Here is my suggestion: Mbz1 removes the unhelpful characterizations of other editors (or, even more preferably, the entire comment) from Sue's talk page. Whatever possible injustice happened at another project it is not helpful to carry this to the next project (with the exception of Meta perhaps). And Beeblebrox retracts this unhelpful ban request in consequence. Afterwards, both Mbz1 and Beeblebrox should no longer refer at Commons to each other's conflicts and contributions outside of Commons. Would this be acceptable for you both? --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion: Mbz1 removes the unhelpful characterizations of other editors (or, even more preferably, the entire comment) from Sue's talk page. Whatever possible injustice happened at another project it is not helpful to carry this to the next project (with the exception of Meta perhaps). And Beeblebrox retracts this unhelpful ban request in consequence. Afterwards, both Mbz1 and Beeblebrox should no longer refer at Commons to each other's conflicts and contributions outside of Commons. Would this be acceptable for you both? --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:For what it is worth I agree with AFBorchert though I confess I am not that hopeful. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 05:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:For what it is worth I agree with AFBorchert though I confess I am not that hopeful. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 05:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::Well the tread in question was responded by two WMF staff members. If they felt it should be removed, they would have done it. Besides I was always told on English wikipedia do not remove or even change comments that were already responded by others. And this was my last contribution to Commons. So long.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
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.
English: This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention.
हिन्दी: यह वह स्थान है जहाँ सदस्य प्रबंधकों से, तथा प्रबंधक एक दूसरे से संवाद कर सकते हैं। आप बर्बरता, समस्याग्रस्त सदस्य या कोई और विषय जिसके लिए एक प्रबंधक के हस्तक्षेप की ज़रूरत हो, यहाँ बयान कर सकते हैं। Please incorporate this Hindi description into this page.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
User:C3F2k
This user has consistently assumed bad faith in my edits, and it's now coming out as a deliberate attempt to discredit me in any dispute we're both involved in. The user started the above AN/U about myself, but then withdrew it after his lack of diffs or evidence coupled with the objections of two users I rarely get along with anyways. However apparently C3F2k hasn't let it go, because he just added this comment to a DR we're both in. Yes, the file happens to be one of my uploads, but I do not see how that is in any way relevant to my objection to it's deletion, and evidence towards why it shouldn't be. This is targeted harassment, plain and simple. Fry1989eh?21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful with the usage of this noticeboard. The DR will resolve itself, sufficient people seem to understand that PD-textlogo applies. No need for discussion here. (btw, you linked to the wrong diff.) Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't link the wrong diff, I picked the exact one I wanted thank you very much. Now, if C3F2k had made that comment alone, this wouldn't even be here. But the fact that he started an AN/U of me only a few days ago asking for me to be blocked and banned from interaction with him simply because I disagreed with him in a few DRs (where I was absolutely civil despite my objections), and the fact it failed after two other users who I don't get along with anyways objected, and his lack of evidence for ad hominem accusations like "hounding" and "getting into massive arguments", preceding this choice of comment in an attempt to discredit my objection to the deletion of Dish Network logo 2012 just because I'm "the uploader", I consider a targeted attack on myself. It's bad faith assumption that simply because I'm the uploader that makes myu objection less valid, it's frankly irrelevant because uploaders are always allowed to defend their files that are nominated for deletion (and in fact encouraged since whenever a file is nominated, a notice must be placed on the uploader's talk page so they can replay), and this user has assumed bad faith towards me from the very beginning. And I'm not the only user that C3F2k has asked to receive a punishment for having the audacity to disagree with him in a DR, he's only been on Commons since May 20th 2012, and in these less than two past months, he's started one AN/U for a user to be blocked for disagreeing with him, and started a de-adminship request against one of our most prolific admins because Jim had the audacity to keep a file that C3F2k thought was "dodgy". Fry1989eh?22:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I proposed an interaction ban in the first place. Also this seems to be misuse of the noticeboard. Plus, where have I assumed bad faith? And also I am still trying to get the hang of Commons. Do you want me to leave? This is why I quit from Wikipedia, because of this. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The interaction ban was absolutely preposterous, I had only encountered you maybe a few days before you started that AN/U about me, we never even fought about anything, all I did was give my opinion in a couple DRs that you happened to be involved in as well, some you started yourself, some you didn't. For being "brave enough" to not agree with you about whether a couple files should be deleted or not, I get an AN/U asking I be banned from interacting with you, and blocked for "hounding" you, something which I never did, I had never even gone near your talk page or addressed you directly in any of the DRs. You completely over-reacted, and others agreed. But now you're going further, you deliberately added a comment on this DR pointing out I happen to be the uploader of the image in question. Now I ask you, how is that relevant? What possible factor does that add to my objection to the file being deleted, and whether or not my objection is valid? Maybe you didn't do it to try and discredit me, maybe you just felt it was something that should be pointed out, but then when I went to your talk page, I find out that you created a De-adminship Request for one of our best and calmest admins just because he decided to close and keep a different DR that you disagreed with. If you want to get along with people here, you are gona have to learn that not everyone will agree, and when they don't, that doesn't mean they're bad, it doesn't mean they're harassing you, and it doesn't mean they should loose their admin powers. Do I want you to leave? I rarely want anyone to leave Commons, and so far, you're not one of them. But I would like you to not single out people just for disagreeing with you in DRs, and asking that they be De-admined or blocked or banned from interacting with you because of it. Fry1989eh?01:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I will have to learn that. But remember I have only been around here for 1 month, which is not very much. And I would've put that tag on any other DR if the uploader commented, not specifically you. It just alerts of a possible conflict of interest. And yes, I do regret that de-adminship request. