Hosta

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

User:User21550230 is changing (again) licenses in his images from {{Cc-by-3.0}} to Cc-by-nc-nd. See example. I can not deal with it at the moment, can someone else talk to him and undo the changes? --Jarekt (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as obvious sock. --Denniss (talk) 21:09, 17 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.

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

Clearly another sock of Namkhanh02, uploads same files and even has the exact same hello message as another sock account. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Helooo. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Magog -FASTILY 09:43, 19 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.

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

We will not stand idly by whilst one community attempts open warfare on another. This discussion is closed for two reasons, primarily and in line with policy, there's no consensus and no likelihood of consensus emerging, so there's no point in keeping this discussion open, but secondly, to try and stop the continuing deterioration in relations between Commons and the Hebrew Wikipedia. We all broadly share the same goals and aims, arguments are over tiny numbers of files, it is worth remembering this and not allowing the situation to continue to get out of control.

So, please, can everybody step back, take a few days out from it all, and come back in a more mellow, friendly sort of mood. Nick (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like LGA came to Commons only to promote his own agenda. I beleive that the project does not interest him, and he can't work as a part of a community. This is the only explanation I can think about, after he opend again a deletiom request in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Avraham Shlonsky 1952.jpg. The third time after the picture was restored twice.

He even did not bother to mention that in this particular case, User:Neukoln found a publication of this picture in 1952 here as he shows in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Yann. LGA opened this discussion. I ask the administrators to block him . Thanks. Hanay (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose to topic ban User:LGA form opening or participating in any URAA related DRs and discussions (as promised at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072786.html). The topic ban can be extended to any PD-US matters too if he/she continue playing with words as did in the DR mentioned above.

 Support Jee 04:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Did you not read Steinsplitter's close of the section you mention ? It says and I quote The files schould be renomonated for deletion and the DR schlould be closed by an not involved admin after at least 7 days. LGA _talk^edits 05:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• If he think so, he will do it. No need of your aggressive actions. (I don't know whether you're aware of it. We had a similar discussion in "Xray photos"; and the consensus was to discourage reopening DRs by same user again and again. The user neglected it; and we warn him to topic ban.) Jee 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing aggressive about them, unlike some of the actions towards me. LGA _talk^edits 05:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See. This is a community concept; so we need consensus. Here I see supports for both sides; including from admins. So we need slow discussions to arrive into a compromise acceptable to both sides. Here you seem acting alone, and becoming a victim. Leave it to people who are more experienced in Commons. You can alredy see many stewards, crats, and senior admins alredy involved in this matter. Wait. Jee 05:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Steinsplitter with the above mentioned close could not have made it much clearer as to the path to go, then you come along and demand topic ban for doing exactly what was suggested. LGA _talk^edits 05:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Because we can't afford too much noise here (AN, AN/U) as we have better, constructive things to do. :)

No need of a topic ban as you can voluntarily offer it. Jee 05:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is what you perceive as URAA related, none of the four files this relates to have been shown to have needed the URAA to restore a copyright that they don't appear to have ever lost. So any such topic ban would not have covered them. The DR you commented on here also not about the URAA, it is licensed as {{PD-AR-Photo}} which as you can see requires details of publication, none are provided so is not validly licensed again nothing to do with the URAA. LGA _talk^edits 05:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Totally agree. Yann (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support As mentiond before. Ovedc (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't support a ban of any sort to be imposed by the community, though I expect the user to stop and reflect on their approach, and their manner. A community member is entitled to nominate and/or express an opinion about a matter for deletion requests, it is not their place take on the task of prosecutor, nor the opportunity to repeatedly challenge opinions when someone else expresses theirs. It is disrespectful to badger, and berate, and no community member will tolerate that for an extended period. One should try to limit oneself to one opinion, and leave it at that, occasionally there is a need to clarify, or ask questions, then do so. As I expressed elsewhere, they need to reread COM:PRP as they misapply that on some occasions, and they need to understand that the community is able to willingly relieve the burden of proof from the uploader by their collective expression, which is the purpose of a community discussion. No community policy can be absolute, and the community is allowed to identify and handle exceptions. My advice: the wikis can be all consuming, stop, take a step back, look around at the good that can be done, and assist; DRs can be a part of that, though mindfully.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

