User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2014

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Protection requests

Hi Michael, can you help protect my user page and User:Arctic Kangaroo/ccbysa3.0? Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't do that I'm afraid, as it's a fundamental feature of Commons (and Wikipedia) that pages are protected only where there is a specific and active need to do so. Typically, protection of a user page only happens where a page is under active attack by vandals. You may find it a bit odd (and perhaps worrying) that anyone could change your pages, but in practice that's not an issue as vandalism tends to get reverted pretty quickly, and apart from formal stuff (eg correction or updating of categories) there is a convention that people don't mess with the user pages of other editors. So, so don't worry. Nobody is going to sneakily change your licence terms to something you don't approve of, and if they did it would be an easy matter for you, me, or someone else to revert the changes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Michael, sorry to trouble you, but could you change both editing and moving protections to "Allow only autoconfirmed users"? I have certain things to edit or add, and may have things to change in future too. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble once again. PS. Thanks for all your guidiance so far. I will do my best to become a good Commoner and gel in with the community. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You might like to read the policy on this, which you will find at Commons:Protection policy. Normally, protection and semi-protection can be justified only where there is repeated IP vandalism, which I don't think has been happening to your pages. I don't quite understand your point "I have certain things to edit or add", as you of course have freedom to make any changes you need to on your user page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh...Rilike has fully protect the page. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You cannot edit licensing templates like you desire. If you do this, there is no record of change on the individual file description page which means difficulties if not even a risk for our re-users. Either it remains fully protected as licensing template (where vandalism would have fatal consequences like improper attribution), or has no protection at all and it should not be used to transclude license tags, only additional information. And I am even able to cite a policy here: Indefinite full protection may also be used for pages which should not be modified for copyright or legal reasons COM:P#Full protection. -- Rillke(q?) 18:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm sure I remember that in 2008 or 2009 embedded licensing templates were deprecated for that very reason, but they have obviously come back. Probably nobody got round to writing a rule on it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Michael, if you could start an RfC about transcluding license tags, machine-readable attribution in general (with a pointer to the upcoming Wikidata for media info), that would be much appreciated from my side. I am just too short on time and reading and discussing piles of English text is always quite time consuming. -- Rillke(q?) 23:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@Rillke: Then perhaps we just unprotect it fully? If someone does vandalise it repeatedly then we see how. Anyway I see that Jee's templates have not been vandalised so far. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems User:Arctic Kangaroo/ccbysa3.0 was protected by Rillke on reading his request here. Jee 15:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you seem to be inactive occasionally. If for a while any question or request remain unanswered during those time, including by talk page stalker, can you recommend another good admin I can turn to for help? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I sometimes try to do things in real life, too :) but I check in here most days. If you need general advice, or people start being rude to you, your best bet if I'm not around would be to talk to Jee. Or you could try emailing me if there is real urgency. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

New help request in Help! section above. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You're doing some things there which are not totally trivial, and as you've based them on Jee's layouts I think he would probably be the best person to help you with those errors. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi Michael. I just noticed this after doing the two semi-protections for this user earlier which were requested on my talk. I figured it might make him a bit more comfortable, seeing that he might be a target for trolling after past issues. If you disagree, please don't hesitate to change or remove my protections. INeverCry 17:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. It's a discretionary matter, and I have no reason to question your judgement. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Tasks available

Hi Michael, could you provide me a list, as complete as possible, of tasks available for us to do on Commons? I have no idea how many things we can do. Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you are a butterfly researcher/enthusiast; so hope you can work on Category:Insects of Singapore and Category:Flora of Singapore. I don't know whether you are planning to upload a lot of pictures. If so, you can develop profiles like User:Jkadavoor/Lepidoptera, User:Jkadavoor/Odonata, User:Jkadavoor/Arthropoda, User:Jkadavoor/Plants, etc. which will be very useful for researchers and re-users. Remember, it is not allowed (if I know well) to include third party works in User galleries as in Flickr. You may contact people like Notafly for subject specific advice. Jee 16:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
And you should read this if not so far. Jee 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Old Light, Lundy, June 2011.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Old Light, Lundy, June 2011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.