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 01:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had alot to learn when I came here 2 1/2 years ago, I still have things to learn. And regret shows that you understand when your wrong, but an interaction ban is only warranted when there is massive disruption and harassment by one user against another. Fry1989eh?01:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation
C3F2k if continuing to follow me around and stir up problems. Today has been part of a continuation of my above complaint. I edited File:Best Western logo.svg back on the 19th, removing the Registered Trademark symbol. I have my own reasons for this, which can be seen on the file talk page. Anyways, VernoWhitney disagreed with that, and we ended up having a discussion on the file talk page outlining our views. We never did come to a formal agreement, but an informal one has come to pass since VernoWhitney has left the file to my revision without the mark for over 4 days. Today, C3F2k "stumbles upon it"and reverts me claiming there's no consensus. I notified him on his talk page (twice) to joi in on the file discussion page, but instead he removed that from his talk page both times and continued to edit war on the file 4 times, the final one threatening to report me "to the admins". He did actually do that, only to remove it moments later saying it's "better off taking it one on one". He then when to an admin Morning Sunshine's talk page to directly request I be blocked, for an edit war he started. Directly asking an admin on their talk page to block another user without looking into the details is not only wrong, it's dangerous, causing an admin to block the wrong person, or give out indiscriminate blocks without knowing the details of the situation. Once again C3F2k shows disregard for proper process here, continues his attempt to intimidate me, and it needs to stop. I'm tired of being followed around, I'm tired of him asking for my block whenever he and I cross roads and happen to disagree, and most importantly I'm tired of this user disrespecting proper process for dispute resolution such as talk pages and (when neccessary) AN/U boards. Fry1989eh?01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
related note I have warned C3F2K and blocked Fry1989 for edit warring on File:Best Western logo.svg (Fry has previously been warned in similar circumstances). After the block expires, if an alternate version is desired, it can be uploaded to a new location. Fry1989, your "informal [agreement]" with VernoWhitney was no agreement at all - there were multiple reverts from both parties after the last talk page post (before this latest flare-up). VernoWhitney's leaving the page is a credit to them as the one who first got tired of the revert war, it is not an agreement that you were correct. --99of9 (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm glad that you were at least attempting to talk, Fry1989, but alas you both failed to cease fire before actually commencing discussion. --99of9 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Niabot using deletion nominations as retaliation
The User:Niabot is antagonizing me by wiki-stalking my uploads. Note that shortly before his nomination of a parade float photo of mine, he was trolling my Talk page, and nominating another photo of mine for deletion. I noted at the time that Niabot had singled out my parade photo in particular (because he has a vendetta against me alone), while letting pass the numerous other similarphotos of the Electrical Light Parade. Credit where it's due, User:Russavia at least made the other lighted parade photos disappear, since mine was made to disappear, so the ruling was applied consistently. Nonetheless, the actions of Niabot beyond reasonable doubt were not sincere Deletion requests, but rather a petty trolling amusement for him. I request that Niabot should be warned. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that by my removing your trolling comment from my Talk page, and you reading my edit summary that mentioned that I'm uploading content to Commons, that this was an invitation for you to wiki-stalk (that is the term, yes?) my uploads and find fault with two of them, where one was exonerated, and the other was brought down by only a very loose interpretation of a French law on lighting displays, as it would hypothetically apply in the United States, then I suppose we can all applaud the interpretation that this "informed you" about the uploads. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Entschuldige bitte, aber bei dem Kommentar konnte ich gerade einfach nur lachen. Es war so amüsant zu lesen wie du es versuchst schlichte Tatsachen zu verdrehen und Mücken die Rüsselnase aufzusetzen. Schau dann erst einmal eine Runde Fußball, bin sowieso schon in bester Stimmung. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suck it up. I'm a little tired of people complaining about people nominating their files for deletion based on valid copyright issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting (but expected) response. The hypocrisy begins to leak out here, because very recently (maybe you weren't aware, Prosfilaes) a user who was found to be nominating files for deletion based on valid copyright issues was banned in large part due to that practice. So, it would appear that if you're in the "in crowd" on Commons, revenge nominations are something you tell the victim to just "suck up"; but if you're not in the "in crowd", then the same sort of revenge nomination is a blockable offense. I'm beginning to see how it works here on Commons. (By the way, 50% of Niabot's revenge nominations were determined by the community consensus to lack any copyright issue at all. I wonder what would happen to a police officer who shot an innocent bystander every other time he was aiming at a lethal criminal?) -- Thekohser (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do know about Pieter Kuiper. You'll note that he has a long complex history where a lot of the people whose files he nominated for deletion were told to suck it up. It could be hypocrisy; or you could be looking for any excuse to stir up trouble and paint yourself as persecuted.
