User talk:MichaelMaggs

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
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

Wikidata weekly summary #129[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #114[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #131[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #132[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #133[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #134[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #135[edit]

Please stop with your anti-Fae campaign[edit]

Michael, I am extremely disappointed in you with your public calls to silence Fae on a public Wikimedia mailing list. The more I look at it, the more it appears that this dispute between you/WMUK and Fae has caused you to exercise extremely bad judgement on this project as it relates to Fae.

As you are fully aware, some months ago I indefinitely blocked an editor on this project who has a long history of harassment against Fae. So much so, that this editor was indefinitely banned at the Fae Arbcom case on English Wikipedia; not that English Wikipedia should affect their status here, but it certainly can be used as modus operandi. That editor also engaged, and continues to engage, in unacceptable public commentary as it relates to Fae on external non-WMF sites. After this editor again engaged in unacceptable commentary on this project, it caused Fae to respond with a comment that goes to show how the level of harassment has affected him. We, as admins, editors and human beings, owe it to each other to ensure that harassment is not tolerated on our projects. With that in mind, I reverted, revdelled and indefinitely blocked the editor, with an edit summary of "contact me"; so as to not draw attention to the obvious harassment.

In response, you sent an email to Fae in which you suggested he seek psychiatric help. Given what was going on in the background at WMUK, this is unacceptable as you can imagine that your email was not welcomed. You also sent an email to the Bureaucrat's mailing list in which you raised the issue of the block; Odder made the fact known that you had sent an email in public on #wikimedia-commons IRC channel. A short time after you posted this on my talk page demanding an explanation for the block, and furthermore pointing out what you already knew. You knew what the reason was, but it appears you were more interested in continuing the WMUK shitfight here on Commons and wanted to make Fae squirm.

It was also disclosed by Odder in #wikimedia-commons that you did not wait until other crats had time to comment before racing ahead and pushing for a desysop of myself. From that discussion:

  • You quoted Commons:Blocking policy which says "Provide a reason for the block." Given the circumstances surrounding the block, and with human dignity in mind, I DID explain the circumstances and the reason for the block to numerous admins, PRIVATELY. You will see in that policy that there is NO requirement on this project for any blocks to be explained publicly, it merely says "Provide a reason for the block"; which I did. Just not to you. This was a very conscious decision on my part given the email you sent to Fae and the email you sent to the crat mailing list; why didn't you contact me privately like you did those parties, especially as you know why the block was placed?
  • I did refuse to discuss the block on IRC with a couple of parties. This, again, was a conscious decision on my part. And was done for the reasons above.
  • You also went ahead and unblocked the editor. The block I placed was undone by another admin. From that point on, the block is out of my hands. The block was re-done by another admin, who at that thread stated:
"Restored block: Yann is in a conflict with russavia. I have added a block reason (looked into Michaels edits, and looks like long term harassment to me). Maybe someone else like to review the block, i am not familiar enough with the Fae / Michael case. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)"
  • At this point you should have discussed the block with Steinsplitter but you neglected to do that. Your unblock was wheel-warring with Steinsplitter, and it wasn't undoing my block, but a block made by an independent admin who reviewed the initial block made by myself.

With all of this in mind and also taking into account the email/letter that you sent to Fae in which you essentially blackmailed him (i.e. don't do this, or we will do that) and also recalling your posts to Wikimedia-l in which you are continuing in your attempt to silence Fae and to isolate him from our communities, you are being placed on notice that any future behaviour like this from yourself towards Fae will see further action being taken. To make things simple, don't use your tools on this project again as it relates to Fae because the level of involvement and hostility is simply too high for you to credibly claim that you are not involved, and sincerely, 'common sense' will open a wholly different can of worms for you.

