Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 45

User:Fastily & User:FastilyClone

(ping, ping)

In a recent multiple-file DR filed by User:Russavia, a serious concern was raised, assuming bad faith from their uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data implied copyright violation of third parties. Upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads, and the DR was closed by User:Fastily.

In the closing statement, this user noted that a separate DR will be open for each of the affected 322 files, «so the files can be discussed independently of one another». However the kind of concern that caused the original DR cannot be evaluated in separate, and most of the photos, considered individually, present no concievable reason to be even filed a DR. This splitting serves no purpose at all, apart from wasting volonteer time, while risking reckless deletion of potentially valuable items.

(P.S.: While I’m sure that User:Fastily and User:FastilyClone are the same person in meatspace, this is not a sock puppet complaint: I’m perfectly comfortable with the fact that this collegue has two accounts and I have no reason to imagine he/she would use them in any objectionable manner.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 23:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This has not actually happened (yet). I suspect common-sense will prevail and the unfairness/un-mellowness of blitzing a user with 300 DRs en-mass will never happen. If anyone has serious concerns, they could raise a couple of sample DRs as test cases and then assess the rest. For example a couple had explicit copyright statements in the EXIF data that may be worth questioning. PS I'm only really responding as I generated the supporting analysis, which might help decide if anything further is needed. --Fæ (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fæ, yes it happened (and already had when I filed in this complaint): Goes from here to here: That’s 332 322^{(corrected: -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC))} individual DRs based on a reason that can only be considered in toto and which was already solved in the discussion of the original bundle DR when said DR was closed and the ensuing stampede was unleashed.

Russavia did well in raising the flag on these suspicious photos, Fæ did a great job with his /analysis, Hornet Driver laudably created and uploaded five concrete pieces of evidence to make his case… but I cannot find anything good to say about Fastily in this matter…

-- Tuválkin ✉ 02:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Fastily may meant one DR for each camera? Jee 02:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

He may, and it would make sense, but then why did he create 322 DRs instead of a mere dozen? -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops; I though it is not done per Fae's comment above. That much DR is very bad. :( Jee 02:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm that's easy enough to do. I'll re-sort them accordingly. -FASTILY 03:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Some of these 322 DR withdrawls end up on my watchlist because I voted keep on them (I started in "A" and stopped in mid "G" when it started to become tiresome, that’s when I come here). I checked a handful of the files and the notification about a previous, closed DR is missing from the file’s talk page (here, for one, the DR of March 19th is noted, but not that of June 17th). Is this done by a slow bot, not part of the DR closing? -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I appear to have been misled by following a sample DR notice which took me back to the original DR. Raising 300 DRs in one day would overwhelm most editors and was not needed in this case as other approaches could have been taken. I would be extremely unhappy if an administrator blitzed me this way without prior agreement, and I do know how to use the tools to respond to 300 DRs within 7 days. Tools should not be used disruptively, and administrators should never let bureaucracy take over from simple fairness. I look forward to seeing Fastily put this right, and do the right thing by this uploader (who may have done absolutely nothing wrong here, apart from supporting Commons with valid content in good faith).

In the meantime I suggest all administrators consider these DRs void. --Fæ (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your information/perspective seems outdated; I withdrew and closed all these DRs over 4 hours ago. While I personally will not be renominating any of these files, it might be worthwhile to vet the no-EXIF airplane images listed here -FASTILY 09:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No doubt. Thanks for taking action. I have notified Hornet Driver of this discussion, which seems to have been missed. Hornet Driver has yet to be notified, on their talk page, of your action in putting your original action right, you may wish to take a moment to do that out of courtesy. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:User21550231

User:User21550231 changed (again) licenses in his images from {{Cc-by-3.0}} to Cc-by-nc-nd. See example here. Can someone undo the changes? I have already blocked the user as obvious sock. Ankry (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Done It appears that the changes have already been undone by someone else. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Semi-protected these files to avoid further vandalisms. Ankry (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Robertandrewscott (talk · contribs)

I propose to delete all uploads of this account and eventually to indef-block. Obviously the person behind this account tries to (ab)use Commons to warn potential victims about a person "Robert Andrew Scott" which he/she accuses as serial polygamist, among other accusations.[1] In the image-descriptions he also links to https://www.facebook.com/robertandrewscottConman which likely belongs to the same person. What's also strange is that the uploader here and at Facebook uses as username the name of the accused person. Apart from the fact that we have no means to check the accuracy of the accusations (which might be true or not), such use is out of the scope of Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. User blocked for 1 week, all files deleted. Harassment is never acceptable. Also probably unacceptable user name, as imposture. Feel free to block him longer. Yann (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Biantez

• Biantez (talk · contribs)

Please, stop user Biantez from keeping insults in my user talk page. Biantez is a long-term sockpuppeteer from Portuguese wiki and is currently blocked on that project. After this block was placed, he decided to keep harassing me and others to have his block removed there, which was just ignored on the beginning.
However, ignoring is not working. he has added insulting comments on my page, which is being reverted by me, but he insists on keeping it for no reason but harassment ([2], [3], [4], [5]).
I won't keep insults on my page and I don't want to keep reverting that indefinitely or have to deal with somebody that is not here to contribute. Thank you.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 23:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have let Biantez know about this thread for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

192.168.1.1PL

192.168.1.1PL (talk · contribs) renamed a number of galleries including for example Athens and Minsk to non-Latin names without any discussion, and is renaming categories to what they think is a correct spelling, also without any discussion. I left them a message at the talk page, advising to look for consensus first, but I am about to board a flight from Japan to Europe, and I am not sure when would be the next time I have internet access, so if somebody can answer their quieries (if forthcoming) and/or rename some galleries back, it would be great. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories are in English, but Galleries can be in the native name, so this seems OK to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yann, it seems to me that while you are correct as to the letter of the rule, the renaming is not in the spirit of Commons. I don't think an IP user should be renaming long established English named galleries to another language. It would certainly be OK for him to start new galleries with titles and captions in Greek and Belarusian, but it is not OK to simply grab other people's work and make it much less accessible to most of our users. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Info @Jameslwoodward: This is a registered user, not IP. Ankry (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha -- thank you -- a user with 191 edits on Commons. However, even a user with 191,000 edits should not be hijacking the work of others. My comment stands. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree and I think the pages he's moved should be moved back, without prejudice to (s)he gaining consensus for the move to the non-Latin name. Happy to help if needed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the gallery rename. I only note, that their category rename were OK. Ankry (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

second opinion for deletion review

Hi to all! During the review of one deletion request and related OTRS ticket I think that I identified intentional cheating of uploader, manipulating with EXIF data and licensing information, uploading of the fake photo as a real one. I think that the user should be blocked for such behavior but could someone give me a second opinion, please? rubin16 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Checked by Ankry. Image is fake. Speedily deleted, uploader indef'ed. --A.Savin 13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 Info Cross-canvassing: There's a vandalism report on meta: m:Vandalism reports#Jeromjerom --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Status. User has acknowledged lying about "own work" with the photo. That was the core of the problem. (The user may have believed the photo was genuine. He may have meant by "own work" that he had rights to use it. Complicated, and a language problem. The full story is yet to be developed.) The meta report is unlikely to result in global action, but as a result of it, the user has been extensively warned and counselled, is communicative and grateful for counsel, and is unlikely to repeat the behavior. However, I recommend no action at this time. --Abd (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Archmedus and personal attacks

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

@Fry1989: @Archmedus: Both of you have engaged in behaviour that would have warranted a block to protect the Wiki. It matters not who started it, nor who is 'right'. Whatever the provocation, the type of language you have both used is unacceptable. Sven Manguard has given good advice. Please take it now, both of you, step back and avoid eachother for a while. Nobody likes to block, and I would prefer not to do that if you can both back off. If this warning is ignored, the next problematic comment from either of you is likely to result in a pretty long block. I would suggest a starting point of a week, given the seriousness of the history here. Fry1989: Skeezix1000 has well explained the reasons why no admin has wanted to get involved here. The more you shout and actually demand action, the less sympathy you are likely to get. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

---

I believe the personal attacks I have faced in this DR have passed all acceptable bounds. I have been called a hypocrite where no actually hypocrisy had taken place, been told that I am pitied, that I am pathetic, that I have imaginary delusions, create my own dream world, have a big mouth, may be insane, dramaqueen, and to pejoratively "stick to traffic signs" even though heraldry was long my interest before I began my work in the other field. This user has also been speaking about me (and Sodacan and Heralder and Adelbrecht) behind our backs on the Dutch-laguage Wikipedia because our work in heraldry differs from their preferred efforts and the language used there also borders on harrasing/personal attacks. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The two of you spent far too much time egging each other on. Yes, "I pity you twisted mind. Go seek some help." is entirely out of line, but the statement you made immediately preceding it wasn't particularly appropriate either. Perhaps the best solution would for you and Arch to both avoid talking to each other for a few days? That would, of course, mean that both of you would have to cease participating in the DR, however seeing how it's gone thus far, I think that might be for the best. The line between healthy debate and unhealthy debate is not always a clear one, but you two passed into unhealthy debate a while ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Egging each other on? Please, I discussed the facts, this user has discussed the state of my mind. Two very different things. I never crossed the line of personal attacks even a little, this is grossly overstepping that boundary. Also considering my scrutiny of your actions as an admin on the main AN page, I hardly consider you an objective voice. Every single user here knows that if these personal attacks were turned around, I'd be blocked in a heartbeat. I haven't even asked that course of action be taken against Arch. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the immediate prior statement by me is "I don't need your pity, you however need to find a new way of expression outside of attacking me" which is absolutely correct. Arch had personally attacked me before posting the response which caused me to initiate this AN, they only dug a bigger hole by not taking heed my advice and instead posting a response so grossly filled with personal attacks one after another that it can not be ignored. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I realize that it is difficult to look at a situation that you are invested in with an outsider's objectivity, but when you said "If anything, you owe me an apology, but instead you try to bully me. You don't care about the truth, you care about controlling images to suit your desires.", what exactly did you think would happen? Essentially, you accused him of undue ownership of images, called him a bully, and ordered him to apologize. It's not as direct an attack as what he said in reply, but even if the conversation had not already gotten heated, it's easy to see how that could be seen as a personal attack.

Yes, Archmedus' response was wholly inappropriate, but it wouldn't be appropriate to ignore how it would up at that point. Hence, I maintain that the best solution is that the two of you avoid each other. You two can't egg each other on if you're not in the same conversations. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the bullying comment is both about another user (Dqfn13) and based on fact. I have ample evidence of bullying on Dutch Wikipedia, which caused me to be completely detached from wanting to advance that project in any manner and requesting my account be blocked. Even after that, both that user and Arch have been talking about myself and several other users behind our back in at minimum a negative light and most a harassing manner.

Secondly, I commanded nobody to apologize to me, rather I said that the accusation of of hypocrisy which could not be established and was not true deserves an apology but instead I receive further accusations and attacks. That comment was in response to Arch, who suggested that I was biased and if this were an image relating my Canada, my home country, I would be singing a different tune.

Third, the accusation of ownership of images is hardly undue. All over the Dutch Wikipedia, and in some places on Commons as well, both Arch and Dqfn13 have discussed how the images created by Heralder or Sodacan are "pretty, but not correct according to our Dutch heraldic rules". They have repeatedly edited to control which versions of the same images may or may not be used there. Even here in this DR and the other related one, where the orders in question from from Britain and Spain and therefore under the jurisdiction of these two countries, Arch has argued that because these images don't fit Dutch heraldic rules they are a "fantasy", "fake", that they must be deleted and censored from Commons so nobody mistakes them as real. My point in that DR has always been that these images may not be official in the Netherlands but that there is plenty of evidence that they are in Spain, Britain, Sweden, or any other country that chooses to bestow their national order on a Dutch monarch. Now you tell me how that is not an attempt to control images and an undue accusation.

Lastly, I have constantly based my arguments within this DR based on facts and current knowledge, whereas Arch has attempted to make this personal. Not only did I not respond to it, I gave advice that their frustration could be better served by addressing the matter rather than attacking me. Instead they chose to further attack me, and not only simply attack me, but write a 179 word paragraph filled with no less than 13 personal attacks. That is inexcusable. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Sven Manguard, another admin gave me once a 3-day block for a much softer breach of civility. You guys are all going by the same rulebook, or is it more like Calvinball? -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sven Manguard responded to my AN only minutes after my continued scrutiny of their absolutely dismissive attitude regarding their block of another user, in which even other admins are not pleased. They also have not read the DR in question where these personal attacks took place with enough attention to separate comments of mine, confusing one with another when they were in response to two separate users. They have even attempted to pass the blame around when I have not crossed the line of personal attacks and another user has crossed that same line far beyond the limits any normal user would lay out. I don't believe Sven Manguard actually cares, but rather things I just deserve this. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 I am surprised that you feel that way, considering that I am going out of my way to help you. No one deserves to have insults thrown at them, but the dispute isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

As Tuválkin said above, there are plenty of admins that would have already blocked someone by now. That someone could have just been Arch, or it could have easily been both of you. I don't like civility blocks, because they often involve messy subjective decisions like "who said the nastier thing" and "who really started it", and so I generally advocate that people in a dispute avoid each other for a while and let everything cool down. You may not want to do that, and it's clear that Arch and Dqfn13 donn't want to do that, but if you all don't stop fighting - right now - there are almost certainly going to be blocks, interaction bans, or topic bans from heraldry and/or DR issued. Since none of us know which admin is going wind up wading into this mess next, and you don't know whether the next admin is going to see you as just as much a part of the problem as Archmedus or Dqfn13, I really suggest that all of you take the avoidance route, and spare yourselves the trouble of finding out. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I regret nothing I said, especially after Fry's impassioned plea from Fry about censorship. Since 14 march 2007 I've uploaded thousands of usefull files, NEVER had a conflict with another user, acccept Fry, who's the bullie here with his aggressive approach.

First time we met was during a editwar, check the history on this file. Never had experienced a editwar before. Than here he marked one of my uploaded files superseded the same day (!) I did made the upload. That file was on that moment the ONLY file with a 100% correct execution, while all the other files had (minor) errors. Look to his response here (Later someone did recolor the other image in the right color purple, instead red, see history) So who's arrogance? I did made a blockrequest against his actions, but withdraw it, didnt got the energy that time. As you can see [here, look to his reaction after that! Who's the bullie?

I'm not the problem user here, Fry is. I did not insult him, I telling him just the truth. Believe me, In my statement about him, I'm being very politely, though I would weighting with my emotions. I can offer a lots of more examples, but it is a (far too much) long story. If the truth hurts his feelings, than he should look to him self. Stay away from the fire if you can not stand the heat. How is Fry's history? How many blocks he did get during his time here? How many warnings for PA's? In the Netherlands we've a saying: whom the ball bounces can expect him back. I treat everyone like they treat me. I'm not the only one which has problems with Fry. If he performs a normal conversation, he will get normal answers. If we have to go count insults, Fry is the winner.

Fry claims above that I did "speak behind his back over him" in this discussion, thats a lie. Ask anybody who can read Dutch language, use a translator, to confirm that.

Now he's running to this page to howl that someone is doing mean to him. While it would be wise to ignore each other. Childish behavior. Again, stay relevant, You can indicate your opinion about a nomination, but keep it at that. Keep things that do not matter outside, you will see that it gets better. What I said before, start dialogues, work together. This is a collaborative not not your own property.

I'm not going to add more in defense, its meaningless to waste more words and time to this matter.