I picked this page indirectly through Commons:Bureaucrats. I need pressing help. Managing my late issue through ordinary-line Admins has surprisingly proved itself pointless and nil-result, in a very strange way, during a month now. I see no reason for it, and you most likely won't find a reason either, if you know how hardworker I am on wiki. I'm facing a very burdening and irregularly-unreasonable issue concerning some of my uploads, now been on with it during a whole month, battling, following every step that was likely to get things as desired and then it's only started snowballing in the rather unwanted way. Basically, some user from an unknown reason locked horns with me in a creative way: S/He renamed in one night 17(!) of my more-recent uploaded mediae (16 photographs and 1 internal-use screenshot), abusing the cause and reason of COM:RENAME and, more importantly, in contrast with my filename coherence. Reserving my filenames (all were valid) is very meaningful for me. By looking back the various logs starting on 22 December you'll see I followed every step that I could imagine to be helpful. Then it all began quaking - I texted a few admins, with the elementary, obvious request to restore the previous names of the images as I couldn't do it self due to the automatically-generated redirects that prevented the reuse of the exact name for each of the files. One after the other I messaged them with the simple request, all somehow have lost their admin aptitude or were inactive. The last one however was a helper and directed me to the COM:ANU zone, where s/he suggested things would work for me. I posted my request there (I'll appreciate you reading my comments through the thread). But, abnormally, this hasn't been helped. My next stage was, after 10 days, coming to understanding I'll have to throw away my original names in many of those images, although the names were clearly valid, and I unwillingly renamed them without any help, so that they could still be on offer at Commons. I'm now happy with them. However, five of the images can't have other versions of their names, but must retain their authorship names, since these names are indisputably-valid and are my mandatory compelling valid choice as their contributor. Thus, three weeks after initiating the COM:ANU topic, when I saw that these five weren't restored by any sysop (and I couldn't restore them myself still due to the redirects) I processed their deletion. The deletion commands were disrupted and finally annulled abruptly, by another user, which attracted my new AN note --- which, instead of naturally leading to putting that user in their place and satisfying my requests, led to sanctioning me(!) by revoking my self-use mover tool. In addition, yet more files contributed by me have been in the meantime 'infected' by the joyous rename sickness. I have kept managing this ongoing unusual crisis as moderate as I professionally do and now, that it seems I'm not being listened to anymore, I'm here for your help in it: Please comply with this request, this is very meaningful for me and is substantially hard and slowing down my voluntary, usually prolific job to an extent that it might lead to a loss of the stable 4-years confidence in our institution. Please, restore Swedish Hostel.jpg, Mukta.jpg, Shoeshine.jpg, Savanna.jpg and Akko.jpg (or delete them), and reinstate my mover tool. Thank you very much in advance. Orrlingtalk 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Orrling, I'm replying quickly as you indicated that your request is 'pressing'. The situation is clearly quite complex and I am afraid that I will definitely not be able to devote the time needed to do it justice this week. I may be a little less busy by around the middle of next week, and if you still have outstanding issues at that time you could try pinging me again. Otherwise, you may be able to get a faster response by trying someone else. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I will probably have exactly the same outstanding issue next week too, as it seems, so of course I'll wait for whenever you're more free, and ping for you then, hoping it won't become yet more complex by then.. thanks a lot for this reply. Orrlingtalk 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship

Per your comment at Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship I would be interested to know why you said what you did, making the issue personal. I'd also be interested to know how you would approach the situation of a returning inactive administrator, whether you would make the distinction between someone you know and someone you don't. What would you do with a user who had added the retired template to their page, and why you think there's a different between actively retiring and becoming inactive. Nick (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

+1 russavia (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nick, thanks for the questions. To avoid splitting the discussion too much I have replied on Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Account banned due to similarity

I helped out at an editathon for women in Sweden on 28 november, especially the user Simplicitas. I instructed her on general editing, including how to upload a picture. To our great annoyance, we were not able to use her account to login at Commons since it was deemed "too similar" to a different account (an ASCII-rendering of "Simplicitas" which I can't seem to find now). She has recently tried to use a different account (the user name spelled backwards) and this time got this message:

<The user name "SATICILPMIS" has been banned from creation as it matches one or more blacklisted character strings.>

Could you help us out here? It seems unreasonable that she's being blocked from using an established account due to the mere similarity.

