Elvey (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please name the admin and file in question, and notify them on their talk of this AN/U post? INeverCry 01:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:mattbuck

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

This drama is going nowhere. No admin action needed here. Please remember to stay mellow and assume good faith. Suggestion to avoid drama: @Taxiarchos228: If you are in dispute with another user, please avoid reviewing their photographs. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

After this factual review and rating mattbuck insults and assumes me in a scurrilous way. This behaviour is not tolerable for a "normal" user, but definatly disproportionate for a admin. Either mattbuck excuses and erases this terms of abuse or a admin erase this and blocks him. If this will not have a learning effect I will start a de-admin-process. His rude unobjective inflection is already well known. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing actionable there, but I would be interested in hearing your answer to Mattbuck's query. Nick (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be very interested in hearing why such vulgarism is tolerable. I don't understand mattbucks question. If he is not able to stand criticism or s.o. how opposes a picture he shouldn't nominate. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you point what part of Mattbuck's answer you find vulgar ? And could you also answer his question ? Pleclown (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You think "pissing of" or "beeing pissed" is a normal way to communicate here? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wladyslaw,

You seem to have had a problem with me for years now. I honestly cannot remember what I ever did to you to earn this distaste, but I find it tiresome. You do nothing overt, but your every interaction with me is passive-aggressive. It's small things you do - you rubbish all my QI comments on your images (calling me a "pixel counter" for instance), you decline my images at QI but you never promote any (I can only assume this is pointed as many other people promote mine, and you rarely ever review anyone's images to begin with), those you do decline are often easily fixable and thus not immediate decline-worthy. You are barely civil with me. I will confess, I don't much like you either, though that is because of the attitude you display towards me. At QI, where we come into contact, I treat you as I treat others. I review images without malice, without consideration of whose images they are. I promote some of yours, I decline some of yours, most of yours I leave comments suggesting how to make them better and await you to fix them. I give you generally a week to fix them - 2 or 3 days longer than others, because I don't want to have to deal with the attitude you bring when I do decline them.

Regarding this topic here, it is frankly pathetic. Your concern about me is that I was rude by asking what your problem with me is? That is not a scurrelous accusation, it's a matter of me being fed up with the attitude you display towards me in every single interaction we have. Frustration that you seem unable to say a single thing positive about anything I do! If it were only a few times I could handle it but it is every single damn time. I've given you the benefit of the doubt on this, but after so long what can I do but assume bad faith on your part? I just want to know what I did to piss you off so much because I'm fed up of the sniping from you.

I will not retract my comments, as I have been quite civil with you. You are blowing this... whatever it is... out of all proportion. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

mattbuck,

I don't know if this is the right podium for discussing our different aspects of our work. We have already talked much about this and we'll never find a common ground. I don't agree with you in many ways. But this is not a reason for assuming me to hate you or to give "oppose" because of subjective reasons. In fact I have tried hard to give a reasonable explanatory statement for my oppose. It's up to you to accept this or to feel offended. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wladyslaw: simply refrain from reviewing anything by users you don't like for whatever reason; like I do. --A.Savin 21:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should I avoid reviewing his pictures whether he also reviews my pictures? He has the problem with my review in this case, not I have a problem with his reviews. Sorry, but I don't understand you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Because otherwise you shouldn't be surprised if someone assumed personally motivated voting. --A.Savin 21:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surpried about anythink mattbuck does, but is it in consequence of this tolerable? --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice you are avoiding answering my question. What did I do to you which gave you a grudge against me? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As I already said, I have no grudge. We'll go in circles if you repeat your question that has wrong preconditions. Contrariwise you didn't explain why you assume me to have grudge against you just because I had voted on your FPC. If you don't have the same opinion concerning the FP you are welcome to question my aspects on the candidate page. But as we already see there is a different user that has the same opinion to your image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

+1

I agree there is nothing actionable here. I think it wise for admins to avoid words that are likely escalate drama, however saying someone appears to be "pissed off" is normally considered only mildly vulgar, and Commons is not the only Wikimedia project where this is the case. Commons policies would only be relevant when an editor appears to be deliberately creating a hostile environment for others, which may include a pattern of vulgar language, however if you look through the archives this would have to be extreme. This is an international project, so everyone needs to give plenty of slack as to what might be inappropriate words to use or that someone appears to be abrupt in their use of English.