Your metaphor is stupid. On the flip side, we might wonder about your uploads; what would happen to a food manufacturer where 50% of the tested jars of product held a deadly disease?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, you're good, Prosfilaes. Working from the bottom up, I'd say that if my metaphor is "stupid", then that makes your converse metaphor equally "stupid", right? And, from the top, I'd say that I know about Niabot, and I'd say that he has "a long complex history" here on Commons, too. So, I guess we're back to Square One. Will Niabot be warned about issuing deletion nominations as an act of revenge or trolling? Or, is that too horrifying a thought for the "community"? -- Thekohser (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course my metaphor is equally stupid. It's amazing; people go into a volunteer community and abuse people, particularly the community as a whole, and and wonder why people don't want to work with them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niabot knows well enough that there are limits to the acceptability of this behaviour, but the Pieter Kuiper case shows that those limits are quite high. Two DRs re one user, with one DR successful, isn't enough to make a fuss about. Niabot can, if he wants, follow the same advice I gave Pieter: when it comes to people he has disputes with, he can look for alternative ways to handling issues than raising DRs himself. If further issues arise, we can tackle them then, but a certain amount of ignoring (alleged) motivation and focussing on facts does help. Rd232 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Niabot seems to be learning from this incident by calling me a "disgrace" and assesing my images as "crappy quality". Look at this crap! I'll just leave the wise administrators with this disgracefully uploaded, crappy quality image that I shot with my camera and donated to Commons. Cheers! -- Thekohser (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no call for such rudeness in response to a legitimate question, and I've said so on his talk page. (However, the Epcot rainbow image you asked him about is objectively not of the best photographic quality; the flower image is much better. I'm sure you can see the difference too. There is Commons:Photography critiques if you're interested.) Rd232 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Rd232, that my Epcot rainbow image is not of the best photographic quality. However, I think the purpose of adding the photo to Commons was to provide a unique perspective on a rather interesting alignment of the rainbow with the Epcot logo on Spaceship Earth. In fact, I would dare say that mine is the very best image combining "Epcot" and "rainbow" to be found on Commons, if we're talking about naturally-occuring rainbows. At any rate, surely all of my uploads are of a higher quality than the image uploaded by User:Mjenkins33, yet I haven't seen any criticism whatsoever directed toward that user's work. Just a hearty Wikimedia Commons Welcome on his Talk page. (Then again, his image upload was taken with a camera back in the year 210, so perhaps the point of his image is simply the miracle of electronic photography existing in the era of Septimius Severus. Maybe space aliens provided Mjenkins with either Roman Empire era optics, or perhaps time travel. Take your pick.) -- Thekohser (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. You're well aware of the antagonism between you two; there's no need to dwell on this particular remark ("...crappy..."), which is just another example of it. Your own evaluation of your contributions shouldn't depend on such remarks any more than the Commons community's does - you shouldn't feel a need to prove it's wrong. In short, just ignore it. Rd232 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just if you like to read more about whether using crap for one's work or not is appropriate, I have a full thread of this on my talk page archive (In short: I asked someone to stop using "crap" but the one disagreed that "crap" is inappropriate for describing Niabot's work). If you also want to know more about my dictionary, let me know ;-) -- RE rillkequestions?21:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
How someone with 0 contrib before this thread can be in conflict with another user. No conflict, no thread, lets archive this. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has a peak in appearance since this Kuiper Pieter discussion started due to his block. His obligations there are welcome - anyone is of course allowed to take part in this discussion. Nevertheless there is a problem with his tone there and his use of rough words surrounding the discussion - especially against the User:Fæ. The most recent example can be found here. This is an inappropriate and offensive use of rough words. The rest of Volunteer Marek`s snappy responses can be found here. User:Volunteer Marek should use a civil language so that his arguments can be taken seriously which could help to solve this Pieter Kuiper case. Thank you all! --178.10.107.11013:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The typical WC & Co. behavior. Picking one contributer, digging up some facts, make an awful disgusting story out of nothing (not backed up by facts, or presented in worst light possible)¹ and followed up by attacks (on-wiki and off-wiki) by the whole group - with the only goal to drive away the target. I still have the hope that one admin or a group of admins has the guts to protect the projects future from such scoundrelly creatures.
¹ If the adminship still does not understand about what I'm talking, take a look at such pages that only serve this purpose and are written by this WC creatures: [1], [2], ... --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言14:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
scoundrelly creatures? WC creatures?? Dehumanize other editors much Niabot? In a comment about civility no less? Seriously, how is referring to other humans as "creatures", in an obviously derogatory manner NOT subject to an immediate block? Or is it just that the rule you try to apply to others don't apply to you?
I'm not even gonna bother clicking on the links (to what exactly? Your own personal blog or something?) as I'm genuinely concerned as to what may pop up on my screen or get downloaded to my computer where I to do so.
And editor "178.10.107.110". Who exactly are you? Why are you hiding behind an IP address, despite your obvious familiarity with the issue here? While attacking others anonymously may seem like great fun, it's actually sort of cowardly - and your claims tend to get discounted by others appropriately. So let's have a username here, ey?
There was nothing wrong with any of my comments. Or at least, if there was something wrong with my comment then the original comment by Fae was obviously even worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Has repeatedly uploaded copyvios despite an end-copyvios warning. Please delete the new contribs (tagged) and deal with as appropriate. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff05:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several uploaded protected images, O Globo as a source, all material on this group is protected. Sorry my bad english. Fabianomsg01:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two counts of personal attacks. One rather mild when AnonMoos refered to a valid edit as "blatant malicious vandalistic trolling"[3] and followed it up with a far grosser personal attack on the talk page, "Your knowledge of racism appears to be chiefly confined to a certain smug satisfaction in being able to use Wikimedia Commons as a platform in the dissemination of extremist hate screeds"[4] // Liftarn (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption of Liftarn's alleged "good faith" already frayed pretty thin five years ago when I saw all the antics and nonsense he indulged himself in on Wikipedia page "Talk:New Antisemitism" (where he had a boundless capacity for ignoring any facts and evidence that did not support his preconceived positions, and for substituting opaque acronyms in place of any form of cogent and reasoned argument), and my impression of him did not improve on Commons, where repeated all his old tricks, and added to them his "gaming of the system" so that he can use Wikimedia Commons as a platform to promulgate the hatemongering of vicious bigoted racist Carlos Latuff.