If a made an insult (?) according the rules, just block me, you have to do what you have to do, I guess. For the one who has to do the dirty job, I dont blame you anything. Remember, solves a blockade anything? The problems are much deeper. Fry will have to adapt, or we've have to avoid eachother. It looks like that is possible too. Remember that there are humans behind this project. Arch (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And again Fry1989 knows how to twist words and fact. You've never been bullied on the Dutch Wikipedia, many other users (including ME!) have tried to give you tips on how to act within the guidelines of the Dutch Wiki. The fact you can't read the language was a huge hurdle for you, one you couldn't overcome as you were not interested in learning the guidelines and you wanted to post your own images against one very importent guideline: BTNI which says: if it is good, don't cange it by something of worse or equal quality. And yes, if an image doesn't obay the Dutch heraldic rules it is not correct and should be removed. Dqfn13 (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Added: And again, plenty of evidence by Fry1989... where is it? You always say you have evidence but you never show it! Every discussion, same old story: I have plenty of evidence.... <silence>. Dqfn13 (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you even look at the evidence in this DR? Or does it not exist? Fry1989 ^eh? 16:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Archmedus, Dqfn13, and Fry1989 - You really need to stop fighting and walk away from each other. I really can't emphasize this enough; if you continue to antagonize each other like this, the only people you will be hurting are yourselves. I'm not going to get any further involved in this discussion, as I don't think that there's anything else that I can add. As I said above though, if all don't stop fighting and another admin has to step in, there are almost certainly going to be blocks, interaction bans, or topic bans from heraldry and/or DR issued. It will be up to that admin to decide whether any one of you, or all of you, should be warned or sanctioned. Don't give the next admin that chance; let the rest of the community handle that DR, cut your losses, and walk away. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would really like to be able to see another admin comment on this matter. You have made enough excuses and "share the blame" effort, and considering my comments about your own problems, I don't think you are objective in this matter. Even here in this AN, I am still being personally attacked even though I have never attacked Arch or Dqfn13. 13 personal attacks in one peragraph goes far beyond the limitations on civility expected on Wikimedia. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

The above discussion is getting long and is bringing up irrelevant matters. Just to make it absolutely clear, I have faced a series of personal attacks by Arch in this DR which were unsolicited. These attacks include:

• The pot calling the kettle black, Fry. (I received no apology for this accusation in bad faith of some sort of nationalistic hypocrisy even though I showed the opposite behaviour)
• You agitate without evidence against something you do not understand. (I have sources so I clearly do understand, I simply have a different view)
• You oppose it without written facts, a harmful way for the encyclopedia. (accusing a user of being harmful for the encyclopedia is extremely out of bounds simply because they oppose your DR)
• I pity you
• twisted mind.
• Go seek some help.
• Curve reasoning
• imaginary delusions
• create your own dream world
• whining like a dramaqueen
• big mouth
• I seriously wonder if maybe you're insane
• kind of paranoia
• split personality
• You're pathetic
• Stay with the traffic signs (not normally a personal attack but in this case it was clearly pejorative)

All of this is unacceptable, clearly violates the civility expectations, and can not be ignored. I never personally attacked either Arch or Dqfn13, I discussed the matter based on the facts and evidence. Can they say the same? This was not deserved, this is not ok. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry, last time I got involved in one of your discussions here, your reaction to even constructive criticism essentially amounted to "I haven't had regard to anyone's comments, my block is over and I have no intention of changing my behaviour, I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so screw off". It shouldn't come as a surprise that people are reluctant to get involved in another one of your dramas. I concur with the advice stated above - you all need to step away, and let others resolve the DR. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sven, you're right. Best thing is avoid eachother, I will not stand in the way. Even better it will be for Fry to stay away from Dutch heraldic issues unless he wants to read and provide reliable written sources, in that case he's more than welcome, More people know more than one. He will have to abide by rules. In this discussion beneath is a sample of Fry's mentality about heraldic rules.

Quote: "You "heraldic experts" are all the same. If something doesn't fit your "laws", you think that gives you the right to call something "wrong" or "fake" and to remove it from pages where it's being used. Your laws aren't the laws for all of us, and just because something doesn't fit your laws or rules or whatever else you want to call them, you don't get to impose your will on us. You can't impose your laws of heraldry on Wikimedia, you can't impose them on the Pope, you can't impose them on anyone. Do you know why I was originally interested in heraldry? Because it was fun, it's a work of art and beautiful and interesting. But whenever an image does something against the "laws" or "rules", experts like you remove it or change it or say it can't be right because it doesn't follow what it's supposed to. People who do that make it not fun anymore, people who do that turn me off from what was one of my first true interests. .... The rules are a joke, and people like you take them way too seriously like it's a matter of life and death. So somebody uses two colours that aren't supposed to touch according to your laws, does that hurt anyone? No. "

This is how he really thinks about heraldic rules. Many people who care about heraldics are trying to follow the rules of heraldics. Its a serious matter to reach for the goal to made it right. I believe that we reached on Dutch Wikipedia a reliability level around 98%. There are almost 3000 coats of arms we subject to criticisms on daily basis. We have to deal with people who give priority to their personal preferences, use Global Replace to replace images without any form of consultation. Also messed with categories to get images top of the page. I will be called racist or nationalist because I try to explain about rules. In the Netherlands we used to asssume good faith, vice versa we have to deal by a wall of misunderstanding of our good intentions. Rules and laws are determined, You can not weighting with your own opinion. Fry is repeately saying: "Commons is not censored", as if I work against freedom of expression. But how is it with my freedom of speech? I didnt call him nasty names, i did just say what I sincerely think, I really think something is wrong with his behavior, A conversation seems impossible. At NL wiki, the most patient moderators did their best, in vain.

Therefore I give him advice. Stick to the road signs. That was well meant advice.

Beneath a line of Fry from the talkpage:

quote: ""Things I do not understand?" The only person here who doesn't understand things is clearly you. You do not understand that Commons is not censored, that Dutch law does not extend to other countries, that you have already been wrong in this related DR where you called that image a fantasy even though it is sourced. You also accused me of being a hypocrite, suggesting that I would want to censor certain images on Commons related to Canada if given the chance, even though I have never attempted to do so and really couldn't care less. If anything, you owe me an apology, but instead you try to bully me. You don't care about the truth, you care about controlling images to suit your desires"

How many insults are in this little piece of text? He says that I'm calling him a hypocrite, but nowhere in the text I write something, it excist only in his mind. He demands a apology for something I'm not aware of. The Canada issue was solved already on 08:33, 23 June, everybody can read it back in the discussion. Just look on the timestamps. Fry is overreacting about in on: 15:58, 23 June, and 17:28, 24 June. In that message (see quote above) he's accussing me for bullying him. He's ignoring my suggestion for a warninglabel and a namechange, but right after he's yelping here about me, he writes finally:

quote: "It should however be renamed with the dates of when Princess Beatrix was Queen, since the current King is not a knight of the Order of the Garter."

quote: 15:57, 23 June 2014 "You have no right to have this image deleted because of your perception that it's a fantasy even though that is clearly not the case."

He did write this line AFTER I said on 08:33, 23 June: "With something like that for coat of arms is maybe a great solution for this problem, images like this can kept with such notice"

You can al read it again, thats what I mean with twisted mind, becausse thats twisted. I dont recect the image, I only trying to fix the problem, with a special banner like the one one the flag "This coat of arms, as well as other fictitious coat of arms, is fictitious or proposed but not adopted. This flag is named as it would be an official flag of a national or subnational entity, and probably has some visual elements that are similar to official logos or coats of arms of certain entity, such as colors or some symbol, but they are NOT official and don't have any official recognition."

His response is "The only person here who doesn't understand things is clearly you.", thank you. As I said earlier, how meaningful is a block? Indeed, restraining is maybe the wisest solution, Commons will benefit from it. --Arch (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How I think about heraldic rules are irrelevant. Everything you mention is irrelevant and does not solicit the extreme personal attacks you have thrown my way. I was right, you don't understand that DR, you don't understand the facts, you refuse to, and then you blame me and attack me for having a different opinion of the matter and one which is supported by the evidence. I never asked for you to be blocked, I reported your actions here because it breaks all rules on civility and it can not be ignored. You claim that "In the Netherlands, we always try to assume good faith", BULLSHIT! You assumed bad faith in me right from the beginning when you accused me of being the pot calling the kettle black, and you continued this theme of bad faith throughout the rest of your comments. Whose the real hypocrite here? You. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to drop the stick everyone? Natuur12 (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You said: Natuur12's involvement is also disturbing considering their ridicule of several users including both myself and Adelbrecht on the Dutch-language version of Wikipedia. My response to that: "The pot calling the kettle black, Fry." You see that as an accusation in bad faith of some sort of nationalistic hypocrisy Who's insulting who? Fry grow up. Its a good suggestion of Sven to stay away from me. If I see you anywere, I back out, If you see me anywere you back out, you cant "win them all".Arch (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Natuur12, I'm prepared do drop my stick (did it before by the way), I'm the mature. No problem at all. Fry not, he's the one who deserves the blocking :) Arch (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Natuur12 you are NOT an impartial voice in this matter. Your biased criticism and witch hunt against me on the Dutch Wikipedia, telling me I have no place being there, precludes you from having any voice in this matter.

Arch, the only person here who has insulted anyone is you. You can try as hard as you want, but calling me insane and all the other things you said were attacks and there are no examples of me using the same language. You even lie about your intentions afterward. You claim that the traffic signs comment was just friendly advice. The comment in it's entirety was "Stay with the traffic signs, not to be confused with signs that indicate natural areas." which was a very obvious snipe at my mistake in categorizing an image months ago. Even if you didn't include that snipe at me, only an fool would believe that after writing an entire paragraph filled with such vitriol and hatred, you decided to end it with some well-intended advice. If I used any of this language on the Dutch Wikipedia I would be blocked in an instant and nobody would bat an eye. You deserve the same consequences here for your actions. You attacked me, you can't deny your own choice of words and pretend it was all friendly. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Come on Fry, this is the second time that I'll reach out my hand to you, we can do two things ok? Hate eachother (wich is not good for the project) or ignore eachother, better, but even can shake hands. Dont forget, I'll treath everyone the same, like they treath me, if you're angry, than it is becausse of the reflection of the mirror wich I holding in front of you. --Arch (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I will beat this stick until it is broken and bloodied if I have to. Sven Manguard and Natuur12 don't pretend for one second that you wouldn't block me if I were the user throwing around these personal attacks. I want consequences for Arch's actions. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha you're funny too. I'll take a little break, back over a hour. Arch (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that is funny is that you think you can say all those things and then pretend it was all friendly and well meant, then claim victimhood status of "oh no, I'm really the one being attacked" when I never said anything like that about you, and also pretend that I will shake hands with you. If you really believe that, perhaps some of your comments are better when self-directed. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ehhh I gave a suggestion Fry. And I told you that there was no place for you at the Dutch Wikipedia if you kept ignoring local policy's and if you kept making mistakes when it comes to heraldic weapons. I'm not the one that blocked you and I didnot start a witchhunt against you. I only got involved later on in this discussion when some of the best nl-wiki admins explained to you why you broke the local policy. So please stop asuming bad faith. As an administrator there I am allowed to intervene when there is trouble. If you see that as a witch hunt that is clearly another act of bad faith against me. Six administators, including myself tried to make clear what you did wrong there. This is a dispute which you have there and it should stay there. However, the part where you misused the global replace tool is interesting for Commons though now you bring this up. However, for now this is only going to end in a mud fight so that's why I suggested to drop the stick. And no I'm not going to block here. Nor do I think that is whise. This is a dispute that should be solved and you don't solve this kind of disputes with a block. Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You and your friends on the Dutch Wikipedia told me I had no place there because I don't speak Dutch. You personally also brought up my edits on other-langauge wikis such as the English and Spanish versions and then asked "do we really want him here?". Even other Dutch Wiki users told you that was irrelevant, so don't pretend it didn't happen. It had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with you not wanting me editing there and trying to run me out of town. I can link your edits just as well as you can link mine, so don't even try to deny it! It's very convenient that you now want to keep local disagreements local, when before you were more than happy to bring disputes from other projects into the picture as long as it forwarded your desire to have me out of there. Then you come here to defend your friends, and you really think you can pretend you are an impartial voice? I will not drop the stick until there is some form of consequence for these inexcusable personal attacks. And btw, your supposed claim that I abused a globalreplace tool is baseless, the matter has already been discussed and it was decided that I was perfectly within my rights in using the tool and that no abuse had taken place. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989, severall people here showed you their hand, they wanted to make peace... and you not only left them hanging; you even slapped their hand. You can still add at the Dutch Wiki if you want, I even gave you tips on how to improve the articles about road signs... despite me not liking you I still was making efforts in helping you... but you left me hanging. If people have a look at your Dutch talk page they'll see you not assuming good faith towards all users there, that was the pot calling the kettle being black. Dqfn13 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry, so you only want to see some consequences for Archmedus and you don't want to solve this longer lasting dispute? That people at the Dutch Wikipedia not always agree with me is a fact since we are all different human beings. Everyone has their own opinion and is allowed to give his/her own opinion just like I am allowed to give my opinion and vision on this case. And please, like I said. I only got involved after you already escalted the situation. Dqfn13 is a friend of mine, yes. Arc is a collegue who I respect. Is there something wrong with that when I ask for de-escalating a situation? I don't think so. I don't pretend to have an impartial voice or anything like that. I don;t have to have a impartial voice to ask for de-escalating a situation. I don't have to have a impartial voice to know that blocking would make things worse just like vengeance. I do have to be impartial to sanction you or Arch of course but that it not what I am doing here Fry. Natuur12 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dqfn13, you want me to accept the hand of peace? Then there is a lot of apologizing to be done. I want an apology from Arch for every single personal attack they made, from calling me insane to saying I have split-personality disorder to that they pity me. Then I want an apology from the users on Dutch Wikipedia who said I have no place being there based on what languages I speak. Then I want an apology from Natuur12, who tried to have me run out of town with no fear of bringing up things that happened on other projects, but now hypocritically suggests "that was a local dispute, let's keep it local". Do that, maybe I'll reconsider. But as long as I am the butt of these attacks and harassment and lies, don't expect any reconciliation from me.