Peter Isotalo 11:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm very sorry but this is not really my field and I'm not likely to have time to dig into the problem at least until the new year. You might be better off seeing if someone else is able to help more quickly than that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try someone else. Merry X-Mas!
Peter Isotalo 13:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Still up for helping out on this? I didn't manage to get much further over the holidays. I had a brief discussion about it at the the noticeboard.
I'm going on vacation now, so I won't be active for two weeks or so. Do you think you look into this? I've notified Simplicitas over at Swedish Wikipedia about this, so she knows about this thread.
Peter Isotalo 02:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Please ask her to send me an e-Mail (at sv:). I need the e-Mail address for filling it in into the account-creation-form. A random password will then be sent to her for her newly created Commons account. I don't know whether a crat will be then able to move the newly created account SATICILPMIS to Simplicitas, but Micheal or EugeneZelenko may know this. Although, I am not sure, EugeneZelenko might be even able to create Simplicitas directly. -- Rillke(q?) 02:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Peter, this does not work because she has already created sv:User:SATICILPMIS so the SUL name is reserved and I cannot create the account for her due to this reason. She can simply create an account here with a name that works (i.e. is not blacklisted, is not similar to another name and does not exists globally) and afterwards go to Commons:Changing username/Current requests pointing to this story here. I regret the inconvenience. -- Rillke(q?) 20:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I left a message at her talkpage the other day, but she hasn't replied yet. From her replies in general, it seems that the issue was actually solved, though I'm not sure how... I'll get back to you when I hear from her.
Peter Isotalo 23:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Things seem to be order now.[1] Thanks for your help.
Peter Isotalo 16:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again

-- *ping!*. :) Hope you are well, and that you haven't forgotten (me). I of course haven't and this large issue that's repressing me is still with no change since last week when I frozen it aside to await the higher-level hand that's appeared to be needed after I had exhausted all other channels (+my confidence in Admin effect, hopefully temporarily). Hope your time has become more spacy. Otherwise it can wait. Please tell me if I should email you (in case you prefer it done that way). The queuing matter hasn't in itself become more complex or worsened in that while but it's heavily affecting/breaching still as very large ethical area (due to its large scope of admins with "coincidentally" uniformed approach) and my contribution(s) and will to carry on them. Once you've read the core links please view also 1, 2, 3, +this reply.Many additional links for some more possibly helpful connections relevant to the issue can come at any time. Many thanx. Orrlingtalk 19:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again @Orrling:. I am really sorry for having been so unresponsive, but some of the work I am doing in RL is taking up all my time at the moment and is leaving me with virtually no time for Commons. This is not a good state to be in, not least as it means I still am not able follow up my promise to you to look into the query you raised. It is probably best if I don't try to define a time when I will be free again, as experience tells me that with the best will in the world that may not happen when I expect. In the circumstances I really think it would be best for you to seek advice on this elsewhere, perhaps from one of the other crats. Sorry again. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, :/ but wouldn't you think it's rather better that I do wait without deadline approach? There's not too many crats :/ . I'm really scared about the fragil status that this issue is putting my contributed files in, present and future ones alike; and can't see myself restarting the query and arguing myself again and again with this absurdly-elementary case of proven injustice by dragging more and more innocent workers into the circle. If you tell me that I can wait for you to get more time this is perfectly ok but if the message here is actually an advise that I once again carry the load away to "try someone else" I suppose this means I should after this two-months burden conclude the issue unhelped and infer what I infer from this. Therefore please tell me if I wait for you with this (and I'll be as patient as it takes) or you don't see yourself fixing it anytime soon. I might just mention that for what it worth the assistance sought is a five-minute job - of restoring the names of six files to their original status or deleting them, and reinstating my long-serving filemover right which was revoked as part of the same war against me that had involved renaming the files by them in the firstplace. Cheers. Orrlingtalk 12:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Usurpation request at

Hi Michael! I need your magic powers in uk.wikimedia.

Can you usurp Alan@ukwikimedia? I'm completing my SUL account.

Thanks in advance, Alan (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. The inactive user User:Alan on that wiki has been renamed User:Alan (old), so you should now be able to register User:Alan. Note, though, that the WMUK wiki is not currently SUL-linked to the Wikimedia wikis, so the new name will actually amount to a separate new login. I understand that the Foundation needs to fix a MediaWiki bug before full SUL can be enabled on our wiki. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Located the problem.
SUL conflict is for old wiki (, not for See Special:CentralAuth/Alan.
Thank you very much for your help, account created on new wiki. --Alan (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Good. All OK, then? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
If you dont mind, usurp please username in the old wiki, only for it will included in the SUL account (purely aesthetic Face-smile.svg). Cheers, --Alan (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for rollback

Hi Michael, is it possible for you to grant me rollback? It would be a great help in my anti-vandalism work, especially since Commons does not have Twinkle. Also, do you have any feedback on my work here so far, or suggestions for some places/tasks I can participate in Commons? Thanks. PS. I also asked INeverCry a few hours ago, no response yet. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Best to go though COM:RFR. Bidgee (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi AK. Not much time at the moment, I am afraid. Bidgee's response sounds the right one to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)-- 08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor review?