In the current matter at dispute between us, the matter was talked into the ground almost five years ago at Image talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg, and what consensus there was was against Liftarn, but now he has returned to the matter apparently for the sole reason that he likes to stir up trouble and cause controversy (which is what some people would call "trolling"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And a few more personal attacks[5] including "In fact, I notice definite tendencies towards what psychologists would call "projection" on your part. You promote and defend the hatemongering of vicious bigoted racist Carlos Latuff". // Liftarn (talk)
Once again this user has used his bot to make non-consensual changes in all our FP files via the Assessment template. Various attempts have been made to start a fresh discussion on this issue but the user always opposed the idea and seems to be committed to proceed with his personal agenda. Please check the following discussions: here, here and here. Unless the user is deprived from his bot privileges I suppose this will go on and on despite the opposition of the community. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly see no meaningful consensus and I did wonder when I saw the edits go by. In other circumstances I would probably block the bot however I will get a scream about the fact that I should not be involved as I have had previous issues with this user and - nowadays - Commons admins do not seem trusted to take a balanced view on things sadly. --Herbytalk thyme12:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking the bot won't be enough. The FP files are one of the most valuable components of Commons' heritage and should be protected against unilateral actions like this. Imo the user should be forced to revert all non-consensual changes he has made and the Assessments template brought to a configuration which reflects the present consensus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another piece of information is here. Just one more childish trick to force the use of the wallpaper parameter into the Assessments template against consensus. I suggest that the "Autopatroller" right (user is trusted) is removed from this user's account. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are impossible to satisfy. You demanded a vote (proper procedures) and I provided you with one. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Once AGAIN Alvesgaspar has brought this issue here like before in regards to User:Shizhao's conduct on commons where he marked files as "wallpaper" using the {{Assessments}} instead of {{Wallpaper}}. He had went to the point of calling Shizhao's edits trolling ([6], [7]) while rolling them back. This is not how rollback should be used.
POTY images have always been marked through {{Assessments}} since the start. POTY candidate images were all marked each year initially. Just because no one continued that does not mean there is consensus against it. In 2006 & 2007 candidate images were marked. I just marked it on 2009, 2010. I still need to mark them on 2008, 2011. Category:Pictures of the Year (galleries) can be observed. These marking will allow POTY to identify images for POTY 2012 and onward automatically as the template can determine which images are featured but have not been a candidate on POTY. Complex toolserver SQL queries can be avoided with this. I placed this issue on POTY mailing list and no one objected there. In the absence of any kind of objection for over a month, and with a sign of support I went ahead and ran the bot.
Alvesgaspar made this comment at the talk page of the template in question. I am baffled. Alvesgaspar seems to be more interested in controlling the situation than anything. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC)I am extremely frustrated by the refusal of とある白い猫 (White cat in the following) to respect community consensus with regard to the {{Assessments}} template and his use of his bot to force his will disregarding the advice of practically anyone. The "ancient" poll from 2008 is old, yes, but since then there has been no new consensus for changes along the line you have implemented against community consensus. The decision then, which involved a wide diversity of users who knew the circuitry then (and some now) was very clear to leave things as they were. That is, not to include {{Wallpaper}}, not to merge Quality image, etc. In fact it was decided then that the bot edits should be rolled back. Something which never happened. Instead White cat simply dissapeared pretending nothing had happened. It is fine to revive that discussion, but no cahnges shall be done until a new community decision. --Slaunger (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Wallpaper}}, which white cat has now nominated for deletion, now nothing to do with a picture being featured (read the template documentation, an image does not have to be featured to have this template). Therefore it is clearly out of scope of {{Assessments}} (not an assessment which is supported by any process or procedure). It is an arbitrary template put on some file pages without any kind of process which assures quality. The reason there are only four uses of the template now is because White cat with his bot forcefully and without community consensus has replaced it and engulfed the functionality in the {{Assessments}} template. --Slaunger (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent run by White cate following a discussion on a page, which only a few watches, involving one other editor, triggered another run adding more useless information and visual clutter to the file pages containing {{Assessments}}. Thus, I can now see on one of my FPs, that it was POTY candidate in 2010 written as a separate line in the template. And it is also categorized with a hidden template Category:Pictures of the Year (2010) (I am fine with this hidden category). But every picture promoted to FP always becomes a candidate in the POTY for the year it was promoted, but now it is highlighted as something special. It isn't. It is redundant information with no value but adding clutter to the file page. The only interesting thing about POTY is if it became a finalist, and if it came in 3rd, 2nd or 1st. (I support the use of the assessment template for this purpose). --Slaunger (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some facts. On July 1, User:タチコマ robot changed the file page of +1500 featured pictures by adding a POTY candidate argument, despite the fact that it is clearly indicated in the template documentation for {{Assessments}} that this template argument is has been deprecated since April 2009, and ignoring that it has been brought up several times on the talk page of the template (which I can only link to from history pages [8] as White cat has removed it from the archives (why, to hide something?)) that the candidacy argument adds no value since all FPs are always cadidates for POTY the year it was promoted. Moreover, the edits were done at an edit rate of up to 20 pages per minute (in the time period 05:33-06:31), exceeding the maximum allowed 10 seconds per edits, or max 6 page edits per minute by a factor of three. The bot has not been approved to operate at such high edit rates, and it is clearly stated that higher edit rates are only to be used in cases of emergency, which this clearly was not. --Slaunger (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
White cat has a lot of ideas about ways to use the Assessments template. I think that is fine, and I support such discussion also presenting mockups of how new functionality could look like. However, White cate insists on implementing it right away in the production code template despite repeated requests and advice from oterh senior editors not to do so. As a consequence the template becomes increasingly complex and contains a lot of code for which there is no community consensus. On the contrary actually. The lastest example is Template talk:Assessments#Merging subcats into this template, where White cat despite nobody can endorse his idea goes on and begins to implement the code in the template. --Slaunger (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion
I do not trust White cat having bot priviledges. If the prevailing consensus is opposite to his opinion, he discards them regularly and lets his bot do thousands of edits against consensus. While doing these edits against consesus, maximum bot page edit rates are exceeded threefold.
The Assessments template should be edit protected.