billinghurst, your assumption is that LGA did what he did in good intention. But if you look on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Avraham Shlonsky 1952.jpg you wiil see that his argument was No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. Such evidence was given, so why he nominated this picture for deletion the third time? There is no excuse for his behavier. I am sure that if nothing wiil happened he wiil continue to promote his own agenda. Ignoring the community decision. Hanay (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hanay: I am in no way saying that the behaviour has been exemplary. I just don't favour a ban at this time. I haven't made assumptions about intentions, though I understand that any individual can get entrenched into a way of thinking, and that it can be difficult to shift taht thinking. A topic ban may force that, though does have negative consequences. I believe that we are looking to the same end result, just by different paths.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I found that he also asked to delete 3 more pictures again (see below). You closed the deletion requests and wrote to him; "That is enough of your repetition.". That what I feel. This is enough. I am an administrator in he:wiki, an OTRS volunteer, I wrote hundreds of articles in he:wiki and I am still writing, I built an Archaeological portal, I uploaded many pictures to commons and I am the leader of of the Wikipedia Education program in University of Haifa. But in the last months I spent too much of my time here protecting very important pictures that users here, nominated them for deletion again and again and again. I wonder how it is for the benefit of wikipedia and Commons? On the other side LGA spent all his time looking for pictures to delete. So enough is enough. I see what he wrote here and he still do not recognized that what he did was wrong. Hanay (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aharon Meskin - Ben Gurion - Israel Prize1960.jpg
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abba Hushi 1956.jpg
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beba Idelson Ada Maimon1952.jpg

•  Support Totally agree.Enough is enough.Sima shimony (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with billinghurst. Every community member is entitled to nominate/express an opinion on a matter for deletion requests. A topic ban is by no means a proper solution. -FASTILY 09:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per billinghurst. Ankry (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose also per billinghurst, implying that LGA should take billinghurst's recommendations to his/her heart. --Túrelio (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I agree. It looks like LGA came to Commons only to promote his own agenda: deleting photos from a very specific area, related to a certain state.... It is indeed evident. Danny-w (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support His attacks on the community decisions crossed the border long time ago. Eitan96 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Picking up to legitimate pictures and demanding their deletion, even after they have been voted to keep, scares away contributors and sabotages the project. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 21:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Even after bringing more than enough evidences proving he's wrong in his perception the files are not legit in the Commons, he keeps bothering the whole community, causing many good editors to waste enormous time on unneeded debates with him and him only. Ldorfman (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that the user who started the thread is canvassing on the Hebrew Wikipedia's Village Pump: "I ask all who can make an argument in English, and has significant edits the Wikimedia Commons to go here and vote for blocking. Currently the debate is not going well. There are too many cons." —LX (talk, contribs) 21:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the whole issue of deleting these mainly Israel-related files is in the interest of the editors of the Hebrew Wikipedia, this information left in their own Village Pump is fair. Ldorfman (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

To announce in a neutral way a matter that may be of interest to a community is very different than a post to encourage a vote for blocking. Such canvassing is inappropriate, and probably sufficient to kill a proposal. If there is ever a requirement for an announcement, then it is always preferable to mention in the proposal that you would like to do it, and get someone to proof your announcement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What you suggests might seem like a better way, but it is not. Hanay, is one of the Hebrew Wikipedia's busiest editors, she's a member of the OTRS team and does other things as well, such as guidance to newcomers. We want her to focus on her productive work inside Wikipedia - Not to totally waste her time over and over again on such bureaucracy, only for the sake of doing it in the most "neutral way". Ldorfman (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, telling people to go and vote to block is never fair. --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What I wrote in he:wiki his nothing to compare with what the users in He:wiki things about what is happening here. Is to nominate pictures for deletion 3 times is fair? The useres in he:wiki are very angry on Commons. There is a lot of talking to open another wiki:project for pictures. Here every one can open with no reasons at all or with obscure reasons, a deletion request and get suport from other users. I am afraid that Commons is going to doom and you do not see it. There is more and more users in he:wiki that refuse to upload their pictures here because what is happening here, and I do not blame them. Also, how do you know that for example, Fastily was not asked by LGA to support him here? (they support each other actions all the time). He can send him an email, at least I did it openly.I am fighting here for the future of Commons because I care and believe it can be changed, and I hope you will understand it. Otherwise you will get more and more reaction like User:Neukoln that wrot in his user page So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish Hanay (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And here is ביקורת discussing how to make continued coordination less apparent. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not? We already lost their trust by making nonsense mass DRs. Jee 10:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not?! I'm sorry, but I fail to see how on earth an ongoing, open deletion discussion started by one user would somehow justify off-project stealth canvassing to oust another user who has not even participated in that discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion, And understand how angry This story makes. ביקורת (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care how angry you are. Off-project stealth canvassing is never acceptable behaviour. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is not really the first time she canvasses external opinions on he.wp, using the fact that the users which likely would oppose her opinion do not speak Hebrew.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose The reason originally provided for a block is inconsistent with our blocking policy. Blocks based on personal opinions about a user or due to their participation in a discussion are unacceptable. All blocks need to be based in the any policy violations due to a user's behavior. —Mono (how to reply) 23:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  Well, the policy he violates is trying to delete pictures that were already proven to be copyrights-free. Ldorfman (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  @Mono:: This proposal is not about a block; just topic ban. If I remember well, I witnessed two similar proposals by admins here; and once case closed as implementing "topic ban". Jee 02:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Billinghurst. Some editors express an opinion on an issue and move on. Other editors feel obliged to respond to every comment that does not agree with them leading through a downward spiral of anger and recriminations. We should all try to be the first type and not the second type. I also think it was highly inappropriate to make that request at he.wiki without leaving a note here and especially I object to the request for people to vote for blocking. All that was needed was a simple message stating that there was a discussion that might interest people and to provide a link. Hanay please remove the offending words from your request at he.wiki and change the wording to just two sentences such as :

