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

Reguyla and othersEdit

In the absence of any instruction at Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block - how do you want to deal with unblock requests from Reguyla (if/when it happens) and other users (such as L'honorable, who has been making unblock requests in recent days) where e-mail and talk page access has been disabled ? We don't have a UTRS type system or mailing list which can be used, so these blocks are now essentially permanent as they have no appeal mechanism. I'm not advocating unblocking either named party, but I do think we should have a process in place to allow an appeal to take place. Any thoughts ? I'm only asking in the event you've already thought about this and have an idea already. Nick (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick. It did cross my mind that this could be an issue, and it's another area where our policies are not as well-developed as they ought to be. I'm not quite at the stage of working up a definite proposal yet, but I agree that there ought to be some defined appeal mechanism. For a standard block, the policy states “Before granting a request to lift a block placed by another administrator, the reviewing administrator should consult with the blocking administrator, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases” [bold text in original]. In cases that are serious enough to merit indefinite blocks I would like to see a process that requires a formal consensus of the community (not just consultation with the blocking admin) before editing privileges can be restored. The procedure ought to include a mechanism for any agreed return to be made subject to specific conditions.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi MichaelMaggs and Nick, there is still the option to contact OTRS which in turn could forward such a request here at Commons. We practice this at de:wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@AFBorchert, Yann: Thank you both for the suggestions. Both suggestions are good and I appreciate it but I am not going to request unblock. If the Commons community or someone in it wants me to edit and continue to improve it then they can start the conversation and act on whatever the result is. If I get unblocked great and I will forge ahead and resume editing and if not then the block remains. Cheers! Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:CC0C:4368:8CD3:44E2 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I have offered Reguyla to post an unblocking request on his behalf. Since he refuses, the issue is closed. I also semi-protected his talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
That's fine and thanks again Yann and AFBorchert for the offers. I didn't ask for the block and I am not going to ask for the unblock. Indef blocks of editors in good standing should not be done at the whims of individual admins and should not be done without escalating blocks first. They should be done by a community decision. If the community decides they want me to edit then let me know, otherwise Commons loses an editor. A high output one. I'm not going to go off the rails like I did at EnWP but I confess disappointment. No big deal though. It has been suggested by a couple folks that I should take a break and come back in a few months. If people won't support me after doing over 100, 000 edits a month for several months straight, then they won't support me after several months of inactivity. Only on the WMF projects does that even make sense. Cheers! Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:CC0C:4368:8CD3:44E2 19:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yann, Nick, AFBorchert, MichaelMaggs, Revent: Since it appears there is no interest in me contributing to Commons may I suggest someone update my user rights and revoke my AWB access. If I am ever unblocked then I can request those again but there is no point in having it on there if I can't use it. I figured someone would have done it by now so I didn't say anything before and now that it's pretty much confirmed the block won't be lifted there is no reason to have them. Reguyla 13:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


@Yann: I tried to post this to your talk page but it's protected as well as mine but I wanted you to know something for clarification to your last comment on my talk page. I am always open to collaborating and assisting other editors, I always have been. So please don't make this about me not being collaborative. But some contributors refuse to collaborate and insist it's going to be their way or the highway. I have always, 100% of the time, helped anyone who asked me and many who didn't even ask. I have never, in my history on the projects, not worked collaboratively with those who were willign to collaborate. Comments to the contrary are simply not true. Reguyla 14:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I removed all Reguyla's rights. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks Yann. Let me know if the decision changes and there is an interest in unblocking me so I can get back to editing again. I'll continue to watch my page just in case. Reguyla 15:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Obscure quasi copyrights...Edit

You probably already knew about this but : w:perpetual_copyright seems to have come to a similar conclusion about the 2040 date, if you were updating the claim on Commons, it would be appreciated if the above article could also be updated at the same time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. I remember looking at that article some years ago, but had quite forgotten about it. It's actually pretty good and informative, although in the UK section it does seem to conflate prerogative printing rights with the statutory scheme set up by the 1775 act. I am starting to get more intrigued by the history, and if I can find some time to do some research I will happily update that page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I'm seriously considering if I continue to contribute on Wikimedia projects if issues like the above remain unchallenged.

