User talk:MichaelMaggs

I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Talk page archives: 2006-7, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Blocking Ktr101Edit

Michael, is there any reason why you locally blocked Ktr101? There's no point in doing so when he's already been locked by the Foundation, and no Commmons policy specifies that global locks have to be followed up by local blocks. Can you please undo your action? Thanks, odder (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Same thing for User:John F. Lewis. odder (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Odder. Yes, I used my discretion as an admin and crat on this project to indicate that those globally locked users are not welcome on Commons. COM:BP does not require a local block following a global lock, but it comes within the ambit of discretion of any admin. Quoting the policy: "Blocks may be applied for a number of reasons. The more common of these are detailed below ..". The listed reasons are merely exemplary, not exclusive. Although you say that there is "no point in doing so", presumably you would agree with me that there is some symbolic point since otherwise you would not have posted this query on my talk page, nor would you have bothered to asked me to undo my action. I would prefer not to do so for the reasons given. I am aware that you take a different view from me on how globally banned ex-users should be viewed (to the extent that you prefer not to take any action against banned individuals who post on your user page), but as both your view there and my view here fall within the range of admin discretion as opposed to strict policy, I would ask that you do not revert my blocks. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, your role as a bureaucrat does not give you any additional discretion, so there's no point in you even mentioning that. Secondly, yes, you do have certain limited discretion, however blocking long-standing contributors without any basis in Commons policy does not fit in that. If you had any reasons for blocking these two users, you would have shared them publicly with everyone or at least with your fellow bureaucrats on the mailing list.
If you had done so, then let me know as I unsubscribed from that list after your utterly disgusting secret attempt to have Fae banned despite your enormous personal involvement with him when you prevented him from continuing to be a member of Wikimedia UK for no good reason.
I'm giving you 24 hours to undo your out-of-policy blocks, otherwise I'm going to do that myself when I get back home in the evening tomorrow.
I am done watching you run amok with your holier-than-thou attitude (while simultaneously not giving a damn about this project on the pretence of neutrality) and bending the rules to fit your liking. odder (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel the need to make such statements. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
odder, I warn you against wheel-warring with Michael over this. You have "previous" in this regard, wrt to the JurgenNL admin bit which led to a de-bureaucrat vote. We all know Commons' policy is incomplete and leaves much to user, admin and 'crat judgement. As Michael says, the block is largely symbolic, as was JurgenNL's de-admin. The last time, you misjudged community feeling and hastily wheel-warred in order to play power-games with WMF. Same story here. Given that these editors will not be editing again, there is no rush to unblock locally. I don't know the reason for the block and it sounds like you don't either. So your threat to unblock is ignorant (and I use that word carefully, rather than as an insult) and hasty. Given what else you posted here, which is totally off-topic, it sounds like you are motivated by a grudge. These are all very poor reasons to make any admin decision, let alone to wheel war. Do you really want another de-crat vote? For what purpose does this serve? To play power games over a bit on some user account that has no manifest effect on the ability of that user to edit. That's a pretty lame wheel war. Please serve the community as a 'crat who shows wisdom. You've demonstrated you are unhappy and disagree, but our Commons:Blocking policy requires you to demonstrate consensus for an unblock. -- Colin (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I received the same e-mail that Michael's likely got from the Foundation, and that e-mail specifically said that they will not be discussing the reasons behind those global locks. So unless they made a special exception for Michael, there are no reasons behind his blocks; I bet you anything it's just him running around like a headless chicken, trigger-happy, making out-of-policy blocks just because he can.
These two users did nothing to warrant a community block of any sort, let alone an indefinite (read: infinite) block. This should have never happened, it should have been reversed immediately when I brought it up to Michael's attention, he should have been admonished for doing that, and promise not to do that again. Yet here you are, defending these pointless actions of somebody brave enough to act only after the WMF has already acted, and to act with a total disregard of community policies; somebody who otherwise doesn't give a fuck about this project in fear of losing his precious neutrality.
I don't recall Michael acting when WayneRay's actions were brought up publicly; I don't recall him going through his uploads and deleting stuff or just nominating them for deletion like other users did. I don't recall him acting, intervening or just commenting in a million other situations when there was a need for him doing so; yet here he is, showing how mighty he is when dealing with users who can't so much as log-in into their Wikimedia accounts, and dealing with them in absolute ignorance of Commons policies because he's a bureaucrat and everyone else is too scared of speaking up.
To see you of all people trying to teach me about having a grudge when you've been bullying, harassing, and team-tagging Fae for months on end is just hilarious. Surely you should be concerned that a group of functionaries get together on a secret mailing list, using confidentiality as a pretence for the discussion not to leak out, and discuss how to get rid of someone while simultanously hiding behind a thin veil of neutrality because they haven't commented on it in public? Are you? Or don't you just give a single fuck because it was all addressed to Fae? Tell me now about grudge, I'm listening.
