Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism: Difference between revisions

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

• User: Fry1989 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Revert war without reasons against official references. Talking and warning has no results. File:Coat of Arms of the First Slovak Republic.svg; File:P05 CZ.svg (all ref on the file desc.) A blocked file is also in the wrong version here File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg. Perhelion (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained clearly why File:Coat of Arms of the First Slovak Republic.svg should be the way it is. The file rendition you keep reverting to (which would mean you are edit warring too, btw) is not symmetrical and it has improper strokes. My file is symmetrical and therefore is superior. The same issue arises with File:P05 CZ.svg, if you compare the two versions (1 and 2) you can see that I have fixed the file by removing these stange silver borders that don't belong. Both files in question here I have corrected and made superior.

As for File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg, that file has been in peace for a significant amount of time and the current protected version has the support of many users. So far no other users have been complaining about the protected state of the file, and Perhelion is incapable of providing any reasoning to change the file now that excludes making it all about me and how I'm wrong.

All in all, this is a storm in a teacup and Perhelion is just being a trouble maker bringing up old issues that don't matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that Perhelion was admonished last year for personal attacks where they made it clear they do not like me as a user and consider me a troll, and these remarks came to such a level that I was forced to demand an IB which Perhelion agreed to. I consider this bringing up old issues that have long settled and been forgotten, as well as these recent remarks about me to be a violation of that IB. I believe Perhelion should be blocked for violating the IB they agreed to. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear, that Perhelion violated interaction ban with Fry. Last year was stated clearly, that such violation means block. I blocked Perhelion for a month. Taivo (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the decision: Link. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you consider that the user was never blocked before? One, or maybe two weeks are enough for calming down… remember we do not punish users. Apart from that, it is also difficult for me not saying anything about Fry1989's attitude and their famous way to solve conflicts. Das würde er mir nur auf's Butterbrot schmieren, sollte ich wirklich einmal Bedarf sehen irgendwas zu unternehmen, das ihm nicht in den Kram passt. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just what is my "famous way to solve conflicts"?? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, I considered, that he has never been blocked before. And I considered, that he created complaining in Administrators' noticeboard towards the user he was prohibited to interact, using dubious reasons (I looked the files, which created the quarrel). Any other breach of interaction ban resulted a shorter block. Also I considered blocking Fry for short period, but ... not this time. Taivo (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to go deeper into this right now but since I think this decision is deeply unfair I do not want to waste any time and quickly voice my opinion (I might go a bit more in depth as soon as I get to it). So from what I saw Fry1989's attitude towards Perhelion was at least as hostile as the other way round in this dispute – in my opinion even more hostile (and now he even personally attacks me below which clearly expresses his attitude towards an productive outcome of this mess, but this seems to be OK on AN nowadays). From what I get (more clarity for the exact block reasons wouldn't do any harm Taivo) the only reason for the block is that you blame Perhelion for breaking an "interaction ban"(For what it's worth I didn't even know that such a stupid thing even existed until yesterday, I unsuccessfully searched for the help/project page where the terms of such an interaction ban are stated and I unsuccessfully tried to get from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_35#User:Fry1989] where Perhelion accepted such an "IB" and what the exact terms of this particular IB where – How can an IB be even considered valid under such conditions?). While Perhelion might have initiated an interaction by the protected edit request linked above, and while his wording might have been non-optimal, I have to say that I totally concur with his motives. Except Fry1989 nobody prefers the non-stroked variant of e.g. File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg and also in the other cases it seems Perhelion was right: It's mostly the personal opinion of Fry1989 which he tries to enforce, which leads to escalation of the situation and edit warring. A proper discussion on the issue from any party – which would be the only solution to the underlying dispute – has not taken place so far and is even prevented by the decision to close the issue by blocking Perhelion.
In summary I don't see why Perhelion should be punished (it clearly is punishing in this case; a block of one month for a user who was never blocked before can't mean anything else; the message is clear even if it might not have been intended) while Fry1989 isn't. Fry1989 has responded to the interaction without hesitation and in a hostile manner which made it foreseeable for the dispute to end up on AN again. If you really want to nitpick by stating that Perhelion initiated the interaction I can only say that this is a sad example of Wikilawyering which doesn't help anybody in the end... Oh, and @Taivo: You considered blocking Fry for short period, but ... not this time.? You have to explain this sentence to me. How I understand it you refrained from blocking Fry1989 because... he was already blocked many times before? Very strange reasoning, if you ask me. --Patrick87 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would take the time to go through that AN where I requested an IB, you would find that while both Perhelion and I had transgressions, they were overwhelmingly on the side of Perhelion. That user completely despises me and everything I do here. I am actually trying to shake off my previous blocks (which is rather difficult with people like you who aren't willing to give me the chance), and I'm reducing my contributions as part of that. I didn't attack you at all, I attacked your theory of "they both have to be blocked just to be fair". We both agreed to that IB, and who broke it? Who went out of their way to name me in an editprotection request? Who decided to revert files exactly one year to the day which I highly doubt is coincidence? Oh and another thing, before you comment on the issue of File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg, you might really want to think and do research before you make a statement like "nobody likes the non-stroked variant and Fry is enforcing his opinion" because many users agreed with me. You're right, you don't have time to go deeper into this because if you did you would be saying very different things. So either take the time to do the research, or don't comment at all. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't read the AN in any more detail than I did: It's hostile and I won't waste my time to upset myself by digging through personal and offending disputes any more than necessary to get an impartial impression of the dispute. Show me the edit where Perhelion agreed to an IB and show me the policy where it is defined what an "interaction" is made of. As long as nobody can provide it I assess the issue with common sense.
Regarding the given example (File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg) when I look at the file's history I see five users in favor of the stroked version (Tonyjeff,Giro720, Matheus S, Perhelion and Joaopaulo1511). Also the Brazilian government provides this version [1]. If I look at the talk page of the file the only previous mention (why is there no real discussion going on when an edit war is apparent on the front page?) of strokes is by Giro720 who seems to try to arbitrate by saying that they would not necessarily be required, but recommends to keep at least some strokes. So in conclusion the only one in favor of the non-stroked version is clearly you Fry1989, if you like it or not! --Patrick87 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)Actually I just noticed that, that also Rillke comes to the exact same conclusion as I do on the files talk page – hardly a coincidence. I also noticed Fry1989 directly blaming him for "being an ally recycling arguments" and being "biased and hardly a neutral voice in the matter". Surely not a nice way to treat other editors... --Patrick87 (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to read it in it's entirety then don't comment like you understand the issue fully and pass judgments on who did what and who was worse! Height of foolishness to pretend one knows everything but "oh, I don't have the time to read it" first. You're wasting everyone's time in that case. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read enough to understand this issue. I don't have to dig through all your previous foolishness in all detail to see a common denominator here. By being hostile against me by calling me a fool and discounting all arguments against your position by obscure reasons you only confirm my impression of the case. Good night, --Patrick87 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to read the whole thing because you don't need to see all my foolishness, you're also not seeing the whole picture of Perhelion's foolishness, so you really do not understand the issue at all. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