Natuur12, what do you actually think I could be sanctioned here for anyway? For reporting personal attacks which break all expectations of civility and desiring some sort of consequence, knowing that had I been the user throwing these attacks around I would be blocked in an instant? You escalated the matter on Dutch Wikipedia, and now you try to escalate this matter by accusing me of abusing a tool even though it was agreed I had not abused it. Now you expect me to de-escalate. But somehow I'm the hypocrite, I'm the one who is wrong, it's all my fault. Next I bet you will tell me I am insane and deserved to be called so and that Arch should get a reward rather than a consequence. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I never use the word abused, I used the word misused. So could you give me a link where it has being discussud that replacing the flag of man cross wiki is not a misuse of the tool? In that case I will apologise of course that I used the word misused. Second, I didnot say anything about that that I think that you could be sanctioned. I said . I do have to be impartial to sanction you or Arch of course but that it not what I am doing here Fry. as an example when I should be more impartial. Thirdly, I only entered the discussion there after you where blocked, after the situation escaleted. Unless you have some evidence that the situation escalated because I entered the discussion I would like you yo withdraw this statement. And yes I expect you to help de-escalating this situation. I expect the same from Arch and Dqfn13. That is not a strange thing to expect. If you knew me better you could have know that I am not the kind of guy to holde a grudge or to start a with hunt etc. Natuur12 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The entire matter of my use of GlobalReplace was discussed here and it was decided that I am not abusing/misusing the tool. Secondly, I never said I was blocked on Dutch Wikipedia because of you, you did infact join the discussion only after the block took place. However, you deliberately brought up my edits on the Spanish Wikipedia and on Commons and used them as an argument for me to not be unblocked, you said "do we really want this person here?". Now you say that local disagreements should stay local. Perhaps I should say you have split personality disorder, I certainly would have grounds for it since you say one thing here but do another thing elsewhere when it suited your needs. But of course you (or another admin) would block me right now for it if I do that. But Arch gets a free pass for calling me that and much more. You really believe I will let this go without any sort of consequence when I know the truth that I would face consequences if the situation were reversed? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the event where you replaced this specific file happened after Russavia closed this topic. And again the situation was already escalated before your block. And yes, the way I deal with cases at the Dutch Wikipedia varies with how I deal with cases elswhere. Btw in that case you used a tool to solve a Commons-dispute wich affected local Wiki's and that whas the reason why I mentioned the cross wiki consequences of your actions. Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't use it to solve a dispute. I use the tool to replace images which I would normally do manually except where doing such would be excessively labourous and the bot makes the process quicker. In the case of the Isle of Man flag, there is still no consensus or conclusion of the disagreement between which image is proper, and the policies state that when there is a disagreement that the original image before the dispute should be maintained until there is a resolution. The admins on Commons were unwilling to follow the policy and therefore I was forced to replace the new image with the original version before the dispute. Policy is on my side. As for you, there is no excusing your hypocrisy. You deliberately mentioned my edits on other Wikis and used them as an argument for why I shouldn't be welcome on Dutch Wikipedia, now you say local issues should stay local. You think I will ever take anything you say seriously or honestly for as long as you contradict yourself? I won't, and neither would you if things were reversed. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't know all the exact details of all the policy's so could you please provide me a link? And for those edits, I already explained above why I (of course it was deliberately since I don't sleeptype) mentioned those. Some people take me serieus, some people think that I'm a laugh. A well that's life. And you where never forced to recplace anything, you chose to replace the file. Since we can say that two plus two equals four and not five we are free to make our own choises. Natuur12 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If it makes you sleep better at night, yes I chose to follow the policy where others were ignoring it. Either way, policy is that in a disagreement between to versions the last version before the disagreement began should be the version used until there is a resolution of the disagreement. As you are an admin, I shouldn't have to show you with a link, it's something you should already know. Not that it matters. Even if I abused or misused the tool for something, that's completely detached from the personal attacks by Arch which is what this AN is supposed to be about. Instead of addressing these personall attacks, yourself, Arch and Dqfn13 seem perfectly content with hijacking this AN and making me look bad so as to detract from Arch's actions, as if to say that "well, Fry did this and that, so Arch is right to call them insane, they deserve it". Fry1989 ^eh? 20:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at the Protection policy before I made my comment of course but I can't find it there. I took a look at Commons:Overwriting existing files. However, your version was partly reverted (the way it was centered was reverted, the color change was not reverted) which makes your version the disputed one. Natuur12 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Making you look bad? Al things you do and write, you do it yourself, nobody else Fry. Why such a ridiculous endless discussion? You must have the last wpord? Is that it? You self seems to the cause, everybody who reads your words knows. Where two are fighting, two are quilty. I throw away the stick, but you dont. Thats the difference. This is bad, not for you, not for me, but for this project. If you have heart for the project, than you throw away the stick too. This blockrequest made things only worser, specially becausse I did reach out my hand a month ago, you choose to ignore it, you said that you dont speak to me again, well, thats fine, but you the one who continues. Why dont you keep your promises? I was so glad to "hear" you saying that you have nothing more to say to me! Anyway... For the second time I reach out, but you response with unreasonable demands. What are you thinking? How much bullshit can he take? How long can I kick against that guy? What a joke! You want respect but shows disrespect, even to people who are trying to help you out. I wonder whether it is an act, or childish Naïveté. I find it strange that you're offended so quickly. Not normal youre distrust towards others. Everyone is the enemy. All of them against you. Fry is never wrong. This shows again clear from the conversation with Natuur12. I've tries to reason with you to, but it seems impossible, what do you think a sane person will made out of that? Strange enough I feel pity for you. Yes... Give the youngster a handkerchief to cry. Thats crossing my mind... Poor Fry... Poor me, all lost precious time, time wich I and others, even you, had can do some work on the encyclopedia. You'd better be able to withdraw the request. We can ignore each other if you are feeling to proud. Be a man. Later you can laugh about it. Arch (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I have done or said in the past, in this DR I discussed the matter based on facts and evidence, and you chose instead to personally attack me at nearly every turn. And now that I have brought your personal attacks to the attention of administrators, instead of apologizing and admitting your personal attacks were out of line, you try and bring up other things that have happened elsewhere and have NOTHING to do with this as an excuse! That is what I mean by saying you are trying to make me look bad. You think that your personal attacks of calling me insane and all the other things you have said are somehow excusable because of some grudge you have against whatever happened somewhere else. BTW, I have never personally attacked you anywhere at any time. YOU are the one who has crossed this line, and you deserve to face the consequences of your actions. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

resuming: I said the truth here Fry is offended. There's no PA in that text, except the uncensored truth. I'm not the only one who has problems with Fry. Fry is clearly a troublemaker with its own methods: A history of editing wars and personal attacks. Its all over this project; Tenacious and selfish, he rejects any form of compromise. He is often the middle point of hot debate, and always without adequate resources to proof his statement. Thats no benefit to this project, with such a mentality he doesnt belong in a collaborative project. If someone tries to mediate by saying : "Throw the stick away" his respons says it all: "I will beat this stick until it is broken and bloodied if I have to." I think its Fry which should have a (longtime) block for disrupting the work environment. Proof enough on his personal talk page where polite people ask him a question, but he pretending like he's the boss. How do you chase people away from this project? Action is reaction, he responsible for his own behaviour. Not everyone accepts his way, not me. If the truth is hurting you, ask yourself why. Learn from it for the future. Arch (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The two above posts have repeatedly been hijacked away from the original matter of this AN, which is the unsolicited personal attacks that I faced at the hands of Arch.

• I pity you
• twisted mind.
• Go seek some help.
• imaginary delusions
• create your own dream world
• whining like a dramaqueen
• big mouth
• I seriously wonder if maybe you're insane
• kind of paranoia
• split personality
• You're pathetic
• you're a crybaby (newest PA on their talk page in response to my notification of this AN)

I demand some form of consequence for these unacceptable personal attacks which violate the civility policy of Wikimedia. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Arch's most recent reply above is completely unapologetic and they refuse to recognize the clear violation of civility rules they have committed. They fully believe the above statements are not personal attacks but rather "the uncensored truth", which is essentially a doubling down of personally attacking me. I demand that these actions be reviewed by an un-involved admin with no conflict of interest or bias. These personal attacks have gone on long enough and it is clear they will not stop without some form of consequence. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry, last time I got involved in one of your discussions here, your reaction to even constructive criticism essentially amounted to "I haven't had regard to anyone's comments, my block is over and I have no intention of changing my behaviour, I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so screw off". It shouldn't come as a surprise that people are reluctant to get involved in another one of your dramas. It is also not up to you to demand that anyone do anything. I concur with the advice stated above - you all need to step away, and let others resolve the discussion in question. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the DR or any of the information above? I discussed the matter purely on the facts and instead of receiving arguments based on that information, I received over a dozen personal attacks which have continued in spite of this AN. Then I have two involved admins try to excuse this away, one who freely admits that they are here to support their friends and the other who is doing this as revenge for my scrutiny of their actions in a separate matter where even other admins had reason to complain. There is no excuse for this. I am not asking for intervention in the DR or it's outcome, I am asking for intervention against these repeated and unsolicited personal attacks. You care more about blaming the victim than you do about the truth, by calling this "another one of my dramas" instead of actually reading the DR and seeing that I did nothing to deserve these personal attacks and I did not reciprocate with personal attacks of my own. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry, you're not listening. You're constantly involved in these battles with other editors, according to you you're never to blame, and you subsequently lash at at everyone here. And then you wonder why people don't jump up when you snap your fingers. I reiterate that you'd be well served to take the advice that you and Arch have been given - walk away.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you are the one who isn't listening. You claim that you want me to change, but even when I do change or I'm in the right, it's still my fault and I deserve everything I get because of your grudge about my past. No matter what I do, it's not good enough, it's never good enough for you! I discussed this DR purely on sources and facts, and I received dozens of unapologetic personal attacks and this user has continued to attack me even afterwards, but because I can never do anything right in your eyes I deserve it and you will do nothing about it even though you and I both know that I would be blocked if it was me saying these things about Arch. This speaks more about you than it ever will me, and it is why I will never change the way you want me to change, because it's never good enough and it's always my fault even when I did nothing wrong. You tell me what I did in that DR to deserve these personal attacks, don't try and use the excuse of "well you've had past disagreements and trouble, so you deserve it now", tell me what I did to deserve these attacks and what makes them excusable! But of course you won't, because you can't, I didn't do anything to deserve this. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You want me to change, you recognize when I put in the effort. Don't leave me in a perpetual hell where nothing is good enough and I always deserve every personal attack or whatever else because I'm always wrong even when I'm not wrong so I must have deserved it for past transgressions. Otherwise I see no point in changing. And you wonder why I don't put more effort in. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That post just about sums up the problem. You've attacked each and every admin who has commented here. Not one of the things you have said about me is correct, and I am pretty sure that your accusations against the other admins are equally untrue. As with you, we are volunteers here. None of us needs this grief. Everytime that I get involved in one of your battles, I walk away singed. It isn't worth the abuse you dish out. You need to reassess how you approach these issues. Nobody is saying you deserve to be personally attacked, but the irony of you personally attacking everyone else in this discussion in your attempt to get assistance is not lost on anyone.

Having said all that, I will review the DR carefully right now. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The two above admins are very obviously involved. Sven Manguard has an AN about their actions in blocking a user, I voiced scrutiny of the matter and less than 15 minutes later they involve themselves in my AN about these personal attacks and they excuse it away. Natuur12 in also involved and biased because on the Dutch-language Wikipedia, they stated that I was unwelcome there and brought up matters that had happened on other wikis and were completely unrelated. Even other Dutch users complained saying that was unfair and off-topic. Now in this discussion, Natuur12 both admits they're here for their friend and hypocritically claims that "local issues should be left local". Pointing that out is attacking them and asking for an uninvolved admin to review these personal attacks is "snapping my fingers"? Really? I did nothing to deserve these personal attacks, I did not attack Arch (ever, anywhere, on any project) and I stuck firmly to the facts in the DR, and I get called insane and told I create my own world of fantasy, but it's all ok and excusable. Tell me, what would you do if I did actually attack you or one of the other admins? What if I call you incompetent? I know exactly what will happen, but all those things Arch said are just perfectly fine and dandy aren't they! You think I will ever change anything about the way I conduct myself as long as admins like you pick and choose when to apply policy and when to ignore egregious personal attacks? You'd be quicker to be able to bend over backwards and kiss your own behind. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oy vey. I wonder to what extent you understand how much you are not helping your case. You keep doing the same thing over and over. I'm done. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I never claimed that I am here for my friends. I'm here because I got sucked into this discussion. I told that Dqfn13 is a friend of mine and the last time I checked I am allowed to make a comment to a discussion on a page which is on my watchlist even if a friend of mine also made a comment. Natuur12 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Skeezix1000, my accusations are not true you say? Look at this! Sven Manguard replied to my AN about these personal attacks minutes after I voiced continued scrutiny of their unwillingness to admit why other users have a problem with them blocking Hanay. Natuur12's comments about me can be seen here, where they said the project is better off without me "disturbing it", brought up my block log on Commons, and linked a disagreement I had on the Spanish Wikipedia in their comment dated 8 jun 2014 20:40. But now they say that local issues should be kept local here in this AN. How is that not hypocritical and how does Natuur12's comments about me not make them an involved admin, especially when they freely admin they have a friendship with Arch? But you won't even look at the links I bet, because I'm a liar and I'm just making this all up. Read my links before you say my accusations are lies! Fry1989 ^eh? 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am only making comments, I am not closing this or whatever. I am allowed to comment in a discussion and so I am not ding any admin stuff. I am just making comments and giving some advice. You don't need to be an admin to do so. Natuur12 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You said here that local problems should be kept local, but you did not practice that on the Dutch Wikipedia where you were more than happy to bring up my Commons block log and a disagreement I had on the Spanish Wikipedia. You're either a hypocrite, or very forgetful of things you say from one day to the next. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And again, this was not a local problem. Natuur12 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The disagreement I have on Spanish Wikipedia is local to the Spanish Wikipedia. It is not related in any way to the Dutch Wikipedia. But you found it convenient to bring it up as an example of why I shouldn't be welcome on the Dutch Wikipedia. Same with my Commons block log, it was convenient for you to bring it up on the Dutch Wikipedia, but suddenly if I bring up matters from the Dutch Wikipedia here on Commons, I'm bringing in local issues. The height of hypocrisy, which is exactly what I was complaining about on the Dutch Wikipedia and why I asked for my account to be blocked. When you do something it's perfectly fine, but when I do the same thing it's suddenly wrong. I was asking a very simple request, to have a few impartial Dutch users help me edit there and review my edits to make sure they were right, and you couldn't even let me have that, you ran me out of town and couldn't have been happier to do so. You didn't want me there even to make proper edits with the help of other users, you wanted me gone and you admitted as much when you said that I can't edit there. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And again, I said that you couldn't edit if you kept ignoring local policy and if you kept making mistakes when it comes to heraldic topics. And there where plenty of "impartial" users who assisted you. Natuur12 (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And again (since you want to play the game of repetition), I was asking for users to help me edit the Dutch Wikipedia properly and to help me understand your absolutely stupid BTNI rule which appears to be applied haphazardly and makes changing articles, even for the better or when correcting obvious mistakes, impossible. I corrected an article which had wrong information and I was reverted because of your BTNI rule, and then I got blocked for it too. You didn't even want me to get that much in the way of assistance, you called my request POINTY, and then went on to try and say everything you could to get me away from the Dutch Wiki. You brought up matters from other projects, told me that I was POINTY for asking for help, and that I am not welcome there. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