The merge of Wallpaper and Assessmenst shall be reverted (White cat has the responsibility for reverting as a last action for this users bot)
The marking as POTY candidate shall be removed from the Assessment template (unless finalist, or better).
I'm shocked with the details revealed today by Slaunger about the manipulation of the archives and the power of the robot operated by White Cat, and urge the responsible administrators to take a close look at the situation. In my opinion the combination of such powerful tool and the lack of scruples of it operator represents more than just a risk of disruption to the project, as it may affect its integrity. I endorse all suggestions made above by Slaunger, which should be implemented now, and consider that the possibility of banning White Cat from Commons should be considered seriously. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any point in banning or blocking White cat. The user is making many other good contributions. The point is to avoid further disruption, and that could be achieved by reverting the recent bot changes, removing bot priviledges and editprotecting the Assessments template. A better possibility would be for voluntarily repair the havoc by White cat, and ask first and wait until unleashing his bot scripts on thousands of pages. Furthermore White cat should acknowledge that running his bot at three times max speed is not acceptable (unless permission is granted in a reopened bot request) and promise that this will not happen again. --Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that I have been manipulating archives is as baseless as a claim can get. In the mentioned incident I moved archives back to the original talk page (Archive 1 (-22,517)Archive 2 (-169,035) - Target: (+191,551) Hence +191,551 - 169,035 - 22,517 = -1 bytes) for the bot to re-archive it because Archive 1 and Archive 2 was greatly unbalanced. Seems like an archive size of 200K is a reasonable division but we could go for 100K or 150K. The entire archive is dumped to Template talk:Assessments/Archive 1 now instead of some going to archive 2. I do not run the bot that archives.
I do not see why I am expected to acknowledge anything as instead of talking to me, issue was taken straight to AN/U first. I can only be reasoned with if talked to. This not the place to address content disputes.
Thanks for clarifying the archive issue. It is terribly confusing, because on the talk page history the archive bot had linked to archive 2, and there is also a link to that archive from the talk page from which I expected that the most recent archives were there. It was not clear from your edit summary on archive 2 that you had moved the stuff to archive 1. I have redacted my speculation about your objectives from my statement above. So, no, I do not believe (now) you did that to hide anything. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to communicating with you, there has been lots of debate and attempts at communication with you on Template talk:Assessments, but the problem is that whenever there is a majority of opinions which is contra yours, you refuse to accept that there are other viewpoints. You just discard them as invalid and go on. I do not understand what is the problem of relating to the objective facts, like the introduction of deprecated template arguments on thousands of FPs, bot edit page rates exceeding the maximum by a factor of three. Going further back in the bot history reveal a disturbing systematic "overdrive" pattern. I.e., on June 24 up to 27 edits were made every minute (max allowed 6/minute). Is it unreasonable to ask what the hurry is? Is it urgent bot operations? Why do you not need to comply with the speed limits other bot operators comply to? --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said. You are welcome to talk to me about this issue on my talk page. Complaints should be posted to AN/UD if you are seeking to get Administrators involvement for example to get me/my bot blocked/banned. Forgive me for the analogy but, I do not like the notion of being put on an electric chair and then asked stuff. This is a content dispute in essence not a user dispute. Alvesgaspar brought a similar issue with User:Shizhao's manual tagging of featured files with the wallpaper parameter. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment and Info I've removed manually (undo) all the operations made by this bot on all "my" own 41 featured pictures. Sorry, but I find stupid to mention this 1st of july, two years after, that some of my FP were allowed to participate in the 2010 POTY contest, because it is (was) automatic for FP of the year 2010 (and the following years too, btw...).I think that creation and use of such a bot must be submitted to a consensual discussion, which was obviously not the case here. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed from the template the POTY image and the text about POTY candidates, per the clear lack of consensus here. (There is a spare linebreak left, so if anyone wants to fix my work here, that would be appreciated). As far as I understand the consensus, the wallpaper stuff should also be separated from the regular featured-content box, but I do not have time right now. I'm not so sure the bot edits should be reverted, because if they are retained, the hidden categorization of yearly POTY candidates can be utilized. I get the impression that most of the objections are actually to the pollution of the Featured picture template layout, and might be resolved by removing some of the verbosity, especially for candidates and wallpapers. --99of9 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the bot abuse claims, it is important to review the Bot approval request. Perhaps it was a failing on the part of us Bureaucrats, but the bot request specifically asked for and was granted 1 edit/sec, so I don't think there is a sanctionable violation there. The request asks for permission to "Also mark the image as reviewed.", and that is sort of what has been done here. However, bot edits should always be doing something for which there is a clear consensus, as you said you would in reply to Eugene's question. If modifications to the terms of the bot permissions or deflagging are desired by other users, they can be discussed by opening a new request. --99of9 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack against me, the files that I should have supposedly destroyed were in fact deleted in cause of copyright violations committed by this user, look User talk:Marc. By the way only administrators could restore files, so Marc's prompts to me are pointless anyway. Hereby I request the removing of Marc's last offending edit on Commons:Requests_for_rights and a final warning for him.--IusticiaBY (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, you are unreliable and dangerous. And you are very impolite too, because you don't respond and don't even try to repair what you have done (ask for restoration and reupload on Wikisource). I have spent several hours to make some files ; in a few minutes, you have thrown all in trash. Marc (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All deletions look correct to me. Files have to be in the public domain in both the source country and in the United States in order to be uploaded to Commons. The mentioned books are not in the public domain in the source country since the authors died less than 70 years ago. Thus, the files don't belong on Commons. If French Wikisource has other rules, then the files may be uploaded locally there. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After User:Marc doesn't stop to repeat the harassment against me, I'm hereby requesting a substantial block against him. He didn't kept the rules of Commons, he offends other users and and he shows no insight into his misbehavior.