Or don't; I'm already sick of reading the bullshit reasoning you come up with. You make me sick, the whole lot of you. odder (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Odder, I suggest you take a wikibreak. All I see above is the rant of a very angry and hateful person. Not openly "discussing" a block is not the same thing as there being "no reason" for the block. If you think WMF applied them for "no reason", then I can only repeat that you should retire from this project in disgust. I agree with you that many of our 'crats have been absent at times when they were needed, and you know I've complained about this. I am grateful you dealt with WayneRay and his uploads. Wrt Fae, you're welcome to join the many others who find bringing me to AN/U entertaining if you wish to make a formal complaint about that. I fail to see what that has to do with the current situation, other than you lashing out with whatever spiteful remark comes to mind. The only thing "pointless" here is you getting upset about a "symbolic" block. The policy, which you enslave yourself to, requires you gain consensus for an unblock. If Michael's actions are as foolish as you claim, that should not be hard. -- Colin (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
odder, but before you are tempted to open any community discussion on the block, consider if you know the wishes of these two users, both of whom appear to have disclosed their real names on-wiki. Perhaps they do not wish the reason for their block to be made public. Certainly, few would wish some random semi-anonymous community on the internet to start openly speculating. I suggest that unless either of these individuals protest their blocks and actually request a community discussion on the matter, that you leave it lie for their sake. We all know the internet has a long memory. There seems very little to be gained from this, and possible harm. I don't personally care one way or the other about whether there's a community block or not, only that the community and the WMF work together with respect. And this is one area where we should show some respect for a hard decision made. -- Colin (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
odder: I agree with Colin, that unless you somehow know that the two users you have mentioned as being recently globally banned are interested in such a discussion and the associated attention, it is not a good idea to publically attack a fellow 'crat over a symbolic flip of a bit, which has no practical meaning. The second user you mention, had his last edit in October 2014. It is very uncollegial, that you do not keep a cool head and publically swear at a fellow user. Moreover, I do not agree with you that if the reasons for a global block are not made public, it is equivalent to having no reason to block. It means, the block reason is publically unknown (possibly in the interest of the globally banned users). Whether the global bans are warranted is a matter of whether you believe in the judgement made my the legal team at the WMF or not. It appears you do not have trust in their decisions. If so, either go into a constructive dialogue with the legal team, or leave. And I do not understand at all why you are mixing a completely different user (Fæ) including undocumented claims of a secret cabal into this discussion. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Can the two of you even fucking read? I never said anything about disagreeing with the global locks that the WMF made. I'm sure they have their reasons for doing that, and I know the reasons behind some of those locks, however Michael has no reasons to locally block these two users. None. They've done nothing wrong on this project; they've been contributing for years and years, there wasn't so much as a discussion about blocking them let alone a consensus, and yet Michael blocked them indefinitely, and the two of you are defending his pointless and stupid actions. He's abusing his privileges as an administrator, surely you can see that?
Also what does it matter than John's last edit here on Commons was a vote to have me de-cratted? I don't see how this is relevant. Do you expect me to ignore this abuse by an admin just because John voted against me? Do you expect me to be driven by petty revenge rather than by this project's best interest? What the hell! odder (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
odder: The last edit by John is not relevant. I thought it was relevant when the least edit was done by the effected users, and in bringing forth that piece of information I also mentioned what his last edit was. It was intended as a 'fun fact', as I personally found it funny. But after re-reading what I wrote a few minutes later I realized this was irrelevant for this discussion, could be misunderstood and removed that detail prior to your response. So I do not know why you are mentioning it if not do distract from my question about the relevance of involving a completely different user in the discussion and setting forth accusations regarding Michael, which to my knowledge you cannot backup with facts? I do not agree with you that Michael is operating outside our policies. IMO our policies are not clear within this area and open for interpretation. For me it is common sense to also locally block globally banned users, albeit it is just a symbolic act. You disagree, and find it completely obvious that it is in violation of policy. If that is the case, and you really find it important to put extra attention on the globally banned users, open a thread about it on COM:AN to see if there is consensus to revert the bit flip. If there is consensus for your POV, the bits should be flipped. But why so hostile? Why all the swearing? Why not discuss like adults? I do not understand why you find it warranted in your role as community leader/'crat to use the f*** word against me? I believe I have always communicated in a civil tone with you. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