O god Fry... I've repetedly offerd to help you with BTNI, I've offered to translate it: no reactions from your side. I've even explained what you could do to improve the article about road signs... again no reaction. You realy need to start reading more carefully as dozens of people write the exact oppesit of what you read. BTNI is about making changes that do not improve the article. For example: you can change the words school board (that thing in front of a class) with the word chalkboard or black board. All three are the same, that change would be BTNI and that is what you did in the article about the CoA of Lebanon. (this was explenation number 3 from me, and 5 in total) Dqfn13 (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes you did, but it wasn't enough to help me make proper edits there. The rule is confusing, and even more so because of how it was being misused as a blanket rule to revert everything I did. I corrected a very obvious mistake in the file description, and I was reverted and later blocked for that edit by MoiraMoira with BTNI as a reasoning. Do you not understand how confusing that is, that you are blocked for correcting something that was obviously mistaken? MoiraMoira, Wikiklaas and EvilFreD were all reverting my edits and using BTNI as a reason, and they had no interest in assuming good faith in my edits. That's why I was asking for help, I wanted an impartial user like Woodcutterty to help me because I knew that they would assume good faith and be honest when reviewing my edits. Instead of anyone taking my request seriously, Natuur12 called my request POINTY and tried to tell me I'm not welcome there and show everyone all these other issues from Commons or wherever else as a reason to run me away. Not to mention the users who questioned what I was even doing there because I don't speak Dutch so I clearly have no place being there at all. I asked for help, I wanted to edit the Dutch Wikipedia and make it better, there are several areas of expertise where I could have done so. Instead, I will never edit there again, the bunch of you wanted me gone and you got your wish, and your project will suffer for it. Then, here on Commons in a DR that is completely unrelated to any of those matters, I tried to discuss the DR based on the evidence and facts we have, and your friend Arch called me insane and said that I have imaginary delusions and all these other hateful personal attacks that clearly violate policy and you and Natuur12 and Sven Manguard and Skeezix1000 all just excuse it, because clearly I deserved it and I am insane and delusional and all these other things. Not once have I seen you tell Arch that was not ok, or any of these admins tell Arch the personal attacks are not ok. I know for a fact that if I said all these things about Arch I'd be blocked immediately, but Arch doesn't even get a warning about it. And you really wonder why I am so infuriated? It shouldn't be difficult to figure out. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to judge your sanity. Just about BTNI: you also replaced |thumb|200px by |right|250px, thumb is the default size of 250px and places the thumb on the right, that part was BTNI. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Arch has clearly and grossly broken the No Personal Attacks policy of Wikimedia in an egregious manner, and is trying to hide behind the claim of free speech and "it's the truth" as an excuse. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess "incompetent" isn't that far off after all. I never even asked for Arch to be blocked, but none of you admins will even do the simplest thing about these personal attacks such as warning Arch not to repeat them or that they will face a block. You all just want to brush this under the table and blame me, all my fault all the time always! Perhaps Arch is right, I am insane, insane to expect that admins would impartially intervene when a user is being personally attacked. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me just make this absolutely clear. Arch has called me insane, said that I have delusions and split personality disorder and so much more. These are clearly personal attacks in violation of policy. I have not requested Arch be blocked or any other specific course of action, I simply reported these personal attacks and asked for intervention. That intervention could have been as simplee as leaving a warning on their talk page stating "These are personal attacks, please do not use this language in the future", but Arch hasn't gotten that most basic of actions. In fact, I have yet to see any user here actually call out Arch for their personal attacks and tell them it is wrong. Instead, three admins have turned a blind eye with excuses from "we don't want to deal with your drama" to bringing up unrelated past events that happened months or even years ago as reason why I somehow deserve these attacks now. I really do not think it's asking too much for Arch to be told not to use personal attacks against other users, but for at least 3 admins here that is like asking for the world. That is truly what is pathetic. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry you did calling me racist, thats not an insult? And by writing that someones opinon is "complete BS", you clearly dont discuss only facts, you get someone down! Past events are for sure related , if you kick a dog every day for one year long, than he will bite someday. If the biting happens when someone did feed the dog, for sure, we've have to look to te past. Who's guilty? The dog, or his mistreathing owner? Your past is one big history of PA's. Every mod can see that in the blockinghistory, wich is zero in my case, but not in your case, I'm sure of it. Too bad you do not want to work on a long-term solution. I will no longer make contributions to this nonsense, I hope you leave me alone in this project. I hope you find inner peace. This matter is cleary beginning te look like a situation of: Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. You keep going on fighting against windmills. Accussing several (willing and helping) people like it is one great conspiracy against you, how sad... Setting the conditions by demanding, instead requesting, you cant order people like that. But I'm affraid that my wishes are wasted.

Fry is clearly rejecting every attempt for a longtime solution and therefore unwilling assume good faith. Constructive discussion seems impossible. Admins, please close this charade, it has lasted long enough. -last contribution to this discussion- Arch (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Block by User:Sven Manguard

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

Everyone who wants to has now had an opportunity to comment here. Sven Manguard has made a statement, and no further action needs to be taken. Now we need to get back to other stuff. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

---

User:Sven Manguard blockd User:Hanay for the reson of canvassing. That was happend after User:Nick closed Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:LGA and asked everybody step back, take a few days out from it all, and come back in a more mellow, friendly sort of mood.

In addition to the decision of Nick, there are few problems with this block:

first, Hanay was blocked without any warning before as should be.

secound, Hanay blockd for Canvassing. Although canvassing is a bad idea it is not one of Commons policies. We have our way to handle with canvassing.

Thirdly and the most important, seems that User:Sven Manguard forget the most important thing that blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one.

User:Sven Manguard act emotionally. He used the tool of blocking in an irresponsible manner. I would expect him, at least, to drop an apology in Hanays talk page. He must also to read COM:BP.

Another problematic behavior in this context was of User:Fastily's. The whole problem started with the DR's nominated by user:LGA that closed by @Fastily that "shot the gun too fast". After @Sven Manguard blocked Hanay he made announcement in COM:AN/P. @Fastily quickly closed this discussion as Hanay has agreed to refrain from crosswiki/off-wiki canvasing/defamation of other editors, so unblocked. He covers @Sven Manguard block and encouraging him. After the first criticism of his acts he became emotionally involved. He proved it in this closer. No word about warning before blocking ect. I will not advise @Fastily to read COM:BP as I'm sure he knows it. In the same miserable discussion I have seen another admin that have to read again COM:BP - @Steinsplitter.

Hanay is a user that contributes a lot to the project. She is very active in promoting the project into the Israeli academia. I saw her in the Israely TV promoting our project. She cars our project very much and I am sure she spand a lot of time contributing to the project. She take emotionally evry act considered by her as a harm to the project. Mass nomination and mass deletion of Israely files considered by her as harm and she tried to protect the files just like protecting her own children. Her actions was never intimidation/harassment as @Russavia suggested her in COM:AN/P. Hanay is a kind of users that Commons should strive to be active in Commons. It's just a matter of sensitivity to people.

One of the he.wiki users ask few days ago: "Given that so many he.wp wikipedians have so bad experience in Commons why to continue collaborating with Commons". That remainds me incident happened couple years ago. @PANONIAN upload a map with a dispute term on it. users from az.wiki started DR and a lot of users vote for deleting (probably published in the az.wiki village pump). The file did not deleted of course. In a respond made the maps maker dozens of DR's of file of Azeri people mostly pd-old or pd-ottoman. I did not have enough time in that period but saved few files. It was obvious the az.wiki fill attected. Not enough explanation by admins. Things that is obvious to us is not so for others. Anyway, eventually, they grant been suspects in COM:CHECK (her). Our hospitality was not very welcoming in that case. Nothing new since.

We have to improve our hospitality regarding to whole community concerns of other wikis. Users in othere wikis consider Commons as assistant wiki and not a "standalone project". More explanations of our policies needed. We can't expect that Commons visitors know all our ruls but we do expect that Commoms admins know and understand them.

Regarding to admis involved:

@Sven Manguard: I expect you to drop an apology in Hanays talk page.

@Fastily: I fill to emotionally involved to advise to you. I'll let the community to decide.

@Russavia: Your advise was not helpfull. You should advise to @Sven Manguard to unblock Hanay as she never warned. And I advise you to stop spying @Matanya's talk page. Bringing info from the talk page wasn't helpful. It creates antagonism to Commons.

Geagea (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing or not, the point of that AN was valid and it is a shame it was arbitrarily closed because of it. Also, I do not believe "canvassing" is a blockable offence, even on Wikipedia where it is actually a policy, rather it simply forces the related discussion to not be taken seriously as happened here. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been debated long enough. I say we close this discussion and move on. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue of LGA's behaviour has been discussed many times which is why that AN was valid, but that is not the point of this discussion, which is clearly about a user being blocked for something that does not appear to actually be a blockable offence and has only been discussed by two users if you count myself and the OP. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 when I closed the discussion at AN, there was no consensus to take any action and absolutely no prospect of any consensus forming. The discussion had been destroyed by the nature of canvassing and the response to the canvassing, there was no point in keeping the discussion open for further bad blood to develop. If you still have concerns about LGAs behaviour, you're more than welcome to raise a new discussion, though I would ask you don't rush off and do this right away, wait for a few weeks so the memory of this discussion fades and any new discussion is fresh and rationale. Nick (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, that is far from the truth. At the time of closure there was 13 supports for some form of action and only 8 oppositions. The direction it was going in was clear and had it been allowed to progress I have no doubt LGA would be sanctioned in some manner were it not for the canvassing. LGA's constant repetitive behaviour has been brought up on that board several times and this will not be the last, ignoring it exacerbates the problem. The block of this user for one case of canvassing without warning and after your supposedly reconciliatory closing statement of "everyone step back, take a breath and come back wityh cooler heads" (to paraphrase) is not helpful and prevents nothing which the blocking policy is for. Neither is helpful ChrisiPK trying to make this discussion about the LGA AN instead of what it very obviously about which is the block of Hanay. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 - the block was made 1h 20m before I closed the discussion. I knew the block had been made and it was certainly a factor in my decision to close the discussion, the canvassing had completely invalidated any consensus, so the only option was to close as no consensus, but more, also to try and stop the situation spiralling out of control. Nick (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already admitted that the canvassing both a) took place & b) forced the closer of the discussion and the inability to take it seriously. However, the fact that LGA's repetitive actions have been brought up more than once shows that this is a valid concern. I have no intent of opening up a new one, but it is extremely regrettable that a consensus could not be formed due to this, and that a user has been blocked for a single-time example of behaviour which is not by itself a blockable offence. The attempt by ChrisiPK to deflect what this new AN is actually about is also regretable and I am not the only user to take issue with it. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is valid as many of our admins are misusing "speedy close" to hide their wicked actions here. My only advice to them (including ChrisiPK): If you can't behave properly, step down and find another job! Jee 02:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where in the Common's blocking policy, which states that we must block anyone who canvasses on Wikimedia projects, what concerns me greatly was the fact the block was changed to "Intimidation/harassment: Campaigning off-project to have an editor blocked"', how is canvassing intimidation or even harassment? Hanay did canvass which was wrong but it doesn't mean that the only action to do is block them after the fact and without warning, the block was wrong that it isn't supported by the blocking policy and was a punitive, not a preventative action. Even if Hanay's canvassing was blockable per COM:BP (in which case it isn't, doesn't even fit the harassment criteria), no warning was ever given before the block.

The fact that so far most of the administrators involved have ignored this valid complaint ([6], [7]) speaks volumes, no wonder why other projects and critics say that Commons is broken and I agree, after the handling of the LGA topic ban discussion and the block of Hanay. Also there has been clear issues with LGA and their DR, so it isn't a new issue but it seems a few totally ignore the complaints being made and have allow the issue to continue, rather then addressing it (that could be restrictions, topic bans ect).

When someone canvasses, give them a note that it isn't ok and make a note of it in the discussion. Bidgee (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A summary of the whole story for those who don't know it:Everybody knows the unhealthy edit warring between admins going on here regarding the URAA issue. There was a post about it by Yann in the Wikimedia list where Ymblanter mentioned the repeated reopening of closed DRs. I asked him to give a link and promised a topic ban proposal. He failed to provide a link. Then LGA reopened similar DRs and Hanay opened an AN/U. As soon as I noticed the discussion, I stared a topic ban proposal as promised. Hanay may not have much experience or "defending gang of friends" here; so she tried to beg for help in her home wiki. Expert people who know the WMF project internals peep into her global contributions and found it. They reported it here. Suddenly people here twisted the AN/U thread and started accusing her. Sven Manguard who is not aware of all these long time issues made a wrong action. He corrected it when we pointed the mistake. I decided to leave that topic there as I'm happy with Sven's statement that he was not aware of past issues.

I had noticed on the VP discussion on HE wiki that Geagea (if I remember well) tried to discourage Hanay. But nobody here care that part; they only need a stick to beat Hanay. Fastily not only closed the AN/B; he collapsed it hide my comment there. I had made a statement about admins double stand here. (Odder removed a user from OTRS group when he was caught by SPI in another wiki; here in Commons he is receiving advice from another user who is also caught in SPI at EN. Isn't it double stand?). Yesterday Fae commented at Wikimedia list that any admin refused to follow the RfC conclusion on URAA matter is eligible for de-admined. Fastily, it is better for you to step down than misusing your tools. Jee 02:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Jee. If I may clarify, I removed Leitoxx from the OTRS group because their access to OTRS was revoked by OTRS admins (a few hours after it was first given to them). Would you mind explaining to me how that's double standards, ie. do you think that users who do not have access to OTRS should be marked as OTRS agents in the Commons interface? Thanks :-) odder (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Odder. I'm not aware of the internals. But see Special:UserRights/Leitoxx: "this flag is only for trusted users, CU confirmed abuse of multiple accounts @es.wikiversity". Then see this: "There is no evidence that Russavia abused multiple accounts at Commons. No need to disrupt the project with problems from another project. Time to move on." Isn't it double stand? You can say I'm just removed the OTRS flag per rule. But I think you are responsible (as a crat) to check and correct admin actions, if they are wrong. Jee 08:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jee: Imho Russavia and Leitoxx are two different cases. @Russ: Idiotic bahaviour for someone who tried to be unblocked at en. @Leitoxx has socked to manipulate votings and to hide socks in the account creation log (he was emergency desysopped there). I think we schluld not let such users rewiew files here at commons and with the ipblockexept flag the user can bypass ipblocks and torblocks (=no block - local or global - can affect him). Commons is a wiki, if someone disagree with my action we can revert it :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Thanks for the explanation. I'm not questioning your decision; just pointing out the inconsistency in our decisions. Regarding @Russ case, I can assume it is a humorous attempt. But rules are rules. Anybody in such a position (an admin now here) can't play with community rules as it will give a bad example to others. :) Jee 10:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jee: A double standard, in my mind, occurs when the same person acts differently in similar situations, but here we're dealing with two different users: @natuur12 closed the discussion about @russavia, while the IP block exempt and image reviewer user rights were removed from Leitoxx by @Steinsplitter. I understand that you feel these actions are quite inconsistent, but these things are just bound to happen in a community as diversified as ours. As for your second point, I do not think that my role as a bureaucrat gives me any more right to oversee the actions of other administrators, ie. I think that administrators control one another. odder (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Good arguments. But this is not AN/U; AN. Here this discussion is more about the failure of the admin community to provide justice to an ordinary user. This is not the first time I'm seeing double stands. It is here since I stared participating here. Our admins are clever enough to use Wikipedia policies/guidelines to act against a user. But whenever we talk about the importance of neutrality and uniformity in their actions (Wikipedia:Involved#UNINVOLVED), they find safety under the lack of rule in Commons.

I don't want to comment more as I know it is difficult to correct a corrupted system. Many of these admins are (including you) are my friends. Frankly, I don't want to loose them, more. But remember, this is not good for Commons. Our project is "very special". :) Jee 08:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I did provide the link on the mailing list, it just turned out that my memory was wrong, and the third FFD nomination was done by a different user than the first two.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Geagea: , there was nothing wrong with Hanay posting a notice about that Commons discussion at he-wiki but would you not agree that their initial choice of words was wrong? Could you also clarify your statement of "that was happend after User:Nick closed Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:LGA"? Unless I'm mistaken, Hanay was blocked at 20:05, 20 June, whilst Nick closed that discussion at 21:21, 20 June? Green Giant (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Question Just for the sake of clarity, COM:BLOCK#Use states that "blocks may be applied for a number of reasons" followed by a list of the "more common" ones. So is there a full Commons list of blocking reasons? Green Giant (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the Hanay block is justified, there's a big difference between inviting local wiki users into a discussion at commons or inviting them to vote for blocking another user. I'm not really happy with the LGA outcome, especially the renomination behaviour after multiple keeps was unacceptable.--Denniss (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

While I do not like to see canvassing with the goal to invite users from others project into a user problem at Commons, it would have been sufficient to warn the user. To block without any previous warnings and explanations is just punitive and thereby not justified. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with AFBorchert. User blocks here on Commons are there for sanctioning disruption on Commons. I don't know the whole background with URAA, but in case the canvassing was unjustified, Hanay perhaps should have been blocked on the wiki where she did this (i.e. on Hebrew WP). That is, no block on Commons, and let alone no block here without any contact or warning. An apology should be the minimum. --A.Savin 12:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Though I agree that an instant block was a bit excessive, the actual disruption in such a case does happen on Commons, where a discussion might be unduly influenced, and not on the other project where the drum was beat. --Túrelio (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I thought about closing that AN/U thread without demanding any action as it was advertised. I had mentioned that I'm not happy with the advertisement, two times. But even if all votes from the he wiki people were discounted, there is clear consensus that LGA should follow Billinghurst's words. But nowhere in the closing note Nick mentioned it. Jee 12:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Jkadavoor. I can't force a user to follow any advice they are given. If LGA doesn't want to follow the advice Billinghurst gave them, then eventually it is likely going to get them into trouble. Nick (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocking is not Prevents canvassing and might even exacerbate it. Thereby the block is punitive and not justified. Geagea (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I don't see how a block solves the issue of canvassing from another project, I've seen discussions that have been canvassed that have had a note placed on it for the closing Admin to take into account. I don't agree with how Hanay canvassed but you can understand why they did so and I don't believe they did so in bad faith, it was a matter of frustration. Hanay has been a very constructive contributor here and hasn't done anything to raise the eyes before the ANI topic about LGA and the canvassing of another project, but LGA has been some what of a controversial contributor who has had quite a few ANI topics regarding their deletion requests. The block shouldn't have been put in place since they were not warned as per COM:BP which states "ensure that the user has been appropriately warned", it doesn't pass the harassment (since Hanay wasn't intending to create a hostile environment, though that environment has been something that LGA has created themselves) and the fact that it was a punitive block that had no benefit (the canvass was already done and on another project). Bidgee (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Three points: 1) My block of Hanay was before the LGA discussion was closed. 2) I've already said everything I intend to say on the matter, and won't be drawn any further into this discussion. Regarding my justification for the block and its duration, the information is at the Blocks and protections noticeboard archive and on Hanay's talk page. 3) I've already done everything I intend to do on the matter. I have not apologized to Hanay and do not intend to, as I believe that my actions were justified. If I were going to, it would have to be because I felt a need to, not because Geagea tried to order me to. I think that's it. I'll be elsewhere, as there's nothing gained by me spending any more time in this thread. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sven Manguard. Thank you for making your viewpoint on this issue, including dismissing feedback such as that from several of your fellow administrators here (such as "an apology should be the minimum") and walking away without appearing to learn anything from the discussion, or being prepared to change your behaviour in any way, perfectly clear.