Hi Michael, is there such thing as editor review in Commons, like those at enwiki? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, no, but it could be done privately. Have you thought of asking Jee whether that's something he could do? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Arctic Kangaroo/ccbysa3.0

Hi Michael, can you help me delete this template? It's no longer in use as I created a new one. Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, ✓ Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 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 (2013) 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. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Re message on your page that you might have missed

Hello. You still haven't deleted/restored the items I listed here a while ago nor restored my filemover feature, and you haven't responded to my now eight-days old reply to your own message in an above thread, on the other hand. I guess you may want to now comment with what can this way or another be understood as an answer to that basic, important question or just simply engage in quickly fulfilling the task of deleting my 5 nominated uploads and reinstating my mover right, which might be even quicker and will make me incredibly happy. Orrlingtalk 10:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No chance for it considering one crat and so many admins already rejected your proposal. :) Jee 10:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Orrling, when you first asked me I had understood that this might be some technical thing I could quickly help you out with using the move tool. Then I thought there might have been a simple misunderstanding that could use some additional eyes, especially as you mentioned that "the assistance sought involves a five-minute job". But in fact I find that there has been a huge amount of discussion on these issues already, and that the problem - as you see it - is that you have not been able to obtain community consensus for your preferred solution. But that I am afraid is just the way Commons works, and it is simply not possible for me or any other 'crat to wade in with my own view and to override consensus. Some of the editors who have already contributed to the discussion are crats and respected admins in their own right, and it seems to me that the system is working well. I am sorry that I do not feel able to get involved in this, and I recommend that you accept the consensus and work with it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the difference between a legitimate, reasoned, impartial Wiki-spirit conclusion which is obviously acceptable and the one that emerged in the specific reported case: that one is exceptional in the way it is the stunning opposite of any coherent, understandable, rational tradition here. Defending a given conclusion just because I've so far failed to change it, without understanding what it says, is an implausible irony, but you obviously did not mean it. I'm here for a reason. In fact, the prominent phenomenon in those "discussions" over there was these administrators utilized the notion of "the way Commons works" with the pure intention of letting me down for any price regardless the matter and how unreliable they come across trying to pretend justifying not letting me get the filenames back no matter how important that is to me. The absurdity is the existence of a discussion, since I was (and am) pursuing a most basic, obvious objective, that is by logic not controversial and not open to any controversy. I was definitely not seeking 'consensus', simply as my cause, and the whole issue, have nothing that comes in need of community's consensus or discussion, the nature of my mayhem is just restoring a valid file name from an invalid one – this "consensus" you're mentioning is exactly what blinds you now (and blinded others too, who were honest enough to admit their mistake), the bulk of admins made it that way because they knew you (or anyone) wouldn't have the time to traverse the case's complexity, and I'm here because I believe you possibly can look through-and-under it and view beyond merely counting signatures. You are of course correct if you try to say that there's been an overwhelming-like trend of voices advocating the abstention from remedying the corrupt files but this is why I'm addressing you, pointing essentially at the fact that that "consensus" was a consequence of partiality, that you shouldn't allow, it was meant to put me in distress and has rather nothing with either our policies or the benefit of the project, in any comparable way. My simple request is that you take a more serious look through, as soon as you can have the time, having access to the links to the major threads. I was allured by one of the admins to believe that once I'd post that matter at the ANU (–when it still was a tiny no-brainer) it would be fixed! Having complied with that, her/his fellow-admins used it to dissolve the simple procedural request and kill it, though they showed disagreement with the renamer's pattern! Later followed my five deletion requests. It appears that one same vandal has dismantled them. I could of course roll-back him/er, to get the five deleted and end this issue but since it could have been seen as undoing administrative action, I refrained from it, and now all I ask is that you delete them.. this is not overridng any concensus. This is my uploader's request. And finally, then again as absurdly, my patient and accountable ways were answered by having my mover tool abolished by them. Please don't fail to reinstate it; I'm 100% sure you understand that this was going over the top for just mocking Commons. Understand that unwanted and unjust things just have 'accumulated' in a pile that grew higher and higher from the moment that I first tried to peacefully retain my filenames. Were I you I couldn't come saying "that's what the admins want". Please take the time to read through, you can email me in privacy with further questions if you need (my-name-at-live-dot-com) I'll answer everything, but this current status can't remain, can't reasonably be worked with. I'm the author and donor of these 16 files, and have compromised myself on about 10 of them, while the others remaining, can't possibly be authorized with names other than the correct ones. These files are damaged! Kindly read some threads, at your pace and time, and try to answer to yourself if what you see is any reasonable. Orrlingtalk 19:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the most important concerns when deciding on filenames is how useful they will be to others. The preference of the uploader is relevant, of course, but no uploader has a veto on naming conventions (that is a condition of the licence under which the image was provided), and many uploaders - myself included - do find that their images have been renamed without asking for that very reason. In your case, I'm afraid that a preference for your own personal naming convention, for consistency with other images you may have taken, cannot take precedence over the systems on Commons which are designed to foster the greatest possible ease of re-use of free content by others. You may be under a misapprehension, as your use of language such as 'legitimate, reasoned, impartial', 'obviously acceptable', 'not controversial and not open to any controversy', 'can't possibly be authorized with names other than the correct ones', and 'These files are damaged!' suggest that you are hoping for and indeed demanding a level of personal control over filenames which no-one here has, and which would be impossible for anyone to get as that would be incompatible with the legal requirements of any of our free licences. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeking a veto on naming conventions, and the correct general arguments you're making are of no relevance for our matter because Shoeshine.jpg, Mukta.jpg, Swedish Hostel.jpg, Akko.jpg and Savanna.jpg are quite clearly the correct names each for its associated image's content,, or are you suggesting any of them somehow falls within an area of inaccuracy, unusability or in contrast with naming conventions? Of course you aren't. You're just being mentioning general points while ignoring this one situation is very exceptional given the incomparable circumstances of, primarily, the December-22 insane rage of blind rioting renaming session that was directed at my contributions rather than at actually deficient filenames on Commons, with the sake of giving me an indirect hostile message/'lesson', that you can't allow. You know my scope of work as both a categorist and uploader, my commitment, my voluntary nature embodied in so many hours of improving this place and its usefulness. While I'm not expecting any grants of outstanding recognition I am expecting that you vigorously ban incivil and vain-yet-sophisticated transgressions against me and enable reversing the results of such, acknowledging the injustice of pushing me under in such a way. Attempting to portray the issue like I'm asking for unusual conditions is a complete inversion of the reality. Indeed, I want to eventually retain my equal control over my indisputably-valid filenames, this is so basic, and this is the point I don't want you to be losing by spokesmanning formal requirements while I'm showing you that specifically these renames had nil reason and are rejectable and dumb. I'm obviously not in any dispute over licenses, but could you assert - after you've seen the logs of the events - that these licenses require and allow using one's mover tool to mess out other editors' tranquil and problemless files? And in which way does our license or any rule prohibit reversing an inappropriate, evidently controversial rename to regain the original stable name, upon request by the uploader? Could you look at it and ask yourself in which way the "greatest possible ease of re-use" is possibly achieved by those distinct renames, and how exactly licenses and naming-conventions encourage these meaningless renamings? I pre-credit you for seeing the facts and finding the absurdity. Regardless: Please grant back my mover right, as already asked. Thanks a lot. Orrlingtalk 14:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry but I am not prepared to intervene in the way you request. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me but what are you saying? Are you saying you will not reinstate the mover right for my usage and will not check the administrative problem presented above? My mover tool is still not showing to be active as it has been. Please reinstate it fully, thanx Orrlingtalk 13:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Or are you implying there's any other way you're prepared to intervene in that ? The specific way to accomplish the objective does not matter to me... I think you've read the progression I've described and my argumentations and are aware that the current status isn't reasonable Orrlingtalk 16:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Orrling, I think you are pushing too hard here. Having now read the discussions, I am not willing to intervene in the way you request. To be clear, I am not willing to reinstate your filemover bit, nor am I willing to change the filenames myself. I should be grateful if you could leave this be, now, and move on to other things. There is really no point in your continuing to press me. Sometimes you have to accept that you cannot get your own way and that others have differing views. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Definitely I'm not pressing you, it wasn't my intention, I resorted to you seeing a sort of conspiratory denial of my old editor's rights off-order and off-reason here by Admins; I'm acting not to "get my own way" but to casually and merely get the filemover feature reinstated and, apart and regardless, to get five of my files (listed above) deleted or restored as per my elaborate reasonings, and I honestly fail to so far find where and when you stated any reason for actually not performing (or asking any admin to perform) the required corrective assignments really. That means, other than «showing me that I can't get those things», respectfully will you also care to state the reason for strangely declining them, so specific as you can be? Orrlingtalk 18:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
If you don't have a reason for this but prefer to not comply with my request still in order to harmonize with admin's rule, would you maybe open it for discussion among the admins to draw views and build up a viable and transparent reason? The acts that I'm here to reverse are namely very inconsistent with Commons. I think the message to me by suggesting they can't be reviewed is problematic. Needless to say that revoking my move feature for no good reason is a problematic message and that absent of such a critical tool which was like a third hand for me I will not be able to contribute files, so I don't quite understand the stance about it from you. I was untill recently one of the project's filemovers. Have you observed and studied the circumstances in which this helpful tool was confiscated from me? Would you please somehow process it backwards even indirectly, by some other functionary you trust? Orrlingtalk 19:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no. You really need to leave this now and move on to other things. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? Things need to be for a reason. What is the reason for not reinstating the mover right? This appears to be ignoring what I've presented and apparently aims at leaving me without the filemover function which was inherent of my contribution activity, without a reason. Just say the reason for the confiscation of the tool and the refusal to engage in the inquiry that will clarify the irregular set of actions I reported. When I hear it I might understand why I'm wrong and need to leave it. Orrlingtalk 17:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haukelitunellen ved Dyrskar.jpg