(outdent)odder, I know you are upset about this, but swearing merely demonstrates you've become unreasonable, rather than keeping a cool head. You said Michael had "no reason". Well they were blocked by WMF according to the WMF global ban policy, which lays out several possible reasons, none of which are compatible with an editor being welcome on Commons.

  • when users engage in significant harassment of users on multiple projects;
  • when users engage in significant harassment off of the Wikimedia sites so as to genuinely threaten (emotionally or physically) users; or
  • when the trust or safety of our users or employees is otherwise in danger or has been significantly compromised or threatened.

Do you agree that the reasons on that page warrant sufficient reason? Or do you want to have a discussion about which one isn't that bad after all? So Michael's "reason" is "one of those". Which one, and the details of it, aren't relevant. Perhaps you and Michael have different levels of trust in how the WMF decide to ban, but it's what it is, and you agree to the ToU every time you edit. The WayneRay ban didn't involve a discussion on Commons about blocking him, "let alone consensus". Yet you applied an indefinite block with reference to "oversighters" - but essentially, you refuse to discuss (rightly). It's just a bit, odder, and a non-effectual one at that, hardly "abuse". Please find something more important to get your knickers in a twist about. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC) If it helps, odder, I think that your view that without a community discussion/consensus to ban, there is no need to apply the extra local block on top of the WMF block, is a reasonable one. I disagree with it, but a reasonable person may come to that conclusion after rational thought. That surely should be the measure of whether an action should be reverted? Can you not accept that Michael's action is also reasonable even if you disagree with it? I wish you guys could work together on the important things rather than fighting over something completely pointless. -- Colin (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

An apologyEdit

Well, that turned really ugly really quickly, and I'm the only one to blame for it. I would like to apologise unreservedly to @Colin, @Slaunger and @Michael, in particular for the awful swearing. I was quite upset and lost my cool, and I treated you very harshly and very unfairly. You did not deserve to be treated like that; I take full responsibility for what I wrote above and I'm sorry. odder (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Odder, much appreciated. -- Colin (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Odder. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #207Edit

Closing discussionsEdit

See Special:Diff/195106824: be careful with how you close discussions. Your closure of one discussion was archived together with the section above that discussion, and the closure tag is now missing from the discussion page. I think that you need to put your closure tags directly below the section header, not above the section header. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #208Edit

Wikicommons ContributionsEdit

Hello Michael - I am admittedly new to wikicommons, but would like to contribute constructively. There are pictures I have, particularly of en:Congregation Emanu El of New York, that I would like to add, but I have accidentally violated policy before on enwiki and want to ensure that I fully understand guidelines before editing. Thank you Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, User talk:Ferociouslettuce, welcome! You might like to start by having look at COM:L and COM:PS which between them cover the major points about what we can and cannot host here. Briefly, it is normally OK to upload educational images that you have personally taken yourself, as long as they don't involve violating the privacy of any subject. Images taken by another photographer can be uploaded only if they are old enough to be entirely out of copyright, or if the photographer or copyright owner is known and has released them under a free licence. Images where the photographer/copyright owner is not known or can't be contacted generally cannot generally be hosted here since somebody must own the copyright even though there may be no way for us to obtain a free licence. I probably won't be able to edit here for the next couple of weeks, but users at Commons:Village pump/Copyright‎‎ will be able to help with specific questions you may have. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #209Edit

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!Edit

POTY barnstar.svg

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear MichaelMaggs,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #210Edit

Wikidata weekly summary #211Edit

Wikidata weekly summary #212Edit

Wikidata weekly summary #213Edit

Wikidata weekly summary #214Edit

EU copyrightEdit

Hi MM,
As you seem to have an above average understanding of the appliance of law, I would like to run this by you first -for your comments. Back in 2008, User Lupo was trying to kid us that a EU 'directive' was a EU wide 'law' and thus we had to observe the EU 70 year copyright 'directive' on our UK images too.


They were legitimate in the first place. Now that we are out of the EU (for better or worse) should not all these deleted UK images be reinstated?P.g.champion (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

We are still in the EU for now, and the copyright directive does indeed require the UK to maintain a period of 70 years pma. That may change in the future, perhaps, but there's no change at the moment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, there is plenty of time to contemplate this. Just wanted your early gut reaction though, (as a sounding-board if you like, in case I am being too pedantic). However, EU Directives don't require anything. The are just guidance to other EU states whom may want know how to achieve greater harmonisation and so ensure that all states sell only straight bananas, etc... They are not law. Which is what User Lupo seemed to have miss understood -yet made a lot of noise about it. We (in the UK) are not bound by this, as this Directive never got a far as being incorporated into UK copyright law. Many UK images got deleted which should not have been, due to this miss-understanding between Legal Obligation and Directive.--P.g.champion (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
EU Directives are instructions to member states to change their locals laws in a certain way. In this case, UK national law (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) was amended years ago to change the term to 70 years pma. 70 years has for a long time been part of UK national law, and that won't change once we leave the EU unless at some point in the future parliament expressly legislates to do so. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #215Edit

Return to the user page of "MichaelMaggs".