--IusticiaBY (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I talk about the books on Wikisource. You can't simply delete a file without any consideration for what users do on others projects. This is why I have asked IusticiaBY to do the necessary to repair what he did. So, I have tried to discuss politely with him ; but he don't respond. And now those accusations and he requests to block me... I think it's enough ; this is insane. Marc (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons can't host files which are not in the public domain in the source country. If French Wikisource depends on copyright violations being present on Commons, then this is only a problem for French Wikisource. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that I talk about the use of the files. 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So, for you, when you don't respond, you are polite ? when you refuse to do the necessary, this is a polite behavior ? Incidentally, I didn't know that this is you who decide what can be uploaded on Wikisource or not... Marc (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marc the problem is that you are not on frwikisource here and by our policies on copyright it seems you are wrong, and that the files couldn't be host on commons. IusticiaBY did what we do everyday on commons to remove copyvios, i.e. tag files and notify the user. It's an sysop that have deleted the files, but please stop being aggressive against IusticiaBY who used the regular process. Now to me the problem is that Commons and frwikisource do not applies the same rules on copyright and it's quite clear by reading s:fr:Wikisource:Respect_du_copyright that Marc believed the files were PD. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that I talk about the use of the files. There are now some books on Wikisource without files, and no one cares about the fact that these files must be restored and reuploaded on Wikisource. I don't have some of these files, and it has took me several hours to make them. You think I am aggressive, but what would you think if someone destroys your work and does not care about it and does not respond to you ? What is so difficult to understand ? Marc (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not exactly the same thing, because a single file may be used for proofreading thousand of pages, and when you delete a file, you destroy the work of several users on Wikisource and you ruin the very purpose of Wikisource. But I see this is not your concern, so I don't intend to stay more longer on commons. Marc (talk)
C'est problèmatique là si wikisource et commons n'acceptent pas les mêmes oeuvres ça risque d'arriver plus souvent, donc pas la peine de se presser, mieux vaut résoudre le problème de fond. Maintenant, tu me demandes d'uploader un texte qui est sous droit d'auteur en France, c'est un clair non pour moi. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) The files are in the public domain in the United States, so strictly speaking, they are not copyright violations in the Untied States, although they aren't allowed on Commons. What matters is whether they are allowed on French Wikisource or not. Of course, all of the files are copyright violations in all of Europe (except Belarus where some of them are in the public domain), so any Europeans editing the pages on Wikisource or uploading djvu files with the books may be taken to court by the copyright holders. Some of the files are in the public domain in Québec and some files might be in the public domain in French-speaking countries elsewhere in the world (e.g. in Africa), but many of the files are copyright violations in every French-speaking country, which looks odd for a project meant for French-speaking users. s:fr:Aide:Respect du copyright#Œuvres qui sont dans le domaine public contains a list of misunderstandings about copyright law, so it is not clear which legal standard French Wikisource is using. For example:
"Œuvres publiées avant 1923." This is a US rule: such works are in the public domain in the United States, but are often copyrighted elsewhere, e.g. in Europe, as we see in this case. So is Wikisource using US law?
"Œuvres publiées dans l'Union européenne, en Australie, au Brésil, au Nicaragua, au Nigeria, au Paraguay, au Pérou ou à Singapour dont l'auteur est décédé depuis au moins 70 ans." This is a rule applying in the mentioned countries: such works are in the public domain in the listed countries, but may be copyrighted in the United States, which is the reason for COM:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. So isn't Wikisource using US law?
"Œuvres publiées aux États-Unis après le 1er mars 1989 dont l'auteur est décédé depuis au moins 70 ans." This, again, is a rule applying to the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru and Singapore, but not to the United States. If the publication was between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002 and 70 years already have passed since the death of the author, then the work is always copyrighted in the United States until the end of 2047, since you can't create works posthumously. So isn't Wikisource basing the copyright status on copyright law at all? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
This is a sad story.
Once upon a time, this user was a valuable member of both this community and en.wp. They have uploaded many, many wonderful images to this site and in the past improved many articles at en.wp. Unfortunately, they have also exhibited some very problematic behaviors. What those behaviors were is not relevant as they were en.wp's problem to deal with, which it did. Mbz1 was blocked from en.wp by the Arbitration Committee earlier this year., and was later banned altogether by the community[9]. Since that time Mbz1 has been on a relentless crusade across multiple WMF sites, stirring up trouble and trying to get the banning overturned. Everywhere this user posts they try to re-ignite this debate and stir up more confrontation. Those of you that contribute at Meta are probably already aware of this situation, since there was a big dust up over it there back in February and March. MbZ1 has also carried their fight onto this site even though there is absolutley no connection between the problems that got them banned at en.wp and commons. This has included trolling my talk page, for which they were blocked several months ago and now harassing WMF staffers who have user pages here in yet another sad, pathetic, hopeless attempt to whine and cry their way into getting somebody besides other uses banned from en.wp to agree with them. They have added ridiculously melodramatic and self-pitying "retirement" messages to their userspace but are still here bothering foundation staffers and others with this nonsense. They are no longer making any contributions to this site that have any value The negatives now far outweigh the positives and I believe the time has come for them to take a nice long break. Clearly, this is not something they have the self-control to do themselves so it will have to be a break enforced by blocking and/or banning.
The trolling of me is in my talk page history. You can see that they tried to drag en.wp disputes over here.
The WMF staffer harrassment is visible at User talk:Sue Gardner#For the record and User talk:Steven (WMF)#Global bans and why this proposal is wrong and in this thread [10] which Phillipe chose to remove entirely from his talk page as he had repeatedly stated that neither he nor WMF would be involved with this. As you can see from these threads specific users from en.wp, myself included, are insulted and mocked repeatedly in these requests despite the fact that Mbz1 claims to be the victim of bullying.