When you come in support of a user who was just blocked and use the exact same wording as them, it sure makes you look like an ally and a recycler, whether you think it's "nice" of me to point it out or not. And seriously, why don't you think before you speak? If all these users all think it's wrong and I'm wrong and I'm the only one on my side of the issue, why was the file protected the way it was? More importantly, why have none of these other users disputed the protection, or formed a consensus to have it changed? Why is the only user bringing this up Perhelion, and why are they only doing so now? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe think yourself, too, unfriendly pal... If multiple people have the same arguments against your position it might be that those arguments are just valid and logical and that those people got to their personal opinion independently? Why the file was protected in the current version? I don't know, ask the protecting Admin Odder, he hasen't spoken on the case so we can't predict his motives. Why nobody else disputed the protection? Maybe because they do not care enough to waste their time to convince a stubborn editor and just move on in contrast to dedicated editors like you and Perhelion? Good night, --Patrick87 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick87, I don't care if you really do think it's all my fault, whether you are Perhelion's best friend or even his brother, there's no way you can defend this. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not deny that Perhelion and I are both dedicated contributors. What I will say is that I have been dedicated on my own for a year without even thinking of Perhelion or old fights with them, but they clearly haven't forgotten me. I could have been dedicated for another good year without going back to some obscure forgotten disputes a year later and say "Oh this is all Perhelion's fault, let's change it now!". One user here hasn't let go. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AGF - I hope such a thing will not happen again... --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I just noticed Perhelion's block because I had his talk page on my watchlist by chance. Since I'm not involved in the actual dispute in any kind I suspect my opinion to be quite impartial. From skimming through the last edits of both parties I can't understand why Perhelion should be blocked when Fry1989 isn't. They both acted in a stupid way by useless edit warring; therefore I'd blame them both for the same amount.