Thank you for reading, no comment required. russavia (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Russavia, I will not be responding to these allegations as in order to do so I would need to engage with your narrative, which is of course exactly what you want. Anyone interested in what you have to say can look into the history themselves. I would just say that the charges set out in your dramatic narrative depend critically on several statements that you have expressed as 'fact' even though they are flat-out untrue. They include "your campaign", "your public calls to silence Fae, "you sent an email to Fae in which you suggested he seek psychiatric help", "... you essentially blackmailed him", "you are continuing in your attempt to silence Fae", and "pushing for a desysop of myself". I understand your tactic of making pre-emptive strikes against others, such as this one, and then using those strikes later to argue that an editor or admin has permanently disqualified themselves from taking action on bad behaviour due what you then try to re-define as 'involvement' and 'conflict'. Your threat is noted, but let me make it clear: I will continue to do my best for the community here and to comply with policy without fear or favour, and that includes speaking out and where needed taking action against bad behaviour no matter how much bluster and drama-making there may be. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Michael, you state that things are un-true. Do you remember the email which you sent to Fae on 17 May 2014, in which you told him to talk to a medical professional and that one's mental and physical health is important. Don't come the raw prawn with me, and try to tell me that you meant that he should see a podiatrist. Under the circumstances, and with knowledge of the obvious game you were playing, it is very clear what you were saying.
Yes, this could have been raised at the time of it occurring back in May, however, it wasn't done so not to fall into playing what was a very petty, and unbecoming of your position, game on your part. It was also not raised then so not give those harassing Fae a win by drawing attention to everything; you wilfully chose to try and do that.
This is very clearly an attempt to silence Fae, disproving your un-truth comment once again. You are free in future to comment on Fae, as you see fit, but you most certainly are not free to use the tools on issues relating to him, and the further action comment isn't a threat, but a clear promise. If anything, you and Fae should steer clear of each other; it's advice I've given to Fae, and it's advice I'm giving to you too.
Again, no comment required. russavia (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Making a legal threat Russavia? ("you are being placed on notice that any future behaviour like this from yourself towards Fae will see further action being taken"")
You could've emailed this to Michael. oh but wait, you love to cause drama and protect your friend Fae. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WMUK's MacMini[edit]

Can you please review User_talk:Fæ#Advice_and_suggestion and offer your opinion on whether WMUK would be amenable to writing off the MacMini (or selling it to Fae for a quid) in return for him unsubscribing from WMUK mailing lists and refraining from commenting on WMUK from WMF hosted sites and mailing lists for a period of 12 months. Fae's work on Commons needs to continue, and him being in permanent possession of that MacMini will allow for that. We all know that it is being put to good use, and will continue to be put to good use in the future. By the end of that 12 months the actual value of that MacMini will be negligible anyway (one quid payable then), we get good value from Fae's work here on Commons, and WMUK can set whatever course it wants for itself without having to deal with Fae.

If he breaks the agreement (i.e. comments about WMUK on WMF projects/mailing lists), he would be required to return. Conversely, I would also expect that WMUK employees and trustees, etc also refrain from discussion/comments on Fae on WMF hosted sites/mailing lists, and the agreement would voided (with Fae keeping the MacMini) if that occurs. I would also expect that placing WMUK templates on uploads are not expected.