I know these polite, professional people are too busy to come down here and ask the community to ban this user so I am doing it for them.
Please keep in mind that this discussion should not be in any way about the right or wrong of what happened at en.wp or Meta, but rather about what they have been doing right here on Commons. Note their very extensive block log here including two blocks already this year for importing this dispute to Commons.
(I will be watching this thread but I will not be responding to any comment by Mbz1, who at this point is nothing more than a troll and should be treated as such. I also anticipate that the first thing they will do is to try and make this discussion about me and others who tried in the past to calm them down but eventually got exasperated by the melodarama and self pitying whining that never seems to end. I suggest you not let them steer comverstion in that direction but rather focus on what they have been doing on this website which is the only reason to ban them from here.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Beeblebrox, concerning your statement They are no longer making any contributions to this site that have any value', mbz1 uploaded File:2012 Transit of Venus from SF.jpg on June 10, which was promoted to featured picture status with 10 support votes on June 25. Now I have had good and bad experiences with mbz1 over the years. But if you want me to take your complaint seriously, you need to stick to facts. That also implies that your first paragraph, which contains a lot of claims without any evidence, should be backed up with diffs IMO.--Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is just background. hjeir own posts confirm the basic fact that they are banned from en.wp. Why they were banned is not the issue, that is a different website, which is the whole point of why importing the dispute here is a bad thing. Unless that point is seriously in dispute I don't think we need diffs. My bad though on the recent image, I can't say I have reviewed every single edit they made in the last few months, I just happened to run across one pf the discussions where they repeatedly insulted me and other en users and did not bother to let us know we were being discussed, with staff no less. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Given that you overlooked an FP in the most recent contributions it would perhaps be a good idea to retract that part of your report? And I am sorry, but the first paragraph screams "citation needed" for about every four words following the introductiry appraising lines. "Relentless crusade"?, "stirring up trouble"?, "sad, pathetic, hopeless attempt to whine and cry"? You are using a lot of very loaded negative words in that paragraph without a single dif of reference to evidence, while asking to ban on of the most productive creators of featured and highly valuable pictures on this site. This is a serious matter, and I think it is to be expected to do your homework. Be factual, show diffs, do not impose your own interpretation on other users, but let them desice themselves from the evidence. Now I am not on friendly terms with mbz1 myself after our last encounter in April this year. But yet I respect this (sometimes really obnoxious) user, and the "trial" shall be fair. Thank you. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The pathetic whining can be seen in the diffs I provided of discussions right here on Commons. A lot of talk about being the victim of bullying and abuse, while at the same time attacking the personal character and intelligence of those she considers the bullies. The crusade is manifest in those remarks also. To the rest of us this matter was done and overwith many months ago. Yet here she is bothering the staff with melodramtic threads that end with statements like "Yours sincerely being lynched forever" along with an image of a lynching victim. The evidence that there is a problem here, at commons, is all right here and already linked. If you bother to read them you will not need diffs from other sites. On several of these threads she even brings up an incident from 2010 where due to an error on my part she was blocked for about fifteen minutes, as if that has anything to do with what is going on now. this person has demonstrated that they are either unwilling or unable to leave this dispute in the past and not drag it on and on on every site she is still welcome on. as you can see she was just reblocked at Meta[11] for the same thing and is trying to hide behind the hot-button word "bullying" when what is really going on is an exteemely unhealthy obsession with overturning en.wps decision to show her the door. Don't let this nonsense be dragged onto commons as well, it has no palace whatsoever here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for redacting the comment. I had bothered to read the links, but did not see quite what you see. The new block on meta is questionable IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I'd certainly support an edit restriction banning Mbz1 from pursuing non-Commons issues on Commons. But a site ban is not necessary. There is also the fact with her long history of valuable contributions and one recent contribution, there are many people who still hope she'll continue contributing her excellent work. Rd232 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We do not punish users with a ban (there is no such thing as a ban on Commons as a matter of fact). The point is to avoid further disruption, and as I see it, an edit restriction would be well suited for that purpose. --Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume my point about melodrama is now understood. I am not asking for a punishment, I am asking that this stale dispute from another website not be allowed to be continued here. I am asking that my name and the name of other users from en.wp not be continuously smeared just because Mbz1 thinks they are Winston Smith, a lynching victim, or an innocent girl being attacked by wolves.. (these are all comparisons Mbz1 has made herself). I am asking that she not be allowed to harrass Foundation staff about a matter that she has been told dozens of times to let go of. If that means a comprehensive restriction prohibiting her from ever mentioning these matters again on this website, that's fine so long as it is made clear that a single violation of said restriction will lead to a block without talk or email priveleges. Anything less than that has already been proven to be innefective. Additionaly, she has already proven, here, at Meta, and at en.wp that she will break such restrictions, and that no promise of "retirement" can be taken at face value so that should not be taken into consideration. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I predicted in my original post. Instead of discussin why she has harrassed WMF staff about this she is attacking me. and the old standby " you haven't read the evidence". Expect to hear that a lot. Never mind that the supposed evidence is not germane to the matter at hand, whether or not Mbz1 has been harassing staff and make extremely uncivil personal attacks such as the one she just made against me right here. i don't believe I am behaving like a screamong lunatic out of 1984, just asking that this nonsense be stopped. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Beeblebrox, I did not harass anybody. When I say something I provide at least one diff to support my words. About you I said you were unstable and here are a few diffs to confirm my words: edit summary: "what an asshole";edit summary: "the lunatics are running the asylum";edit summary: "fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it.";"go away now you abusive disgrace of an admin";an outburst on English wikipedia. Any more? Now do you believe I attacked you, or it were you who attacked yourself? I provided the diffs only to demonstrate what kind of users voted to ban me, and in general what kind of users voting for bans, claiming they provide a fair representation of the community consensus. The posts I made to the talks of WMF staff talks was not to punish anybody who lied about me during my ban discussion, not even getting unbanned, but only to protect me in my real life because I was editing under my real name. Another purpose of my posts to WMF staff talks was trying to make them to stop bullying, not only bullying of me but all bullying on their sites.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enough - this is rapidly descending into unnecessary unpleasantness, and a ban isn't going to happen. Mbz1 claims to have retired, so hopefully no action is needed at this time. Further attempts to pursue non-Commons issues on Commons are unwelcome, if Mbz1 does that at some point in the future, then an edit restriction should be proposed here. Rd232 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1 is not retired in any meaningful sense. Isn't that worth a bit of discussion? They were working on File:2012 Transit of Venus from SF.jpg a week ago, and posted to User_talk:Steven_(WMF)#Global_bans_and_why_this_proposal_is_wrong this month, where they made incredibly nasty remarks about six editors; they said, quote, "So I was community banned by an idiot, a sicko, an involved bully, a psychotic obsessed liar, a criminal's promoter and an unstable admin." I think that's current unnecessary unpleasantness that Mbz1 shows no remorse for or any evidence that they intend to do otherwise in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did provide diffs to explain my language (by the way unlike any of the users who supported my ban), and I did said that I am willing to publicly apologize to at least some users, if somebody will be kind enough to explain to me, where I got it wrong. So far nobody did :( I also said that I opened to suggestions about changing my descriptions. I have no personal problems with any of the users I mentioned (I even feel sorry for some of them), but I had to explain why I believe their votes should not be taken into account during such important matters as ban discussions of an editor who edited under a real life name. Anyway, let's please stop the drama now, you did not add anything new to this thread anyway. Isn't kuiper's thread enough already :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to object to one user deciding that this Is not going to happen for the following reasons:
This discussion has been open less than a day
Mbz1 has recently enagaged in this harrassment with three seperate staff members despite being told literally for months to let it go
Their remarks here make it clear they do not understand why characterizing other users as lying psychopathic bullies is not the way to proceed when you are in fact the source of all your own problems
No one is denying that they have made some really excellent contributions to commons. Her photos are fantastic. That in no way, shape, or form excuses the harrassment and personal attacks
She has shown a consistent pattern of "fake retirements" done whenever things get stressful. They have all been fake and she always returns and comes back to the exact areas where she was causing problems in the past
I'm not super experienced with how these things work ar commons, never had any trouble with another user here until now, but I cannot accept that a user can post to WMF staff pages making accusations of the nature Mbz1 has with impugnity. some sprt of sanction against this behavior is needed or, for the reasons already stated here, it is virtually certain it will happen again and we'll be right back here again
No disrespect to Rd, but I really feel this closure is premature. I have said my piece and am content for the community here to make a decision on this, but let it be a community decision, not one user who decided it just won't happen after so short a time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now, blocks should be preventative, not punitive. You will have a time to come back here, when, and if I will come back here and post something new about you because now it looks like you came here to punish me as you did on English wikipedia. Right now this thread is nothing but a waste of time. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect to you Beeblebrox, but given the history between you an attempt by you to ban Mbz1 on Commons was always going to lead to a lot of drama about non-Commons issues. It would have been better to have had a quiet word with a Commons admin than try to tackle this yourself. Rd232 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox and Mbz1: Please do not turn Commons into a battleground for conflicts that took place at en-wp and at Meta. I do not really like to see comments at Commons talk pages that refer to persons they were in conflict with at other WMF projects as incapable of making intelligent decisions because of its instability even if it is backed up by some difflinks which did not exactly show a behaviour which is becoming of an admin of any WMF project. Likewise I do not like to see how this case was opened here by calling for a ban which is more likely to escalate this conflict to Commons than to put it to a quick end.
Here is my suggestion: Mbz1 removes the unhelpful characterizations of other editors (or, even more preferably, the entire comment) from Sue's talk page. Whatever possible injustice happened at another project it is not helpful to carry this to the next project (with the exception of Meta perhaps). And Beeblebrox retracts this unhelpful ban request in consequence. Afterwards, both Mbz1 and Beeblebrox should no longer refer at Commons to each other's conflicts and contributions outside of Commons. Would this be acceptable for you both? --AFBorchert (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the tread in question was responded by two WMF staff members. If they felt it should be removed, they would have done it. Besides I was always told on English wikipedia do not remove or even change comments that were already responded by others. And this was my last contribution to Commons. So long.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done The text at least (please check). The link however needs to go to a commons page. --99of9 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
related note I have warned C3F2K and blocked Fry1989 for edit warring on File:Best Western logo.svg (Fry has previously been warned in similar circumstances). After the block expires, if an alternate version is desired, it can be uploaded to a new location. Fry1989, your "informal [agreement]" with VernoWhitney was no agreement at all - there were multiple reverts from both parties after the last talk page post (before this latest flare-up). VernoWhitney's leaving the page is a credit to them as the one who first got tired of the revert war, it is not an agreement that you were correct. --99of9 (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cichorium_intybus-alvesgaspar1.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=71031499){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coleostephus_February_2008-2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=71031486){kind=link}
Info I've removed manually (undo) all the operations made by this bot on all "my" own 41 featured pictures. Sorry, but I find stupid to mention this 1st of july, two years after, that some of my FP were allowed to participate in the 2010 POTY contest, because it is (was) automatic for FP of the year 2010 (and the following years too, btw...).I think that creation and use of such a bot must be submitted to a consensual discussion, which was obviously not the case here. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