Another "obscure technicality" that was (potentially) uncovered when looking into something else was mentioned here, User_talk:Stefan2#US-PD_works_in_UK is that a blog post claimed that some US works, which on Commons are treated as having nominally expired globally, might not have expired in the UK, depending on a particular reading of the 1956 Act, in regard to the 'shorter term' which wasn't explicitly mentioned again until 1996.

The blog posts logic is that you in effect have a possible reverse of the URAA problem in the UK, for works (by US authors) published in the US after 1900 dependent on when they were renewed. Namely that if something was still copyright in the US as the coming into force of the 1956 act, it was entitled to the equivalent UK term (at the time 50 pma). As such the blog claims the UK didn't start recognising shorter term again until 1996, when with the extension to 70 years, UK and US terms were effectively the same anyway.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you check the link you have given (User_talk:Stefan2#US-PD_works_in_UK), please? I can't find the blog you are referring to. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Certainly : Forgot the prefix: w:User_talk:Stefan2#US-PD_works_in_UK

It's not a major issue, just means UK users have to apply 70/50 p.m.a, like those in other places which don't apply shorter term to US works. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The actual blog post is - ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That's an interesting article. I don't have time to study it in great detail at the moment, but it does look as if it might be a promising source of background information that could help us improve the copyright information we provide to users here on Commons (though I do have doubts about one or two of the statements relating to UK law). One of the most knowledgeable users on Commons, particularly so far as US law is concerned, is User:Jameslwoodward and it may be that he will like to comment. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. Since our rule is that a work must be free in both the USA and the source country, the question of whether a US sourced work is PD in the UK cannot come up on Commons. For US works, out only concern is US law. Thus, that kind of issue, while interesting, is one that I will leave to actual copyright lawyers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Attack pageEdit

I'm writing here since it is your discussion this has occurred on, and my experience with posting complaints at AN/U or BN has not been great.

has now twice used Commons discussion forums to link to an attack page in his talk archive.

Both times he does so while claiming this page contains the reason he is not responding to my comments. The world and his dog on Commons know why Fae is uncooperative with me, so this has now become simply a means for him to post links to his attack page.

I believe the archive section has become an attack page against me for the following reasons:

  • Fae accuses me of all sorts of things that I'm not going to repeat. He digs out some earlier offensive material from 2015 just to repeat his baseless allegations of homophobia. Allegations that User:Slaunger described at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 1#'crat action requested as "so much bad faith in this statement, that it is hard to believe".
  • Fae refers to a particular conflict event for which I apologised and that on 6 July 2016 Fae claimed to have accepted my apology for, going on to say "I have no intention of referring to it ever again". Yet he does, and I have no reason to assume he will stop referring to it
  • Fae has modified the section in his archive from "== AN/U ==" that I created it with, to "== Colin ==" just so he has a handy personal-attack-wikilink for his attack page.

I would like

  • That the archive section be restored to the original heading of "AN/U" so that it no longer forms a personal-attack-url.
  • Fae cautioned not to edit other people's words without permission.
  • The line added by the second diff above be removed since it forms no part of the discussion on de-admin exists soley to repeat his personal attack of a fellow user.
  • Fae is reminded of his promise to not refer to a certain conflict, directly or indirectly via links.
  • Fae is warned that futher links to his attack page or similar little off-topic reminders of how vile a creature I am in his eyes will result in a block for harassment.


I would please like @ to respond to this so that we can have his side of the story before I take any decision or action in this matter. odder (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
In line with my email, a reply is at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Hounding_by_Colin. If you reply there, I suggest you make it clear that you were selected to take part as an informal advocate, obviously not by me. Thanks -- (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I would like to thank you and Odder for making a brave and righteous action at Fæ's AN thread. This shows that we shall not tolerate these kinds of users to prevent Commons from being used for fraudulent purposes. You and Odder deserve this barnstar. Poké95 01:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "MichaelMaggs".