Requests for comment/User:Fry1989

The following request for comments is closed. All issues have been resolved. Local communities should decide which file to use. Fry1989 agreed to end cross-wiki edit war and other participants agreed that the global lock is not necessary at this point. I propose that we continue to monitor the situation to prevent the same problems occur again. micki t 17:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our dear meta community, we have one serious problem.

User:Fry1989

(commons: userpage | talk (←links) || Edits: +/- | logs ← Fry1989 ← logs || search)(Reports: COIBot)
(Tools: GUC | stalktoy | CA) (Search: Google | → links ← )

(enwiki: userpage | talk (←links) || Edits: +/- | logs ← Fry1989 ← logs || search)

Description

User in question created numerous cross-wiki acts of vandalism and POV pushing, despite numerous warnings and information's. As it is about status of Kosovo, you all know that it is highly delicate subject, and that ll acts of vandalism must be stoped, following ARBMAC arbitration final solution.

All started here, where Fry aksed global admin Axpde to move file in his own POV, while admin disagreed, and started new talk page to solve the problem.
After some movement, File:Flag map of Serbia.svg was replaced with error file by admin, while two options where down below, with or without Kosovo, so editors may choose which file to use. But that "Local editor" was user Fry1989, each time.
Later, some editors disagreed with this admin action, as we should not ask the question, now, in this moment, but to leave the status version that was on local wiki's before the rename, but that was overcome with user:Fry.
I (WhiteWriter) previously moved file name, following previous agreements Serbia (with Kosovo), and Serbia (without Kosovo) in this category on Commons, so people can see that status of Serbia (and Kosovo) is disputed, and not final, and to chose their version.
And now, after that, i find out about user Fry's POV push editing upswing, while he edited file in question (error file) and replace it in over 20 wikipedias! I tried to follow that, and revert, but after one and two, i understood that edit warring with fry will not end. And in such a way:

da.wikipedia he reverted to "without Kosovo" version 5 times, 5 different editors, when file was reverted and protected by local admin.

cs.wikipedia 3 times, without even one word. His version is current.

sk.wikipedia reverted 2 times, and when local editor restored file as it was (with Serbia) he reverted him, with edit summary "g". ?? His version is current.

hu.wikipedia Again, 4 reverts over 3 different editors, including local. His version is current.

it.wikipedia As i understood that he is sure that he is only one who is right, i replaced flag image with Serbia's Coat of Arms, as that is not disputed. Some king of a solution?

hy.wikipedia Same stuff. After 3 reverts of 3different user, i added Flag of Serbia, so edit warring stopped.

sv.wikipedia, LGBT map of Serbia (same with and without Kosovo), fry reverted 6 times, while in discussion on talk page regarding image usage he didn't participated.

en.wikipedia, same LGBT map, fry reverted 6 times blocked locally for 3RR block log

And more, more, more, who have a lot of free time may see global contributions

I tried to talk to user, explain situation, at the end, warned him about ARBMAC on en wiki, what he deleted with edit summary "keep living your dream world. children", and not to mention calling me trol, and etc on other wikis...

Following ARBMAC agreement, following Kosovo article split on en wiki, and agreement reached there, following agreement on commons that we have both POV's images, to use optional, i ask for global lock of user:Fry1989, as wikipedia should not be used for political and ideological struggle, propaganda, nor similar. WP:NPA, WP:ARBMAC, WP:3RR, etc, the main purpose of Wikipedia as free neutral wikipedia. None of that should be in question. --WhiteWriter 14:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from WhiteWriter

I agree with Wikiwind, and want to say that it is not in my interest to lock user Fry, but only to stop edit war over such a sensitive subject. I can agree to this, only if we have some serious conslusion, from which we can take some good useful decision, and to prevent this kind of problems in the future, at least until global ArbCom is created, hopefully soon. Also, i would love to add that edit war must stop over any subject, and not just Kosovo dispute. I hope that user Fry can say that will he stop all cross-wiki edit war, and not just to drop this subject. With that, i can agree that we dont need global lock, with fact that any new edit war by user Fry1989 will be sanctioned, as WikiWind explained below. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

users who endorse this statement

Statement from reported Fry1989

Oh for gods sake, just leave me alone and I'll leave the issue alone, permanently . I don't have time for this argument. I have invested 3 years into Wikipedia. I have created multiple articles of note, created countless files in wide use, and my global contributions include a wide array of positive actions including replacing inferior PNG (and other format) flags with their superior SVG versions where applicable. This one dispute is not getting in the way of my being a member of this community, so I will let it go. Fry1989 17:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I resent you calling it "our community", as if somehow I am not part of it, and to infer that I don't hold it in high regard as well. Fry1989 18:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A global lock is absolutely overkill and over-reaction for a user who has contributed to Wikipedia and Commons for the length of time I have. I have proven my worth here countless times, raising awareness, correcting articles, contributing files, and much more. Fry1989 03:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Axpde, I said I'd let it go. Clearly you didn't even read my comments. Fry1989 03:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read your comments. I just made my own statement, not based on other statements! a×p_de ^Hello! 12:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Axpde

I agree with WhiteWriter, wiki{m|p}edia doesn't make facts, we just report those. And as long as there is no final politcal solution for Serbia and Kosovo, there is no "neutral point of view" possible, both files are potentially offending when claiming that the current situation is depicted. So every local community has to decide on its own which file to use, and if they choosed to use the (with Kosovo)-version, noone from "outside" should insist on having the (without Kosovo)-version. Even if the local community didn't know yet there was a new file they'd surely know by now! This edit warring by Fry1989 has to end instantly! a×p_de ^Hello! 03:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

users who endorse this statement

Statement from Wikiwind

I don't think that global lock is necessary for now, specially now when Fry1989 promised that "he will let it go". But, we must have some guarantee that cross-wiki edit war will not restart after this RFC. So I suggest the following statement:

User Fry1989 must cease cross-wiki edit war on all projects where he is not "local user" (all except commons and enwp). If he, after this RFC is closed, continue with cross-wiki edit war, he will be globally locked for a period of 3 months.
All other users who engage in cross-wiki edit war after this RFC is closed (regarding images in question) on projects where they are not "local users" will be warned and informed about this RFC (with link). If they continue with cross-wiki edit war, they will be subjects of the same sanctions as user Fry1989.--В и к и в и н д р е ц и 08:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

users who endorse this statement

--В и к и в и н д р е ц и 08:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a global lock is not needed especially since he isn't currently edit warring, and locks should be preventative not punitive. There is a problem if he continues, but he seems certain that it won't. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't like blocking, and most of the time it is contraproductive action. As Fry1989 promissed he wouldn't repeat it, there's no need for global lock. But, if he repeats it in the future, he should be blocked without any further discussion, because here has already been said everything about it. --Maduixa 10:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a×p_de ^Hello! 12:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]