This is a pretty simple solution to what I am seeing is a problem on both sides of the equation, and will ensure that Commons continues to benefit from Fae staying in possession of the MacMini. A simple gentleman's agreement would suffice here I would imagine. Are you, as head honcho trustee at WMUK, amenable to that? Reply here, and not on Fae's talk page. russavia (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice to Fae. Your interest in the workings of a chapter half a world away from where you live is gratifying, but I am not sure why you have posted this here on my Commons page. I'm sure that Fae and the chapter are quite easily able to discuss chapter matters between themselves by direct email. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so much worried about the workings of the WMUK, as I am in the continuity of the ability of a productive editor to contribute to Commons by doing what they do best. I think WMUK would be well advised to stay clear of Fae, and likewise Fae should stay clear of WMUK. It is evident that both sides harbour deep animosity towards each other. I believe in openness and transparency, and because the very public shitfight between WMUK and Fae has the potential to affect Commons, why not have the conversation in public?
I think what I have proposed is a pretty simple solution to what could become a problem in the future. This is in no small part due to the fact that with Fae's exclusion from WMUK, he is unable to apply for grants and is unable to use WMUK equipment; and WMUK could ask for the MacMini back at any stage and for any reason. I am willing to be corrected on this if it is incorrect; it's simply my understanding of what I have read in WMUK materials.
If WMUK isn't amenable to my suggestion then will you publicly state what WMUK's intention is as it relates to the WMUK MacMini that Fae is utilising to contribute tens of thousands of images to Commons with. This is especially important because I am in the midst of getting hundreds of permissions for Commons, which will see hundreds of thousands more aviation images for Commons, and I need to know what is happening, or bound to happen in the future; I don't have the technical expertise and means to bulk upload, Fae does; this will also hold true for other projects Fae is working on as well for the benefit of Commons. If WMUK isn't amenable, then perhaps a public guarantee access to the MacMini won't be revoked so long as it being used to the benefit of Commons will go some way to allaying concerns that I, and others, hold. russavia (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Michael, my interest in having this discussion publicly is partly driven by Chris Keating's comment on Wikimedia-l where he linked to the report written by yourself on WMUK's governance and included the quote:
"“For the stage that Wikimedia is in its life cycle it compares well with similar UK charities. Its transparency about its procedures is a beacon of best practice, and its conflicts of interest procedures are robust and well-tested”"
On the issue that brought me, whilst I am not a member of WMUK (but may apply in future), I am a stakeholder in this project, and the issue directly affects my own activities as they relate to Commons. Hence why I think it might be a good idea to have this discussion publicly, and civilly as it is thus far. Thanking you, russavia (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Why does everything have to be done in private, why has openness and accountability disappeared ? Fae, to make the hundreds of thousands of useful contributions needs support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and because of the unique (and completely broken) way WMF works, he needs the support of his local chapter, but of course he can't have it, because he and the people currently running the local chapter have fallen out in an embarrassing game of one-upmanship, the same people have in turn fallen out with WMF as far as I can ascertain (I've still not received a satisfactory, plain English explanation about why there's no ability to collect Gift Aid). It's just a demoralising mess of internal and external politics, blundering incompetence, staggering arrogance and pigheadedness by all involved - you, Fae, Sue Gardner and others.
The people who suffer, apart from all the key players in this ongoing soap opera, are the users, who could be deprived of high quality free content if Fae has the MacMini forfeited, or he needs financial support for further IT equipment or services to continue, which he is unable to obtain from WMUK.
Everytime I look at WMUK, all I see is a pitiful state of affairs.
I like to consider myself reasonably impartial in all of this - I'm not a member of WMUK, don't intend to join, don't wish to pursue a role within the charity and have never requested funds. I sit up here, in North Scotland, and look at the WMUK operation in London the same way people in Scotland view Westminster, and we know how strongly they made their feelings felt on 18 September. Put simply, the organisation you run is broken and it needs to be repaired.
Nick (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I wasn't aware that you live in Scotland, though I see that I could have guessed from your user page... I'd like to extend a warm welcome and invite you to engage with your local chapter to see for yourself whether those of us who are helping the chapter do some excellent open knowledge work are quite as reprehensible as you suggest. You will find that we do try to stay more focused on our charitable mission than engaging in too much non-productive public wikidrama.
Did you know, for example, that we have been working for almost 18 months with a Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland, that one of our trustees (Gill Hamilton) is Digital Access Manager at that same organisation, that there are regular independent Scottish meetups in Edinburgh and Glasgow at which you might well meet our volunteers and members, that top of our list of priorities at the moment is widening our volunteer base and improving our engagement with volunteers, that last weekend we held we held the first of a planned series of volunteer strategy gatherings to which members were offered travelling expenses, and that three of your compatriots made the journey to Birmingham to join us?
You've indicated you consider yourself reasonably impartial: please come and help us do better. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, Fae has now commented on my suggestion, and he is down with it. What is WMUK's official line on this suggestion? There's no rush, obviously a little time will be required for you to put it to the Board for discussion. Will you put this suggestion to the Board for a gentleman's agreement on this? russavia (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, I have been alerted to this and I have to say it is a good decision on the part of WMUK in that it allows Fae to keep his distance from WMUK, and WMUK from Fae. We all have no doubt that the gifted MacMini will be put to good use by Fae for the betterment of this entire project. Thanks, russavia (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #136[edit]

New level {{User PH-4}}[edit]

Hi ; new level 4 for you ?--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. Not sure what the community's view on that is. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #137[edit]