== Discussion at Commons ==

There is a discussion going on at Commons about User:LGA. Please feel free to comment at <link to this discussion>.

Opinion of Green Giant (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support There's long enough of a trail of this repetitive DR behaviour where it is clear that LGA can not control themselves. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment As I told to LGA earlier, there is no need of a formal topic ban if the user himself/herself is willing to follow community opinion. Otherwise we will be forced to reopen this topic again as Billinghurst told to him: "It is worth paying attention to community concern, rather than continuing the same behaviour. Continuing behaviour that is considered disruptive in a community will be managed, whether you wear your underpants on the outside or the inside. A continued perception of righteousness/rightfulness will be problematic without the ability for self-reflection, and the ability to listen." Here LGA first tried to open DRs on the basis of URAA, and community decided that URAA alone should not be a matter for deletion. So he/she find new reasons. That may exactly what Billinghurst meant by "whether you wear your underpants on the outside or the inside". Any way an uninvolved admin can close this discussion as the community consensus is clear that LGA must follow Billinghurst's words. (I'm not happy that this thread is advertised.) Jee 02:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Banning a user from expressing his opinion, and the opportunity to bring forth evidence, especially when an admin gives instruction to reopen a DR, is not conducive to what the Commons community claims to be about. Seems to me to be somewhat akin to the majority (or a vocal minority) within a democracy trying to remove someones right to vote simply because they don't like what they are saying. I would suggest that a suitable period of time be taken between renominating the same files for DR to introduce new evidence, or as over time, consensus can change. trackratte (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

  @Trackratte: You say you are against "Banning a user from expressing his opinion". I aske you to look again here where LGA wrote: It lacks any firm proof of publication in either Israel or the US prior to March 1, 1989 , when he already knew that there is such an evidence from 1952. How do you call someone that do not tell the truth? How can you trust such a user? I wonder what wiil you do in the future, when he wiil ask for another deletion and argue some argument? are you going to believe him? I do not, and you also should not . Hanay (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Repeating deletion requests shortly after his previous deletion request of the same file was rejected does not contribute in any way to this project. On the other hand it certainly harms. Oyoyoy (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I certainly do not approve LGA's actions, but given that last time the topic starter canvassed opinions against my actions (and was successful, I just had to give up when a stream of he.wp users suddenly showed up at the page without even having read my arguments), my only option is to oppose the ban. If the issues continue, and another user would open the discussion, I might support.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter, indeed calling people to "vote for blocking" is foul play. But apart from the phrasing, Hanay's message was along the lines considered in Wikipedia:Canvassing as appropriate: "draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion" in the Village Pump. The text in the Village pump has since been changed to a neutral notification, following a recommendation here, which makes it now completely appropriate. I think it would be better to put aside people's manners (for the time being) and focus the discussion on its stated topic. You may hold to your opinion regardless of course. Laugh Tough (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Should be blocked as mentioned above Eytan6 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with Hanay and Danny-w. Omri • Talk 16:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support per Hanay. LGA tries to find all possible excuses why files should be deleted, instead of looking for possible solutions to keep these files for the benefit of free knowledge and free encyclopedias. Noon (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• I generally do not support bans even when rules are broken, and this case seems borderline. But I do wish LGA (and others involved from both sides) would stop this activity. It is not beneficial to this project, nor to he:wp, nor to any hypothetical rights holder of the media involved (there are none); it only causes frustration, aggravation, and time wasted. This undermines the trust we must have in each other. If these repeated DR happens again, or if new evidence of personal/national agenda are shown, I will reconsider. Laugh Tough (talk) 19:30, 20 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.

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:

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.

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, 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.