I am sure that I am not the only uninvolved member of our community to make a mental note of this incident should there be another claim that you are misusing the sysop tools to block users without explaining your actions in a suitable user notice or outside of the good practices normal for Commons in compliance with Blocking policy, as opposed to bringing admin practices to this project that you have only justified against English Wikipedia policies and off-wiki discussion, with an apparent aim of aggressive punishment, rather than with the mellow objective of restoring Commons to a non-hostile environment. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Your roundabout way of saying it not withstanding, you're right; I was entirely too flippant in responding to this thread. That being said, I have already provided my reasoning behind the actions I took, and the issue has been discussed already on the blocked user's talk page and in a thread that I stated in order to alert people to and solicit community feedback on the block. You may not agree with the block or the reasons behind it, and while not everyone feels that it was a bad block you are not alone in believing that it was. Either way, Hanay was unblocked long before this second thread was started. As such, I don't see anything concrete coming out of this third thread, and don't see how the angry recriminations that started this thread are going to get anyone anywhere that the previous thread did not. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not your dismissive response and you know it. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if I tell that this may lead to request to your de-adminship (which I prefer not to do) then you take this seriously as you insist not to understand the simple basic of blocking policy. You didn't warn the user at all and block her as punitive act. you must made clear statement that you understand that. I can understand that this discussion makes you unpleasant emotions, we all just human but there is no other way to do so. I apologize in front of you if you feel that I tried to order you. I think it is a good idea to apologize in front Hanay as you made a mistake. I also appreciate your honesty about the reason that cause your have changed the blocking reason after advise you get from @Russavia her. We would not know about his involvement otherwise. You also tell us that you discuss about the block in the IRC-channel. My impression is that somebody was canvassing there about the block of Hanay and you are only the victim. But it is only my personal impression. Anyway It is look like something in the discussion in the IRC urge you to make this block.

You correct about that the block of Hanay was hour before the LGA discussion was closed by Nick, I apologize again for this mistake. Geagea (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea how to channel negative energy into useful things. I have long been a feeling that too many times we fail in a cases when the entire community other wikis feel attack on Commons. It happens in a cases of mass requests of delete files or in case of dispute maps that we dont delete it if the are in use and others. That because nat all wiki users knows that Commons is standalone project. They don't understand how it's working her actually. If we create common page with each wiki where we can make discuss. We can make a general explanations what will may avoid problems in the future. we can also handle in a better way with canvassing. We can start with the he.wiki and continue with the others. I think that Hanay in very qualify and I am going to help her. Geagea (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved from AN to AN/U (diff) --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This move done after edit waring of admin. This behavior is a continuation of the aggressive behavior of several administrators. This thret is relate not only to User:Sven Manguard it is about several admins including you. @Steinsplitter: I realy dont understand why you did not advise User:Sven Manguard to unblock Hanay as she never warned? did you participate that IRC chanal that User:Sven Manguard talk about? I'm short on time right now. I ask that in the meantime I ask you to move back the discussion to COM:AN. Geagea (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, as an admin you should know yourself why this section was moved. Please assume good faith. User problems should be discussed on AN/U and not on AN (See notice at the top of the page & COM:DISPUTE. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This thret made because I assume good faith. I beliaeve you know that the block of Hanay was not justified as she never warned. But still say The block seems OK to me (her). Something wrong here. with the quick closer by User:Fastily of the same discassion, The discassion of unknown admins in the IRC chanel about the blocking and the bad advise of User:Russavia, It would be naive assuming good faith.

This discassion is about behavior more then one user. It is about possile canvassing in the IRC channel as you mentioned in the same In the same miserable discussion canvassing is a bad thing. As an admin you must know that after I revert your move you should try to understand why I revert you, but you did not respect me. Now please move back. Geagea (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No. User problems should be discussed on AN/U and not on AN (See notice at the top of the page & COM:DISPUTE). --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid this issue continuing to cause disharmony within the Commons and wider Wikimedia community. Let me be absolutely clear, Hanay's behaviour was unacceptable AND Sven Manguard's block was unacceptable. There are two things wrong here but both come from good faith attempts to try and improve a situation, both went wrong. It really is about time to drop this issue, admit everybody is wrong, everybody has learned and no further action is necessary. Nick (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Geagea, please stay calm. It is not very important whether this is discussed here or at AN. But admins, please remember, this discussion is not about Sven Manguard alone. It is about all admins involved at Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_12 and supported an unethical block. Jee 13:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Jkadavoor the sentiment of your comment is warmly appreciated, but describing the block as unethical isn't entirely helpful. Nick (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, the block was reverted immediately after my comment at Com:AN/B. I think it was because Sven Manguard realised his mistake as he stated that he was not aware of the whole past stories. But all other admins participated in that discussions are aware of it; so no excuse for their comments/words.

What is the difference between canvassing at IRC and at a VP of another project? The only difference I see is IRC is hidden to public so they are safe. This is not the first time we see unethical canvassing at IRC to campaign against a user (see leaked IRC logs).

Last. Even though here a user is blocked, in effect, it was Commons' rude attitude against a sister project; so unethical indeed. Jee 15:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The block was undone because Hanay agreed to cease the behavior that led to the block. This is made explicit in the unblock rationale, and on Hanay's talk page, which I know you read because you referenced it elsewhere. Please do not put words or motivations in my mouth. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sven Manguard It is not by business to put words in others mouth. Everybody can see what Hanay said: "I am not familiar with the blocked policy in Commons, But I believe that the usual practice is at first to give a user a warning, especially a user that contribute so much to commons. From what you wrote, here I understand now that there is an officially policy in Commons that forbid users in Commons to write in other's Wiki-projects anything about user problems in Commons. I have no problem to follow this policy and I will keep it of course in the future. I would appreciate it very much if you can give me a link to this policy, so I can read it very carefully to be sure that I wiil never cross the line of this policy again." Can you show me or her such a policy? I have only sympathy on your weak attempts to still justifying your unjustifiable actions. :( Jee 16:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I need to think on my next response to this thread. I am also without home internet right now (although they promised it would be fixed four hours ago) and the Panera Bread I am camping out in is starting to fill up, so I should probably get going. I will get back to the community in a few hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Despite Geagea's hesitation on the matter, I believe the qualifications of de-adminship have been met. Sven Manguard uses their block tools where there is no clear reason to do so, without warnings. They also changed their block reason to make it more paletable even though the new reason was not true. They are completely dismissive of any criticism of the matter until enough users make a stink of it. I also believe their involvement in my above AN where I have faced a gross amount of personal attacks and trying to brush it under the rug only 15 minutes after my continued criticism of their actions in this matter shows they can not be impartial. I support de-adminship should it come about. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Response by Sven Manguard

Any response that I give has to be colored by the fact that several users have, with various degrees of aggressiveness, suggested that I apologize, and by the fact that I have been threatened with desysop proceedings. Obviously that calls into question the sincerity of everything I am about to say. That is regrettable, but I am not going to let it effect my response.

I first became aware of the dispute between LGA and members of Hebrew Wikipedia when I saw the thread proposing that LGA be topic banned from DRs or blocked (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:LGA). At the time, there was no consensus for either action, and I was considering closing the discussion as such. I went onto IRC and asked if it would appropriate to close the discussion even though it had only been open for a day and a half, and during that discussion, I brought up that I felt that the canvassing that Hanay engaged in should be blockable. When three other admins immediately agreed, I made the block. Afterwards, I posted a notice of the block at the blocks and protections noticeboard, with the comment "Because cross-wiki canvassing is not specifically listed as a blocking rationale at COM:BLOCK, I am noting the block here, for public review."

Shortly after making the block, Russavia suggested that I change the block rationale to "intimidation/harassment: Campaigning off-project to have an editor blocked". Hanay was attempting to prevent LGA from filing deletion requests on images of interest to Hebrew Wikpedia by aggressively campaigning to have him removed from the area or the project. While that isn't a clean fit for "intimidation/harassment", rallying a group of users to try to have another user blocked over disagreements in DR certainly would have a chilling effect, so intimidation did feel like a good enough fit at the time. I noted the change at the above linked thread.

Considering the feedback that I received on IRC, and the nature of the comments Hanay made, I expected to receive significantly more support from the community than I did. Opposition to the block came in quickly, although it was not unanimous (in fact, unlike in the second discussion, in the first discussion support and opposition were evenly split). There were three points of opposition. First, some users felt that because canvassing was not currently a listed reason for blocking, the block was bad. Second, some uses felt that because there wasn't a warning given, the block was bad. Third, some people felt that by blocking Hanay and not LGA, I was taking sides in a dispute between Commons and Hebrew Wikipedia.

While canvassing is not a listed reason for blocking, as I noted from the beginning, it is not an action that takes place in a vacuum. Hanay was canvassing for something, and that something was to remove someone with opposing viewpoints on file deletions from the project by recruiting users to support a block or ban. Even many of the people that disagreed with the block see that as highly problematic behavior, and I saw it as well outside of the existing expectations for user conduct. As such, I felt that a block was justified. As to blocking without giving a warning, I will note that the blocking policy says "serious vandalism or harassment may also be blocked without prior warning". I did not feel that Hanay, an admin on Hebrew Wikipedia, needed a warning to know that what they were doing was an egregious user conduct violation, and felt that the blocking policy made it clear that in such cases, warnings were not an absolute requirement. As to the third concern, that I was somehow taking sides in a dispute between two projects, I am not really sure how to respond to that. I was not aware that this incident had reached such a level, if indeed it had. My block of Hanay, while related to the discussion regarding LGA, did not preclude LGA from also being blocked by another user.

For the reasons I gave above, I do not believe that the block was exclusively "bad", although I see the validity of the first two arguments I discussed above, and I don't believe anymore that the block was exclusively "good" either. Blocks don't have to be one or the other, and in this case I feel that it would best be described as "arguably justifiable but ill advised", which is to say that a serious offense occurred, but blocking was not the best first option. I do, however, recognize that the community does not support the block, and that is more important than my personal feelings about it. As such, I pledge to avoid making blocks in the future unless they are for offenses explicitly and unambiguously covered in Commons:Blocking_policy#Use. Thus, I would not block for canvassing again, but I would continue to block vandalism only accounts or repeat copyright offenders. Yes, after they were warned, of course.

As such, I first must apologize to the community both for making an ill-advised block and for exasperating an already tense and emotionally charged dispute in doing so. To Hanay, a block was not the correct choice of action, I should have warned you instead, and I apologize for being over-aggressive in my response.

I hope that everyone can move on from this incident shortly, and that no lasting damage has been done.

Yours sincerely, Sven Manguard Wha? 19:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I started writing this shortly after my last comment in the thread, at 16:18 UTC, first in Microsoft word and then in Wikipedia to get the syntax right. As such, I didn't see the last comment until now. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Sven Manguard, for this long statement! I just want to add a small remark: I would strongly suggest not to seek a decision for an admin action at IRC or to consider anything discussed there as a consensus. This should be taken on-wiki even if it takes a little bit more time. We had this before that IRC talks of multiple admins with a subsequent block they agreed upon ended in much drama (this was, if I remember correctly, before you became active here). The problem is that not all of us have a chance to participate in or to see that discussion. To the community this looks possibly like a cabal even if it was never intended as such.

I agree that we should move on now and suggest to close this thread. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AFBorchert: That is an excellent point. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that asking for advice on IRC is a bad idea, it's clearly not a basis for forming consensus, on admin actions or otherwise. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Sven Manguard for your response. I appreciate your honesty which is good basis of admin. I am pleased from your answer and advise you next time to count only on yourself. Read the Common policy by yourself. Only you responsible to your actions. I want also to ask you who are the I know about user:Russavia and I believe that the two others are user:Fastily and user:Steinsplitter as they was the users as they are responsible to the block not less then you. If you dont deny the names I'll take your answer as yes.

@AFBorchert, Sven tells us that three other admins advise him to block Hanay. The same three admins tried latter on to cover. They support this block even that they clearly know that blocking without warning is not justified (her). I think that topic ban of their admin tool regarding user:Hanay and files concernig he.wiki will be appropriate and a clear statement that they fully comply after Commons policies especially COM:BP. I realy don't want to open a new thread for this. Geagea (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sven Manguard, and I second AFBorchert's advice. Thanks all. @Geagea: We have a strong opinion against topic banning admins. I hope they strictly follow en:WP:INVOLVED. We have no equivalent policy here. But our admin guideline clearly mentioned the expecting code of conduct from them. It emphasize the importance of maintaining harmony with our sister projects. Jee 02:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Geagea: Your list is not correct. However, I am the blocking administrator, and the responsibility for the block ultimately rests entirely on me. I will address your concerns speaking only for me personally:

Regarding avoiding admin actions related to Hanay, I would not be able to block her again because after this incident, the involved admins principle applies (that page is on English Wikipedia, but is general practice across all of the projects I know of).

As for not taking admin actions on files of interest to Hebrew Wikipedia, my administrative actions are primarily in the area speedy deletions, and if an image is an unambiguous copyright violation, where it comes form and who uploaded it have no bearing. The area of tension between Hebrew Wikipedia users and LGA is URAA-related deletion requests. I don't spent very much time closing deletion requests, and I avoided URAA-related requests long before this block, so I doubt that there would be a problem in that regard in the future anyways.

Sven Manguard Wha? 02:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sven, I did not mean to you. You only responsible to your actions not others actions. Geagea (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Jkadavoor it might be worthwhile importing the English Wikipedia policy you mention (the WP:INVOLVED one) and also the canvassing policy, and we can see if we can get consensus to make them policy here on Commons (with or without changes). If we had any sort of canvassing policy, either this block would not have happened or the block would have been inline with policy, and we wouldn't be here today. Nick (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: I've no known hate to Wikipedia and respect it as the biggest project under WMF. If I remember well, I had read somewhere that most policies are first written there, and sister projects refer them whenever there is a need. It is just like Indian judicatory refer British law and precedents whenever our current laws are inadequate to handle a particular case. But remember that en:Wikipedia:Canvassing is just a "behavioral guideline"; it doesn't give admins the permission for an immediate block. Instead it recommends to take alternative measures like en:Template:Not_a_ballot to discourage them.