If you think it is necessary to block Perhelion you'd also have to block Fry1989. If one has broken an IB so clearly has the other. Everything else would be unjustly. However in my opinion it would be much more expedient not to block anybody. Both Perhelion and Fry1989 contribute very good work and from my personal experience it's only human that people who are dedicated to their work have also differences at times. A ban won't resolve the underlying dispute nor will it be of any use for the community.

I hereby request to undo the ban and to resolve the dispute in a more appropriate way (preferably by third opinions on the files in question). --Patrick87 (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If you block one you have to block the other, they both broke it"? WTF kind of diplomatic nonsense is that? We both agreed to that IB, but Perhelion initiated the interaction by directly mentioning me in a editprotection request and tried to make it all about how wrong I am. I was forced to react to it. I would have been perfectly fine for another year without any interaction had Perhelion let bygones be bygones. And let's also not forget the whole reason I demanded an IB so strongly in the first place was because Perhelion was constantly attacking me (I provided a list of some of the worst), something they have resumed. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF, which stands for What the FUCK is not really kind. One could perform better, more professional. Perhaps not if one is upset but in this case, drink a mint tea. That seems to be commonly used by commons admins to treat their mood… -- Rillke^(q?) 17:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's harsh language, but I will not apologize. I literally had to troll my way through AN repeatedly screaming as loud as I could demanding an IB to finally get admins to pay attention and see why I wanted one so bad. Perhelion attacked me constantly and mercilessly, and if you have read all those attacks littered around Commons at that time you would understand why I had HAD IT! They attacked my edits, they attacked me as a person, they attacked whether or not I had a right to be on Commons, they claimed my sanity was in dispute, they went out of their way to attack me twice in a DR I filed even though they agreed with my nomination reasoning, they reverted my file uploads without proper reasonings or trying to discuss them with me first, they followed me around all over the place and drove me bananas with impunity until I had collected all of these attacks and said "Look, I will not take this anymore, I am tired of being targeted, give me an IB!". And after it was granted, I have had a wonderful year of non-issue with Perheliom, until now, where they couldn't help themselves and let old fights be forgotten. They deliberately reverted two files that have been safe and stable for exactly 1 year (I find the exactness of the date in itself to show some calculation and bad faith motivation), and created an editprotection request in which their reasoning was that I'm a bad user and I'm wrong. They still have a problem with me, they still are trying to make me look bad, and then I get told that I should be blocked too just for the fairness of it all. That meets my definition of "WTF" indeed. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I am hardly revelling in Perhelion being blocked, as I have had nothing to do with them in a good long time. I would even stick my neck out and give support to them being unblocked per their request, but I want to see some good faith. I want to see Perhelion once and for all renounce their dislike and distrust of me as a motivation for any of their interactions with me. I want Perhelion to once and for all renounce using my name as a reason (ie: "Fry is a bad user", "Fry is wrong", "it's only Fry's personal tastes") to revert files or ask for files to be changed or oppose DRs or unDRs or discussions or anything else I'm involved in. I never again want to see Perhelion attack me as a person, or my sanity, or my compatibility with Commons, or whether I'm a good user or a bad user. Instead, after all this time apart after that IB was finally granted, Perhelion appears to have slipped right back into their old ways of dealing with any possible dispute they might have with me. That is not a good sign, so for now I won't be sticking my neck out. The block should stay. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fry1989's post above strikes me as clearly violating the interaction ban between him and Perhelion. I have asked Fry to respect the ban, and warned him that violations of the ban may lead to him being blocked.[2] --Avenue (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request granted: Too long block. User was never blocked before. (fyi: Fry1989 has broken the IB too.) With a lot of COM:AGF... --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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