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

This is transparently an effort by DanielTom to harass Cirt, someone that he has harassed on other projects (and with whom he has an interaction ban on en.wikiquiote, DanielTom's home project). DanielTom has an impressive block log across the projects, which includes current indefinite blocks for harassment and sockpuppetry on en.wikipedia and en.wikinews, and a current month long block (formerly indef) for harassment on meta, as well as several blocks last year, including on his home project, en.wikiquote. Simply put, I see no reason to let this progress any further. I am sure that there are plenty of admins, myself among them, that would be willing to block DanielTom for harassment on this project as well, should this continue. He can consider this message his final warning. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry to take up your time, but I believe it is my duty to report this.

Here's a question: Is it acceptable for Commons admins to request blocks via off-wiki means? Is dishonesty and lack of transparency okay round here?

Cirt, an admin here, likes to harass his victims in as many wikis as possible, and while that is not under review here, his conduct on Commons should be.

Long story short. Cirt wanted to block me on Commons (as part of his plan to globally lock me). But instead of blocking me himself (which he could do, because he is an admin here), as he knew that would make him look really bad, he asked a friend to do it for him (INeverCry, whom I don't blame for being fooled by Cirt). Evidence.

Even if Cirt hadn't lied about the contents of my email (about a photo at Commons) to get another admin to block me, surely the act itself of asking a third-party admin through off-wiki means (possibly via email) to do his dirty work for him, and thus avoiding both transparency and personal accountability, should be I think strong cause for desysopping him.

Apparently Cirt can't help but be dishonest: he did the same on Wikipedia, asking another admin to file a report in his stead (evidence), again to avoid transparency so no one would notice he was behind it all.

His plan was clear: getting me blocked on Commons, then on Wikipedia, and finally go on Meta and request that my account be globally locked (again asking someone else to do it for him, though this time Cirt showed up too in a final—failed—effort). Quite dishonest, and evil, uh?

I just want to know if this is acceptable behavior by a Commons admin. I submit that blocks should never be requested behind everyone's backs, via off-wiki means, pretended to be done by someone else to avoid transparency. But perhaps Commons has a different policy?

Many thanks for your attention, ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If an admin is too involved with the case of a user himself, it's good practice to ask a colleague with a fresh look to judge the case. Such requests often take place offwiki. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If you had actually read the first diff I posted, you'd have found out that his "colleague" didn't even read my email, but blocked me anyway calling it "abusive" (per instructions by Cirt). How he knew it was abusive (it wasn't), without reading it, is quite impressive. (Of course, he wasn't the first to be tricked by Cirt, and won't be the last.) Also, if you pay close attention to the blocking admin's admission, he says Cirt even told him that I had sent him more than one email (see diff, "emails"), which is another lie. Does Cirt's dishonest conduct not bother you? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Firstly according to your block log this all happened over a year ago and secondly the admin who blocked you, is no longer active on commons. As far as I can see Cirt did not use his admin tools on commons in any way towards your account his actions off-commons are not relevant on-commons. I see nothing wrong in principle with an editor who believes they are the victim of harassment contacting an admin via e-mail to discuss. In conclusion I do not see what action can be taken here. LGA _talk^edits 00:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Closing this again. See Sven's comment above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sven's close is just another baseless attack on me, that doesn't address anything on this thread, though needless to say I've seen this before (if you are harassed, and point it out, you yourself will be accused of harassment!). Wikinews, since you bring it up, is a case in point. Cirt created attack pages for my account "DanielTom" there (that had never, ever edited there), for a global rename ("Daniel Tomé", my real name, that had again never ever edited Wikinews) and for "Diogotome" (a 2009 account with my brother's real name in it), who again never ever edited Wikinews, all claiming they are "Wikinews sockpuppets". Although this abuse was stopped in other wikis where Cirt carried out his needless harassment (Commons too, and Wikisource, Wikiquote), the attack pages are still there on Wikinews, and when I had to go there point it out, I was (rather predictably) blocked. I didn't want to go to Wikinews. I had never edited there before. Accusing me of "harassment" for responding to a cross-wiki harassment and defamation campaign by Cirt, where he created in numerous wikis attack pages for my previous account (and real name), is simply obscene. In any case, I've done my duty, which was to report admin misconduct on Commons. What Commons does with this information is not up to me, and I certainly accept that you wish to completely ignore it (we have to protect our friends, after all). Peace ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Since he ignored Sven's final warning I blocked him untill he is willing to drop the stick. He continues to harras Cirt and now he is making accusations towards Sven as well. He continues to import problems from other wiki's and this is not mellow. Clearly he is not here to build a source for free mediafiles. Natuur12 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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