But I agree with Fae that the current issue is not just lack of enough policies. Instead it is the lack of awareness. See Erik's comment which on a URAA thread. "In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming, rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere." Jee 12:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that folks (especially those trusted with sysop tools who happen to be English Wikipedia administrators) just need to stick to quoting and understanding policies here on Commons, rather than trying to run this project like it was a subservient project of the English Wikipedia. Commons already has quite a few policies, guidelines and well established norms. This situation was covered by existing norms and is not a hole in our policies that needs to be "fixed". For example, the blocking policy states "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block." Any administrator trusted with the tools should be aware that if they are involved, such as having a previous history of debate with the user in question, then any action they take is likely to be challenged on this basis, that should count as being "in doubt" and any administrator that argues against that would look exceedingly foolish. If someone really feels that needs spelling out, they can propose adding two or three words to the blocking policy or the administrators official guideline.

Hint: Never quote English Wikipedia policies in Commons discussions as if they should be enforced here, it's a red flag. --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fæ I'm not bothered if we import the canvass policy from English Wikipedia, Meta or write our own, but we're needing to do at least something about a canvassing policy. That we don't have something that explicitly says "don't canvass to have a Commons user blocked or sanctioned" isn't a minor oversight, it's a massive black hole we really could do with fixing, even if it results in a policy with just that one line of text. Nick (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Odder, Jkadavoor, and Steinsplitter: I would like to clarify one thing, I ordered the ip-block-exempt just because they share similar to that of a expelled, user, with different accounts, has saturated the CU.wiki, and range, once I hit blocking an IP. Regarding the license review, I do not know I have used them incorrectly, and not by the fact that elsewhere such action is taken, it will have to do the same here. If permits were revoked, is a bad occupation thereof, and to the point as I know, never used bad this permit. Leitoxx ^{Work • Talk • Mail} 03:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leitoxx: A different matter, even though I mentioned it in between. So discuss with Steinsplitter first, on his talk page (if you've anything more to say). Jee 03:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Filed a request, let us see if the Community trust him again. (soory for the offtopic) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Sven for your message. I am quite happy with your answer, and I think we can close this thread. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:59, 27 June 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:Manto28-08

I've just locked the user above as a sockpuppet of user:a1cb3's. He's a child with a passion for copyvio, both texts and images. Dealing with his uploads we should assume bad faith then I ask you to check and remove all doubt uploads. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Added notifications to talk pages. Thanks for keeping an eye on the shop! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: it's him again: special:contributions/3bc1a. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 blocked indef as sockmaster. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

178.61.44.82

This anonymous IP made a bad-faith image deletion nomination based on some kind of one-sided personal vendetta he has against me (while I don't know and don't really care who he is) -- Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Syrie rayonnante.svg -- and is continually adding bigoted racist hate-speech taunting to my user talk page (apparently the worst possible insult he can imagine is to call someone a "jew"[sic]) -- see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnonMoos&diff=127981738&oldid=127940753 , https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnonMoos&action=edit&undoafter=127982032&undo=127982399 ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably one of the long-term vandals/trolls floating around. Cleaned-up a bit --Denniss (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

146.82.19.32

Now further pursuing his semi-nonsensical semi-bigoted agenda under anonymous IP 146.82.19.32... AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done (hopefully finally) by Denniss --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Racist comments by 178.61.44.82 from talk page removed. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mamboitaliana

I propose a block for Mamboitaliana (talk · contribs). After I had found all of his uploads to be either copyvios or under a non-free license on Flickr and had tagged them accordingly, he posted a personal insult to my talkpage[8]. Experience shows that nothing good be expected from users who show such a behaviour. I will not block him by myself, as I am directly involved. --Túrelio (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ifalotaibi

A casual review of this user's uploads shows what appears to be all copyright violations. Would someone with more time than I right now please look into this? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, uploads deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And user warned. Yann (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Horsedeecee

Hello,

This seems an account created only for sending ads. All deleted already. Should we block? Yann (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yann, it appears indeed very unlikely that something useful is to be expected from this account. However, you've just warned him/her and it is the user's first day. Hence, I would recommend to check if any more spam is coming and block that account then. BTW, the same user has written two articles that sound like ads at cs-wp. I have asked a colleague at cs-wp to look into this. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Upload warring on football kits (again)

Towards the end of 2012, a number of football kit images were the subject of edit wars between users that wanted to include the logos and users that did not. I ended up giving very strongly worded warnings to Ricky Sen, Lemonade51, Bruno-ban, Walter Görlitz, Gustavo neto, Fma12, PeeJay2K3, and Principal adjoint. I have just discovered that these edit wars have started back up again, and that Gustavo neto and Principal adjoint are in the thick of it, joined by new players Rizky Iconia, Zotteteen1, Buckhorns, Futbase (who was indef blocked by Ankry for overwriting files without consensus in mid June), and a host of accounts that I believe are either socks of Futbase or of one of the other participants in this mess. There are literally hundreds of images that have been the effected by these edit wars, and this has been going on for several years. It needs to end, and for it to end, the admins need to be willing to put teeth behind stopping the edit wars.

Here are some examples of the upload war: File:Kit_body_fcbarcelona0910a.png, File:Kit_body_fcbarcelona1213a.png, File:Kit_body_mancity0910t.png, File:Kit_body_fcb0910h.png, File:Kit_body_mancity1011h.png. Pick any recent kit from any major club and you're likely to find a 20 file long version history of this. Note how far back these go, and how the pattern is that it will be stable for a while, then flare up with a bunch of uploads, then be stable for a while, then flare up again.

As the warnings for Gustavo neto and Principal adjoint are two years old at this point, I don't feel comfortable issuing a block right now. I will note, however, that Gustavo neto has three edit warring blocks and a harassment block (for harassing Principal adjoint), although they are from 2012 and 2013.

Some advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocking when the participants have yet to make a claim of harassment or similar (in 2014) would appear to be both a punitive and precautionary block, both things to be avoided under Blocking policy.

If an administrator wishes to stick their toe into this, offering a neutral mediated discussion to the participants in order to reach a consensus on avoiding future edit warring might be a mellow way forward. --Fæ (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The word "precautionary" does not appear in the policy. According to the policy, blocks are "designed to be a preventative", and one of the things it explicitly is used for is preventing ongoing edit warring. There is no need for the involved parties to claim that they have been harassed. The edit warriors have had the option of discussing the matter all along but have chosen to edit war instead. It would seem that the involved parties can't quite handle the distraction of simply being able to upload new versions. If there is any discussion to be had about which version to upload, they may need to have that distraction taken away temporarily. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There are 12 accounts listed here by Sven Manguard. I see no good reason to block all of them, while blocking fewer would seem inequitable, and considering the history, one would be looking to block all of them for a year or more to make a difference. To my eyes, mediation and consensus is a mellow path. BTW, many words do not appear in Blocking policy, though the policy does mention "blocks are preventative rather than punitive", no warnings have been issued in 2014, so any action here would seem hasty considering that discussion has not been tried since last year. --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoa there Fae, I never said anything about blocking all of the accounts. I listed the old accounts mainly to illustrate how only two of the people that I had to warn in 2012 are still doing it now (and also to illustrate just how many people have been involved in this at one time or another). I would very much like to see an RfC held on whether or not logos can appear in kit images (sponsor logos, manufacturer logos, and club crests have all been the subject of this edit war). Ideally, that would happen soon, and once it is closed, uploading over existing files with new versions that go against the result of the RfC would result in warnings followed by blocks, as would be the case in repeat vandalism or copyvio uploads. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I was making a slightly more general point with regard to an equitable outcome. Accounts that are problematic for other reasons than just this dispute are a separate matter. In the old days I had a hand in revitalizing the en:WP:3 process, as well as RfC this lightweight form of mediation can be effective, and may be a lot quicker, so long as there is someone who wants to lead the mediation and is acceptable to all parties in the dispute. --Fæ (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Back in 2012, if memory serves, none of the parties were interested in mediation. They all just went to ground for a while and apparently some of them started back up again a few months later. This time around, I started an RfC, Commons:Requests for comment/Football kit logos. Hopefully people will eventually go there and decide how, as a community, Commons wants to handle these. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Madrugasportv and FCBARCA13 indeffed as obvious socks of someone - created in July just to revert those images. --Denniss (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Denniss. The answer to that "someone" indeed seems to be Futbase, who had a small army of other socks as well. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Futbase. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for everything. I stop the edit war and I am ready to discuss but Gustavo neto (talk · contribs); Zotteteen1 (talk · contribs); Giovanni59 (talk · contribs); Ricky Sen (talk · contribs) and Kits Mailand (talk · contribs) continue the edit war. For me, I am in favor to keep the logos of manufacturers (Adidas. ..) but not sponsors like Pepsi .... I'm the Portuguese Wikipedia and I propose inviterles representatives of all the languages ​​of Wikipedia. Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) and Denniss (talk · contribs). --Principal adjoint (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Desculpe falar em português (who read that, please translate!). Não vejo motivos em bloquear usuários honestos. Existem muitos usuários na Wikimedia que tiram os logos por maldade, sabendo que é passivo de punição! Eu, Zotteteen1, Principal adjoint, Spiraal, Eduardo Stosick, dentre outros, usam os logos de maneira correta. Já Rizky Iconia, Buckhorns, Futbase, Camisafut, são usuários que não usam da razão e revertem vários kits antigos, sem criar os próprios kits! Não vejo motivo em me bloquearem, faço o meu trabalho honestamente. Obrigado por ler! --Gustavo neto (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There s not a logical thing. The logo is prohibited for selectiond pretext that the selections do not have a sponsor because of image rights. But on Commons trademarks sponsor or not is prohibited. So either we consider that the logos are too small to resemble trademarks and empowers them to selections and clubs is they are considered trademarks and are prohibited for selection because they do not have a sponsor but also it should be banned because the clubs trademarks are prohibited. Rather logos are allowed. -Principal adjoint (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Trademarked images are only prohibited on Commons if copyrighted. Trademarks whose copyright has expired, such as Coca-Cola and New York Yankees, or which are uncopyrightable, such as Dallas Cowboys, are allowed on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary, unwarranted deletion requests by editor

This is to report User:Carriearchdale regarding her recent requests for deletion of five photos that I, myself, have taken, uploaded, and which are being used in Wikipedia articles that I have created. In the past one week, this user has become fixated on me, and has harassed and stalked me on 6 articles on Wikipedia that I created, as well as now in regard to these photos. The user has made an unfounded report against me on the Wikipedia administrative noticeboard, and is now being seriously considered for being indefinitely blocked, which is currently being supported by nearly 20 editors. The user has already had some rights revoked by an administrator until a decision is reached. This is to report that the user's deletion requests of these photos, and the user's continued stalking of me in WikiCommons (in addition to Wikipedia) is unwarranted and has not reflected good faith. All of the user's actions toward me and my work have not reflected any good faith. The user's stalking and harassment is like nothing I have ever experienced on any online forum, and is quite over the top, as can also be read on the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard. I appreciate your consideration of this matter, and hope that some resolution may be obtained so that this user is prevented from continuing harmful actions toward me and my work here. Thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC) The report about which Carriearchdale made and which I referenced above can be found at: [9]. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked and found all deletions legitimate. They are either incompatible licensed images from fickr, unsourced previously published images or nominated for deletion as out of scope. Also I found no declaration of consent for theese images in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In which category falls File:St. Joseph Church, Gowanda, New York, 2007.jpg, one of the images nominated for deletion? It may be a flickr image, I don't know, please provide the link if so; but none of the others are even remotely applicable here. Same applies to File:Gernatt's Richardson Road Pit During Expansion, Collins, New York, July 2005.jpg. I think you are discussing images that have been deleted in May, but this section is about the current deletion requests initiated by Carriearchdale, which would mean that your reply is not really to the point. Fram (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be a silly question but did somone try to talk this over with him? Otherwise this report is very premature imho. Natuur12 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Too much words already spilled here. But no need of a quick sanction other than speedy closing or ignoring those DRs. Jee 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

edit coflict

OOPS, my fault. My above sentences were about already deleted images, not the nominated ones.

The history of your previous uploads, low images resolution, false photo creation dates and missing EXIF info are reasons for reasonable doubts whether you are the author and then you should be asked to prove your authorship as explained in COM:OTRS. Users uploading copyright violations are always suspicious to continue that unless they prove they do not.

Personally, the most suspicious to be copyright violation is File:Photo of Dan Gernatt Farms Company Image.jpg. If you are really the original author of the picture as you claim, could you provide this picture with higher resolution than present in the book to prove that? (taken from the original drawing, not from the book) Ankry (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you, above, for your follow-ups. Also, as a new user who has been here for less than one year, I am still learning the ropes, and trying to do the best that I can. Please do not assume guilt simply due to my past mistakes or lack of understanding regarding Flickr photos that I uploaded. I believe, as you can see on my talk page, I now have a better understanding of what is acceptable based on images shared on Flickr and that are available for usage. That has been explained to me and I have abided by that. The photos that are used are my own photos, and are not copyrighted. Regarding the Dan Gernatt Farms company image, I clearly stated on the image's page that this is a photo of the image that I took. There is no copyright or trademark on the image. Let me know where I can upload and I will. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Additionally, the dates are not false dates, but the date that the image was uploaded. I will go back and notate that on the photos. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Also, in reply to Natuur, I have communicated with this user on several occasions, both here and in Wikipedia, and the user only escalates their behavior (see link provided above to administrative report in Wikipedia). The user is bringing the same behavior over here. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, my, my the drama!!! So sorry to the commons here that [user:Daniellagreen] has brought her personal attacks and baseless allegations against me here to try and jumble up the debate as to whether these pics she uploading here are "her own work"

First of all as a poster suggested above none of the file uploads have any EXIF data, which of course is quite questionable. Secondly I posted a response to uploader on each separate page that if these pics are all her own work then she should have no problem either uploading the negative or perhaps a scan of the back of the photograph that she says is her own work. With all the red on the north side of her talk page it appears uploader does have sometimes a misunderstanding of how copyright and the different CC licenses and such work here. But that is really neither here or there.

The CRUX of the situation in my view is that user:Daniellagreen has been claiming in and about the en wikipedia that she "took a photograph of a photograph' in several of these cases with her DIGITAL camera. DIGITAL camera and no EXIF data? come on lady! A couple of those photos are really well done, and are apparently maybe PR or promotional pictures she was given to use with the articles she did post a en wikipedia' The group of articles that she has been reported as doing when being paid to edit while not disclosing the paid editing to wikipedia as is the new policy. There is currently an ANI running there but what uploader did not reveal to you here is that SHE is the subject of the ANI report for being suspected of doing non-disclosed paid editing in violation of TOS. For anyone that has too much time, and not enough drama in there own life you can check over there at en wikipedia and read all about it.