I suggest a nice cup of tea and give it a day of reflection before saying anything more about it and consider spending your volunteer time on something else. Commons is a big place, plenty to do and it is easy to avoid editors that annoy you unless they choose to follow you about. --Fæ (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wladyslaw, I agree with A.Savin I think that refrain from reviewing anything by users you don't like for whatever reason is very good idea you can avoid the unpleasant emotions of something that is basically fun. Geagea (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Geagea: There is NO reason to freak out like mattbuck does. My voting was factual, yet an other user apparently shares my opinion. It's very charakteristic that mattbuck doen't wanted to accept 2 years ago that I labeled a revenche voting as revenche voting (at that time the user fighted against me and voted directly after that). Back then mattbuck banned my behaviour to accuse s.o. Now he didn't only accuse me but also in a vulgar. How is this different perceptions to explain? --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way: why should I avoid mattbucks candidate but he has right to review my candidates? Don't pervert the facts. Mattbuck accuses me in a vulgar way, not I accuse him.

From my understanding, if you take time to examine + review an image, it is kind of favour you do to the nominator. (Don't forget that we are all volunteers here and not obliged to review, edit, upload, (un-)protect,... anything.) Which means by implication that you should not review anything by someone whom you wouldn't do any favour. If they review your nominations, there are two possibilities: 1) the reviews appear fair to you => don't worry, be happy; or 2) you find the reviews personally motivated or otherwise unfair => then try to get explanation from the user, or open a separate user problem. --A.Savin 09:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see a relevance in your execution with this case. There are three main facts: (1) I have given a factual voting to mattbucks FPC. (2) mattbuck comments my factual voting at FPC in a disappropriate way. (3) mattbuck as well as I review our pictures at Commons since years. We don't need a general contemplation about user behaviour but debate this special case. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Expectations for how contributors should treat each other at FPC is really a matter for FPC rather than AN/U as there is no admin action needed here. FPC already has a section called "Above all, be polite" in its guidelines, which do not apply to the rest of Commons. If the FPC guidelines for conduct are insufficient, then I suggest you take up your case at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates in order to have it improved or enforced, presumably the FPC community could chose to ban someone from participating if they reached a consensus that this was necessary. --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) He seems to perceive your vote as unfair. He's probably wrong, but I wonder if it is worthy an ANU thread and even a de-admin-process as announced. An other user accused me on QIC some time ago I would always decline his oldtimers but prefer mattbuck's trains or so. I simply answered as much as: "think what you want, I'm always going to review according to my own requirements on quality; if you don't like the fact that they are relatively high, it's purely your problem". --A.Savin 10:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Lmbuga

Hello, I just asked how could I improve one image [22] based on his talk here; and the volunteer freak out, I even tried to call him back [23], but he start to screaming ([24] [25][26]...), saying that I should be blocked, and no sense things like:"Thanks, very friendly, and very friendly with the absurd link."[27] (I explain to him that the link is about his suggestion and is one version of the same image [28]...) "YOU CAN'T DELETE MY COMMENTS OR YOUR COMMENTS" (yep, upper case, and can't I remove my comments, or abuses of public space?), and he his using a request to a evaluation of quality a image to attack me, just because I request better information to improve the quality of the images that I share here... Actually I don't send images for evaluation because of this drama queens, I just send there because no one answered me here.

And yes, I remove his comments (and my) in the Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, but just his "non technical" comments that is just attacks or scream and do not ad to the discussion. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Forget me, please--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 21:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton You forgot to mention, that Miguel had written a long explanation in a polite manner to help you. See [29]. -- Smial (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't saw that User:Smial, I'm very sorry Lmbuga, I receive wikimsgs by email and I just saw this [30], and I came here.

I became so frustrated after I asked one opinion and the person was so aggressive, that I couldn't waste more time on that, so didn't read anything above "Peço distância, por favor: Forget Me. I'm not your guy or your queen. RESPECT"

I was hopping that you could remove that trahstalk on QI page, and move on. Peace. Sorry again, and I will try to follow what you said. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Blackcat

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 46

Urban explorer's photos

Problemas

Latest sockpuppet of serial copyright problem user Category:Sockpuppets of Over the Limit

Jhalvico, Latironicoec, Pablo685002

Iop sm, Palosirkka

arbitrary break

Latest sockpuppet of serial copyright problem user Category:Sockpuppets of Over the Limit

Disactivation of Central Notice

Stefan4

User:Tm continues to revert my changes to images related to the Mongol Empire, claiming vandalism.

Parabolooidal

User:Jab7842 and strange machinations at Template talk:Speedydelete/en

User-problem with aggressive deletion behavior

Problem with categories in Ghana

User:Tm is harassing me and has accused me of vandalism.

Edit war over football kits

User:Afghansia

Changing my username from முஹம்மது அம்மார் to Mohammed Ammar

User:NigelHowells

IP adding election spam to files

Marito nico

Soccer kits revert war

Corkythehornetfan

GilboNormand

User Brucebruce

Acceleron124 is a vandal

Eiji Mendoza (talk · contribs)

Hemant Shesh

User:RomanM82

Mass upload of copyvios

Admin role

Blackcat

Navigation menu

Search