My nomination for deletion of all five of these uploads stand as they are. Please everyone, do have a lovely day!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, and User:Carriearchdale, this is the drama the you, alone, have created, and as is further reflected at [10]. All of the claims and allegations that you have made and continue to make are false, unjustified, and unnecessary. Do you really not have anything better to do with your time? You believe that you are helping Wikipedia's reputation, but I dare say that you are seriously hurting it. I am praying for you, and will not engage in further communications with you here, either, as your claims are unfounded, offensive, unwarranted, and harmful. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm an experienced photographer, and a lot of my digital photos have no EXIF data. It's very easy to remove, either deliberately or accidentally, during processing - some simple image processing apps just ignore and lose EXIF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Zebedee. It is simply that I have never set the date on my camera, so all of the photos that I take reflect the date 2007, because that is when the camera was manufactured. It's as simple as that. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As Zebedee said, loss of EXIF data happens all the time to me when I crop or modify images. I usually upload the raw image with intact EXIF data for these issues just in case. Froggerlaura (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have uploaded the document from which I took the photo of the image of the horses in Dan Gernatt Farms. You will see that it is a document created by Dan Gernatt Famrs here [11], however the image of the horses is not copyrighted, nor trademarked. I clearly stated in the details section of the image that I uploaded that it is a photo of the image primarily used. If that is not acceptable, then it obviously should be deleted. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

to uploader, "Please do govern yourself accordingly!!!" Please do also have an exquisite day uploader as well to all others!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen by the above comment, just more of the same, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

To further follow-up, I informed the user about this report last evening, inadvertently on her/his user page, as can be seen here [12], but meant to do so on their talk page. It should be noted that the user archived my comments and did not respond to me on their talk page, as is user's usual MO. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note continued harassment by this editor on my talk page, all of which information he/she has provided is untrue, unfounded, and misconstrued, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You should be advised that Carriearchdale has been indeff'd at en.wiki due to things associated with this incident. She has exhibited a tremendous lack of clue and is apparently continuing her war on Daniellagreen here. This came after her block on en.wiki. FYI. John from Idegon (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Daniellagreen is referring to this post by Carriearchdale on her talk page, which is merely a continuation of the harassment and unsupported allegations and accusations wildly flung around by Carriearchdale on en.wiki, where she succeeded in getting herself indef blocked.

Of course what happens on en.wiki does not necessarily effect what happens on Commons, but in this case, where the campaign of one user against another has been carried on cross-wiki, I do think that some recognition of the scope of the community indef-blocking there – where there were 24 supports for the block and 3 opposes, and a number of people changed their !vote from oppose to support – should be taken. As the closing admin there wrote:

As per the extensive discussion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims of paid editing without a smidgeon of proof being provided, and attempts to track down the off-wiki identity of an "opponent" are wholly unacceptable behaviours anywhere. Add to this a) an unwillingness to follow the simplest of Wikipedia procedures, b) extensive WP:BATTLE behaviour, and c) an astounding lack of competence, the community has determined that the severity of the actions and behaviours needs to be stopped to protect the project and its editors. Although it is uncommon to go from a short block to indefinite, it's clear by the discussion, proof provided, and User:Carriearchdale's own behaviour both in this thread, and elsewhere during this discussion that such a block is necessary.

As I said, this is not, and should not be, determinative for Commons, but it should certainly inform the discussion about Carriearchdale's behavior here, which has been almost as bad (if not quite) as on en.wiki.

I suggest that Daniellagreen's complaint regarding Carriearchdale's harassment be taken quite seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor side issue: you write "The photos that are used are my own photos, and are not copyrighted." That is almost impossible, unless you are very old, took them as an employee of the U.S. government, or a few other weird cases. I'm assuming you mean just to say "The photos that are used are my own photos, and I have granted appropriate licenses," but if you mean something else please clarify. Again, with reference to Dan Gernatt Farms, you say "the image of the horses is not copyrighted" and oddly add "nor trademarked". Why would that image not be copyrighted? I'm having some doubts as to whether you understand what that word means. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's quite possible for people of my somewhat advanced years general age to be laboring under the apprehension that things still have to be marked with a date, the copyright symbol and the name of the copyright owner, and be registered in the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, since that was the case before the law changed. Most people don't keep up with copyright law (a rather esoteric subject), and are probably not aware that copyright in now inherent in text, images, recordings, films, etc., etc. from the moment they are "permanent fixed" in some medium, so that almost everything is copyrighted, if it's something that copyrightable. The question is who owns the copyright - i.e. who wrote or published the text, who took the picture or first published it, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unquestionably, Daniellagreen has some to learn on copyright as it applies here but I don't see any mistake that wasn't good faith. Carrie, on the other hand, has shown that combining arrogance with an abject lack of clue leads to disruptive behavior, at enwp, and to a lesser degree, here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• That particular image may also have been published in 1988 without copyright/TM notice and not subject to the new copyright rules if renewal was not attempted. Note it says "1989 stud fee" which in the horse world could have been published in 1988 in advance of the breeding season. Unfortunately from my communications with Daniellagreen, she does not know when the flier was published [13] and this can not help the case. Froggerlaura (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

To follow-up, I really appreciate everyone's support regarding the recent situations at Wikipedia, as identified by several editors above, and the request that it be taken seriously (regarding the block placed on Carriearchdale due to those events). Also, I am not advanced in years, but just over the hill, by the way. The photos that were nominated by deletion by the infamous Carriearchdale are my own, and I have applied to appropriate attribution license, except for notating the detail on the horses' image (which I did very clearly) and stated that it was a photo that I took of the primary image. As Dennis Brown and Froggerlaura have stated, particularly in regard to the horses' image, I was unsure as to whether or not the image would be accepted here, which is actually why I placed my comments in a 'details' section about it. In good faith, it is my thinking that anyone can copy and redistribute the document that I uploaded for reference and on which the horses' image appears. I would guess that the document was published in 1988, as Froggerlaura adeptly pointed out that the document states a 1989 stud fee, however I have no actual evidence of that being the case, nor any proof of any publication in which such document was included. If I had made any action in bad faith, I would not have included a 'details' section on the image page, stating further information about it. Certainly, the drawing of the horses is not one that I created, but is a photo of the image. So, if that's considered a copyright violation, then the image should be deleted - I understand that, but uploaded here in case it could be used. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you take a photograph of a copyrighted item, you technically own the copyright on the photo, but since you can't publish or license it without the permission of the owner of the underlying copyright, in practical terms it's almost entirely useless to you, at least on a website such as Commons which doesn't allow "fair use" of copyrights. You could probably get away with using it on a blog, since they're not well-patrolled, but it would still be a copyright violation and it would be subject to a DMCA Takedown Order if the copyright owner saw it and wanted it removed.

There is another pathway open to you. If you know who the copyright owner is, or suspect who it is, contact them and ask for their permission to use a photo of the drawing. You would have to explain to them our licensing rules, and they would have to show proof to the folks at OTRS that they were the copyright owner, but it can be done. (I've done it myself -- there's no "Freedom of Panorama" in the United States for statues and sculptures, even if they're on public land, so I contacted the sculptor of a statue I wanted to use a picture of, he contacted OTRS, and that picture in now in an article on en.wiki.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for your information on this User:Beyond My Ken. I appreciate the information about fair use. Honestly, I really didn't know how it would all work with this particular image, and just wanted to give it a try. As far as contacting those who may be the copyright holders, I'm going to bow out of that. That is something that I had thought of doing, but they would probably hang up the phone without another thought. Thank you, again, for your information. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, everyone, take a look at my talk page at Wikipedia as I've placed a copy of a "thank you" message to Jimbo Wales regarding all of you for your support! Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I nominated 5 photo files that had been uploaded by a user because I felt that the files could be possible copyright violation. I did not nominate them because any one certain uploader had uploaded them. In the discussion pages of the five nominated photo many different editors have commented on both sides of the issue. I would remind everyone that on the template that pops up when a pic is nommed for deletion it states the reason the nominator had for the nomination:

Reason for the nomination: user/uploader states "this image is a photo of the primary version" This image may be screenshot of a non-free program, or other copyrighted material, or may be a photograph taken of another photograph taken by someone other than the uploader person. One can not claim the file as their own work unless the uploader took the original photo. Based on this rationale this file may be a COM:COPYVIO does not fall within the project scope of Wikimedia Commons.

I stand by my nominations. I have no ill will towards anyone here. Anyone who states that I do have some ill will towards this particular uploader is mistaken...And as far as several editors coming over here to gang on the bandwagon, my only comment would be that on the en wikipedia and here at the commons user Daniellagreen has made baseless allegations, personal attacks, and made untrue statements about me and my character. Daniellagreen has made legal threats towards me here as well as at the en wikipedia, and I have left that to my trusted advisors to move forward on. I hope everyone will have a fabulous Friday!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that before she began this campaign of harassment (and I use the term advisedly) against Daniellagreen, Carriearchdale has never filed a deletion nomination before. There's no indication that she made the nominations out of a spirit of concern for Commons.

Also, in reference to her comment about "editors coming over here to gang on the bandwagon", I have been a contributing member of Commons since 3 February 2008, at first under the account name "Before My Ken", then "Between My Ken", I have over 52,000 edits, and have uploaded over 5,000 of my own images. I am a bona fide member of the Commons community, not an interloper from en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the above editor's (Carrie's) comments are without merit. No legal threats have been made, and the above editor has actually made false allegations against me, without realization of their impact. I move that this discussion be closed, and that appropriate action be taken regarding the photos that the editor requested for deletion. Thank you, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you assume that only legal threats can be a reason for image deletion? No. Unclear copyright status may be the reason as well. The discussion here may be closed, but the DRs have their own lifetime waiting for the community decission. Ankry (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It should also be noted that Carriearchdale made a harassing threat to me on my talk page here in WikiCommons, stating that this situation will not turn out good for me - and she added emphasis to that. I believe that should be taken seriously. Also, absolutely no legal threats were made at all; Carrie has completely misconstrued the situation. Also, no problem regarding any community decision; I was just trying to be diligent and helpful. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Can be closed: Seems to be that two users continue their fight on Commons after enwiki pulled the plug. We'll have an eye and a half on the situation and I think most admins will block on sight if this continues. I advise both parties to ignore each other. If one finds another ones upload, please ask here what other users think and let them do the DR tagging. For the sake of the project, thanks --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My perspective is that I'm defending myself and my work on Wikipedia. I did not ask for this situation to occur, nor do I accept blame for it. My only aims are to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestions, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

This user ignores the discussions on the File Talk:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements.svg and on his own talk page for weeks and restarts an edit war today. As there is no reflection or consideration of the arguments given and proposals made I understand his action as a breach of rule and conduct. Please check this matter and react to it. -  Maxxl² - talk 19:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Again with the accusation of ignoring things, you've done this several times. Earlier today you accused me of ignoring you and that my "choice of silence" was an admission that you are right and you took it as a sign to revert the image. Previously, you also changed some image and I didn't happen to notice, and you accused me on my talk page of being ungrateful, ironically calling me a "friend" when we certainly are not. Then there is the issue of this shitlist you created about me, full of false claims of "stealing" other users works. You really expect me to work with you?

Now regarding the images, there is no consensus for it to be grey, it has been white for a significant amount of time and until there is a consensus it should not be changed. I did not "restart" any edit war, YOU did, by reverting the image without consensus and using my supposedly deliberate silence on the matter as a reason to. How do you know I was choosing to ignore the matter? It hasn't been mentioned on the talk page in weeks, I very well could have missed (and in fact that's exactly what happened) your notice on my talk page, or I could have even been on a short vacation. You don't know, but you're strangely attached to this matter which you have no previous involvement in and you are accusing me (as you have in the past) of things I have not done. That is my response. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The image has been locked. When you, *SGR*, and Fry1989 are able to reach a solution that does not involve upload warring, any admin may remove the protection. In the mean time, I suggest that you all spend more time talking to each other and less time reverting each other.

*SGR* and Fry1989: What the two of you did on May 21-22 is unacceptable. Eight reverts in 48 hours is upload warring - a type of edit warring - and edit warring is specifically addressed in Commons' blocking policy. Consider this your pre-block warning.

Maxxl2: Fry1989 not responding to you is not the same as him agreeing with you. I'm not sure where you got that idea but please discard it.

All of you: Thus far the discussion on the talk page has been civil, and it looks like it's making slow progress. I urge you to keep it up. If you absolutely can't resolve this, I suggest taking up Fry1989's suggestion about uploading separate versions.

Good luck to all of you in reaching an equitable solution. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I carefully watched for two weeks the activities of Fry1989. He was editing his talk page, other pages and images every single day. That means it is very unlikely that he has not noticed my proposals and references. I followed the en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus

My proposal to solve the edit war between the other two to have two different images where the one follows FIAV rule and the other the rule of the House of Luxembourg-Bourbon was accepted by "SGR" and had no reaction from Fry1989.

As the two images already exist, I reverted the impossible hybrid to the exact House of Luxembourg-Bourbon version which one can name the "official version". The other is the File:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements 2.svg that follows the FIAV color rule which is widely accepted in european heraldry.

There is no need for a formal acceptance on behalf of Fry1989 as everyone here who is experienced with european heraldry knows that only the proposed two versions are acceptable. Only the version Fry1989 prefers is an impossible hybrid which should be reverted immediately. -  Maxxl² - talk 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I really am not obligated to confirm one way or the other, but I have been very busy the past week. I bought and had to set up a new PC, new internet service, I have had limited time to edit on Commons as I have taken extra shifts at work, and I was focussing on core matters that I have been editing and maintaining for years. I indeed missed your comment. However, even if I chose to ignore it, that is not a "YES" (or a "NO") to anything. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are right, Sven Manguard: talking to each other can help (and mostly does). That is what I dried several times ... Anyway, you are right (a second time): It was a kind of edit waring and I have to apologize for that (what I did before). But what we have now, is a fixed file that is wrong anyway (have a look at the editis in January 2011 and you will see Fry1989 said "I'm wokring on it") *SGR* (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

May I just ask a more factual question: as Fry1989 wasn't able for four years to name a source that supports or confirms his hybrid version of this CoA, is there anybody else who has found a source for this weird colour arrangement? -- Maxxl² - talk 13:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we have to wait endless to get an answer to the basic question? Again we sit back and wait until a user, that never has qualified to be an expert on the field of heraldry, has the grace to let us know his decision on a matter he is obviously stumped with. That is weird. -- Maxxl² - talk 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion

User:Jameslwoodward deleted a page I recently added (not a file). The deletor did not seek any discussion at any time. They mentioned that it had to do with "gallery". Afterwards, for reasons unexplained, User:99of9 advised me not to bring it up here [14]. -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

For information, the deleted page was Periodic table blocks, it was speedy deleted with the rationale "Out of project scope -- Commons galleries are for collections of images, articles belong in Wikipedia". @User:DePiep I advised against coming here because you were in discussion with Jim at his talk page, and I don't think he has done anything here against policy. This was a routine speedy ("cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussions and immediately delete files or pages" CSD galleries). If you're unclear about what gallery space should contain, see here. I hope that helps. --99of9 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't a COM:UDR undeletion request be a good option? And couldn't the contents (as described) just be moved to DePiep's user space, at least temporarily? That way, if nothing else, non-administrators like me could see it and participate more meaningfully in any discussion about it. -Pete F (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've now userfied it, but I really don't think COM:UDR is worth it, because it's clearly not a gallery. --99of9 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)There is no mention of "speedy" in the deletion summary. There is no mention of the page being in a "gallery" namespace(?) whatsoever. The deletor did not show any intention to save the page themselves, or by talk. All this before me stating that the page is clearly intended as a truthful contribution to commons. However serious User:99of9 tries to explain backgrounds (new mentionings at that), while previously advising against me posting here. The attitude for the deletion is not wiki, and the cover up is not better. The deletor could have done better. And -to me- there is no need for 99of9 to cover that fellow. 99of9 could have contacted the deletor, why not. Now please bring back that page. We need it. -DePiep (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Click on the redlink Periodic table blocks and read the editnotice at the very top. That is what you would have seen when you created the page. It clearly says "You are now in the main namespace, reserved for gallery pages (as opposed to e.g. discussion pages). If you are new to Commons, please read the introduction to galleries on Commons (Commons:Galleries)." --99of9 (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Info I have blocked the user DePiep for 6 months after he left a well thought out (not a spontaneous blackout) insult on the discussion page of Jameslwoodward. The remark block me for a week shows clearly that the user has been fully aware of the rules. This behavior could have lead to a full block as well, only his contributions to the projects as a whole prevent that from happening. <- For the record: I'll copy this into a separate AN/U. And no: This is not a big brotherhood of admins looking out for each other. If it would have been the other way around, I would have blocked 6 months as well, actually maybe longer.

Here are the reasons to close this discussion:

• All necessary information was given in the deletion rationale which can be openly accessed by all users.
• It is wishful thinking that deleting admins have to discuss every single deletion with the uploader. It is the uploaders responsibility to check the guidelines.
• DePiep missed the chance to ask questions before creating the table in the wrong namespace. That's what the village pump is for.
• There is no need to mention speedy in the deletion rationale since the admin is allowed to delete certain pages, just like the one we are discussing right now, without any discussion.

Can be closed by not involved user --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the content now hosted at User:DePiep/Periodic table blocks should have been originally edited at (or moved to) Category talk:Periodic_table or some such. I averr it is useful for any harmonization of navboxes or other such use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:YotaBite

The user continues uploading non-free files taken from the Internet even after he was explicitly warned by Magog the Ogre and by me in his native language. There was a similar case recently with User:Григорий225; I do not have sufficient proof, but possibly he should be checked for being one of his sockpuppets. YLSS (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 blocked for a week. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed to indef as sock of Григорий225. Эlcobbola _talk 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Fotoriety

Fotoriety (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) single purpose accounts for voting at FPC etc., Fotoriety insults me and expresses assumptions and has starting and edit war here: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Cap Figuera1.jpg --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to tango... Pleclown (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I did neither insult Fotoriety nor make assumptions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What about edit warring ? Pleclown (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain how Wladyslaw has the right or audacity to remove one of my comments on the FP nomination page and then accuse me of being in the wrong for repeatedly trying to restore it? This is very perplexing.Fotoriety (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this? A compromise. Fotoriety, please alter your comment slightly to ensure that it does not come off as offensive to Wladyslaw. Wladyslaw, please stop edit warring over another editor's comment. Next time, simply report the edit your believe is offensive here and let someone uninvolved take care of it. Tiptoety ^talk 15:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Wladyslaw has continued to edit war after multiple requests to stop. As such, I have blocked them for a period of two days. Tiptoety ^talk 21:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The compromise proposal was not carried out. I have now removed the parts of Fotorietys comment about the creator, which was irrelevant for the assessment of the FPC. --Slaunger (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Slaunger. Tiptoety ^talk 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user was usually a disruptive administrator on Wikipedia, performing unexpected edits and actions (e.g blocking, deleting, protecting, etc.)

Would someone indefinitely block the above administrator? 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:1E8:6A37:2BC5:9931 23:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done - disruptive, anonymous editors may be blocked if they continue this sort of behaviour. It is quite clear there is no behavioural issues with FreeRangeFrog stemming from any of their edits, and this is a spurious request (trolling). Nick (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for trolling (see IP's edits) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SLV100

Resolved

SLV100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This user seems to be back to disrupting closed DR cases. See this fresh example of defacing a closed DR and inserting bogus speedy tags:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mark_busking_12.jpg&oldid=128633484
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mark_busking_12.jpg&oldid=128632768

Should be warned (not blocked, since this user seems to be engaging also in good work on DR mantainance) and his contributions scrutinized. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the reason for this report. - SLV100 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 Question @SLV100: What would the reason be and how will this report affect further behavior? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason for this warning was because I was "disrupting closed DR cases" (Tuválkin). I will refrain from performing such edits in the future. This was a misunderstanding on my behalf. In the past, my misunderstandings have been resolved with discussion. - SLV100 (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to remember as a principle we generally don't delete old discussion, we'd rather start a new one. While started a new discussion it's a good practice to notify people that have participated to old discussions on the same topic. I believe that no administrator actions are required for now, as SLV100 seems to understand what was the problem. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Agree Can be closed per PierreSelim. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this happen. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done SLV100 did it again. This time I'll blocked the user for 1 month, since he's not constantly on Commons. Maybe this will finally get his attention. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted SLV100's pagemoves. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: The pagemoves are part of my "good work on DR mantainance" (Tuválkin) and there was no consensus to revert. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

This user ignores the discussions on the File Talk:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements.svg and on his own talk page for weeks and restarts an edit war today. As there is no reflection or consideration of the arguments given and proposals made I understand his action as a breach of rule and conduct. Please check this matter and react to it. -  Maxxl² - talk 19:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Again with the accusation of ignoring things, you've done this several times. Earlier today you accused me of ignoring you and that my "choice of silence" was an admission that you are right and you took it as a sign to revert the image. Previously, you also changed some image and I didn't happen to notice, and you accused me on my talk page of being ungrateful, ironically calling me a "friend" when we certainly are not. Then there is the issue of this shitlist you created about me, full of false claims of "stealing" other users works. You really expect me to work with you?

Now regarding the images, there is no consensus for it to be grey, it has been white for a significant amount of time and until there is a consensus it should not be changed. I did not "restart" any edit war, YOU did, by reverting the image without consensus and using my supposedly deliberate silence on the matter as a reason to. How do you know I was choosing to ignore the matter? It hasn't been mentioned on the talk page in weeks, I very well could have missed (and in fact that's exactly what happened) your notice on my talk page, or I could have even been on a short vacation. You don't know, but you're strangely attached to this matter which you have no previous involvement in and you are accusing me (as you have in the past) of things I have not done. That is my response. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The image has been locked. When you, *SGR*, and Fry1989 are able to reach a solution that does not involve upload warring, any admin may remove the protection. In the mean time, I suggest that you all spend more time talking to each other and less time reverting each other.

*SGR* and Fry1989: What the two of you did on May 21-22 is unacceptable. Eight reverts in 48 hours is upload warring - a type of edit warring - and edit warring is specifically addressed in Commons' blocking policy. Consider this your pre-block warning.

Maxxl2: Fry1989 not responding to you is not the same as him agreeing with you. I'm not sure where you got that idea but please discard it.

All of you: Thus far the discussion on the talk page has been civil, and it looks like it's making slow progress. I urge you to keep it up. If you absolutely can't resolve this, I suggest taking up Fry1989's suggestion about uploading separate versions.

Good luck to all of you in reaching an equitable solution. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I carefully watched for two weeks the activities of Fry1989. He was editing his talk page, other pages and images every single day. That means it is very unlikely that he has not noticed my proposals and references. I followed the en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus

My proposal to solve the edit war between the other two to have two different images where the one follows FIAV rule and the other the rule of the House of Luxembourg-Bourbon was accepted by "SGR" and had no reaction from Fry1989.

As the two images already exist, I reverted the impossible hybrid to the exact House of Luxembourg-Bourbon version which one can name the "official version". The other is the File:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements 2.svg that follows the FIAV color rule which is widely accepted in european heraldry.

There is no need for a formal acceptance on behalf of Fry1989 as everyone here who is experienced with european heraldry knows that only the proposed two versions are acceptable. Only the version Fry1989 prefers is an impossible hybrid which should be reverted immediately. -  Maxxl² - talk 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I really am not obligated to confirm one way or the other, but I have been very busy the past week. I bought and had to set up a new PC, new internet service, I have had limited time to edit on Commons as I have taken extra shifts at work, and I was focussing on core matters that I have been editing and maintaining for years. I indeed missed your comment. However, even if I chose to ignore it, that is not a "YES" (or a "NO") to anything. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are right, Sven Manguard: talking to each other can help (and mostly does). That is what I dried several times ... Anyway, you are right (a second time): It was a kind of edit waring and I have to apologize for that (what I did before). But what we have now, is a fixed file that is wrong anyway (have a look at the editis in January 2011 and you will see Fry1989 said "I'm wokring on it") *SGR* (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

May I just ask a more factual question: as Fry1989 wasn't able for four years to name a source that supports or confirms his hybrid version of this CoA, is there anybody else who has found a source for this weird colour arrangement? -- Maxxl² - talk 13:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we have to wait endless to get an answer to the basic question? Again we sit back and wait until a user, that never has qualified to be an expert on the field of heraldry, has the grace to let us know his decision on a matter he is obviously stumped with. That is weird. -- Maxxl² - talk 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

...Well, looks like three days are not enough... *SGR* (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to you self-anointed experts? I have no interest in fruitless discussion with those who make it clear their consider my voice an inferior one. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, can anyone tell me, how to reach a solution, if one party "have no interest in fruitless discussion"? Everything, we were waiting for were "a source that supports or confirms [your] hybrid version". I would not call that fruitless. *SGR* (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

DePiep

DePiep (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

 For the record:

I have blocked the user DePiep for 6 months after he left a well thought out (not a spontaneous blackout) insult on the discussion page of Jameslwoodward. The remark block me for a week shows clearly that the user has been fully aware of the rules. This behavior could have lead to a full block as well, only his contributions to the projects as a whole prevent that from happening. I removed the insult from the talk page as well. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this amounted to leaving a "f*** you" on Jim's talk page. This is rude and may be harassment, but it is not a pattern of harassment, nor does it misuse personal information, make defamatory allegations or similar. Were I to take time to search through administrator contributions, I have no doubt I would find this exact phrase being used by administrators in other contexts. The choice of block seems to have taking into account non-Commons contributions, which is not the norm for Commons, at least we tend to disregard blocks and edit history on other projects.

Specifying 6 months as a first block is unusual, this could have been left as an indef block until such a time as DePiep was prepared to ask for an unblock and be assessed by an administrator properly to recognize why their behaviour has been unacceptable. For this reason I propose that the block is amended to be an indef as this better fits the guideline for block duration given at Blocking policy.

If the suppressed revision is more disturbing than the block log indicates, this may justify the minimum block length, however in that case a clear explanation here of the nature of the harassment would be helpful and ensure that the minimum of 6 months is understood to be the most suitable block option. --Fæ (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Fae, it not a maybe, it is harassment (per policy vandalism as well). As I stated above, it was a planned insult and not a heat-of-the-moment blackout. The planning part prompted me to extend the block to 6 months. A user with that many global edits should know better. If other peeps use the same phrase or not is not the issue here. Point me to those and I am happy to block as well. Admin or not, I couldn't care less. Do you think I block for fun? I mean, stating that the block has to be assessed properly? DePiep can use the unblock feature no matter what the block length is. Given the explanation above, in my humble book, the block is justified. On second thought: Changing to indef doesn't look too good for DePiep in the long run. One could think that there's even more to it - makes a bad impression. Just my 2cents, if someone wants to change to indef, I won't argue about it. Policy states: Blocks based on disruptive behavior should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behavior will not resume. There's another way out for the user if he wants to. As you know, I can always be argued with to change a block or overstretch AGF. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I read this as confirming that the block of DePiep was for using "F*** you" on Jim's talk page in a deliberate way and that there is no objection to changing this to an indef block and/or the block being lifted before 6 months, so long as the expectations given in Blocking policy have been met.

With regard to administrators using the F-word, I recall some names, but it looks like listing them here could cause un-mellow outcomes. --Fæ (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Hedwig, for being protective of your colleague -- I appreciate it very much. One of the things that makes this job easier is the support we give each other. With that said, I have unblocked DePiep. I think that six months is too long for an angry retort, even one that was not quite in the heat of the moment. While I don't at all like users throwing expletives around, Admins must recognize the occasional need for rhinoceros hide protective clothing. I think that the seven hours that he was blocked has probably gotten his attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

squeeze @Fæ: & @Jameslwoodward: No objection to changing the block. I could have made that a little clearer. If Jim thinks the block is long enough, than it is enough. It was his talk page and not mine. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

DePiep did here what he did elswhere and what is probably his usual approach to collaborative work: A mixture of snark, valuable work, assumption that everyone else is dimwitted, unwillingness to accept existing conventions, and random, obnoxious tantrums. While six months seems too long, seven hours was perhaps not enough. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons has weaker guidelines for blocking than some other projects, tending to accept norms rather than needing this to be set in concrete. It is rare for a first block of an account to be more than a week, unless the pattern of behaviour indicates that the account is never going to be used for anything else, such as a spamming or pure vandalism account. If you go through past first blocks for abusive comments or trolling, these are rarely more than a day. Further disruptive behaviour sets a pattern and it becomes harder for any administrator to presume the contributor is likely to change their behaviour without increasingly long blocks to get their attention. As has been indicated above, it is also common for long blocks to be lifted early based on a commitment to change, so stating a block length in a block notice tends to be indicative, but remains subject to appeal. In terms of a successful outcome, the good news is that contributors with a history on other projects tend to want to use their account again, so even repeated warnings, and if needed, blocks, do not always lead to contributors disappearing forever.

Okay, back to this case, a few hours is a short block, however this is long enough for DePiep to get mellow. If they continue to do the equivalent of telling admins to F-off, I have little doubt that the next block will be a lot longer so that they have time to discuss their behaviour and recognize that creating a hostile environment for the rest of us is itself a problem, regardless of the rights and wrongs of what might have annoyed them in the first place. --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Imho, short blocks are to trigger a change of behaviour, (short corrective block or cool down periods) long blocks are meant to protect the project against those who harm it. Just my two cents aboutblock lenghts in general. Natuur12 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

While Jim has a valid point that administrators should have "thick skin", I disagree with reducing the block to seven hours. In order for an online community such as Wikimedia to thrive there must be a hostile free work environment. User's who call each other names, engage in "down and dirty" conduct, and throw fits when things don't go the way they wanted end up creating wasted hours of work for the community (as is evident here), and often times run off those who act with general decorum. To my knowledge, nothing has ever been solved/improved by telling someone to fuck off. If this were a place of employment, let alone a collaborative (real world) volunteer organization, such a person would be terminated. While I am not suggesting an indef block, as it is not really supported by policy, seven hours seems inappropriate. Tiptoety ^talk 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

When I meantioned his behaviour elsewhere I mean not in another project, but elsewhere here in Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Two comments. First, User:DePiep has apologized on my talk page, which suggests to me that it was a fit of temper that I can certainly understand.

Second, why is it that several of you think that "fuck you" deserves a block, while WTF? has been through at least two DRs with significant support? My reaction to the two is similar -- in fact, I am probably more offended by WTF? applied to one of my actions than I am by the simple "fuck you". I suspect that this is very regional -- such things usually are. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jim: For me, WTF? is a swearword, while "fuck you" is an insult. This may explains that. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Since this is opened "for the record".

I absolutely disagree with User:Hedwig in Washington's 'analysis' that my post was not by temper, but by calculation (as they repeatedly posted here). Bolding it does not make it more true.

I also abhor and reject the smearing introduction by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DePiep Tuvalkin [15], who only tries to suggest by association to other admins (note the es in the link). For this, this smearing editor did not ever produce a single reasoning-with-diff-proves-and-quotes in any such hot topic page (think enwiki WP:ANI). -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC) (just stroke a bad link -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC))

You are actually contradicting yourself be stating that the insult was made in the heat of the moment and not by calculation: Why would you call another user a smearing editor? That clearly shows your mindset and your inability to accept that other users could be correct once in a while. Insulting editors doesn't make your actions right. I'd like to stay out of this fruitless discussion pretty please. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't follow your reasoning, you're mixing up two statements. I repeat that Tuválkin did not and does not produce one single diff or quote when smearing me. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC) (Bad link, I had to stroke. ping @Tuvalkin: -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC))

I refrained from substantiate my view of DePiep’s role and value in the project because I didn’t want to “smear” s/his name more than strictly necessary, by bringing about old news. But, upon insistance, lo and behold how DePiep (while contributing a few good questions and some good work) managed to play the victim and drain off the patience of all active contributors of the BSicon project: Talk:BSicon/Renaming#Category:BSicon.2FNew_icons… (Actually in this regard he’s second only to Axpde, who is actually an admin: When an admin who works exclusively for a given subproject manages to foster unanimous dislike from people in that subproject, you know you have a problem — one worse than the matter at hand.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Question Are we done here? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocking on a basis of harassment can be done only if it repeated behavior as blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one. Block have to be last resort for behaviour. In this case dropping a warning in the talk page was necessary. Also the block duration was unreasonable. First we block for short time and then gradually increase it if the behavior repeated. Geagea (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)