Hi Michael, I'm not sure if you have any opinions on this, or any advice for me...Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification please...

Yesterday User:Arctic Kangaroo left an apology, of sorts on my talk page, that included the surprising information that their indefinite block had been lifted. I spent some time stepping through the extensive discussion that preceded the lifting of this block, without seeing a reason why the block should be lifted.

It was my understanding that the block was imposed because AK convinced people he was a minor, about 15 years old, and that, therefore, they had not been legally competent to release his intellectual property rights under a creative commons or any other license. Since he is still a minor, I was confused as to why this reason for blocking his contributions shouldn't continue to hold until he reaches the age of majority.

AK referred to the deletions of his earlier uploads as "courtesy deletion". AK had requested courtesy deletion of File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg, File:Plastingia naga (Chequered Lancer), 3 March 2012, Singapore.jpg, File:Cape Barren Goose, June 2012, Kangaroo Island, Australia.jpg, File:Noisy Miner, June 2012 @ Mornington Peninsula, Australia.jpg, File:House Sparrow - female, June 2012, Great Ocean Road, Victoria, Australia.jpg, File:Collared Kingfisher, 9 June 2013, Singapore.jpg, File:Pacific Gull, June 2012, Kangaroo Island, Australia.jpg, and the consensus of the community at those discussions was to reject those requests. While the images were eventually deleted, so far as I am concerned, the keep on the first discussion, and the speedy keeps on the subsequent discussions, establish that those were not what we mean by "courtesy deletions".

The deletion log entries for those images all pointed to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 43#missing legal competence by age? I interpreted that as signifying that the images were deleted by someone who accepted the argument that AK was a minor, and had not been legally competent to give away intellectual property rights under a CC license.

I voiced my concern at User talk:Arctic Kangaroo here,

User:Colin followed up with advice to AK that I was harrassing them, and that they should ignore me. Colin's advice to me included "...if you carry on with this harassment then I shall seek admin intervention against you."

I do not agree that I have harassed AK, either last summer or yesterday.

If AK was blocked because he was a minor, and thus couldn't legally give away the IP rights required to put a free license on an image, I am curious as to how he came to be unblocked, while he is still a minor.

Some of your comments seem to assure AK that no one would be likely to request undeletion of his earlier images. Did you mean to offer that assurance? If you did, can I ask why you offered that assurance?

Have we had good faith contributors in the past, who have made large, positive contributions, in spite of being below the age of majority? I am sure we have. How many? Who knows. My advice to any good faith contributor who has managed to make positive contributions to a WMF project, while being below the age of majority, without triggering any concerns as to their maturity? I would advise them to keep on doing their best to be civil, reasonable, responsible, and to keep their age to themselves. I have no problem treating minors as my equal, when they can behave just as civilly, reasonably and responsibly as any civil, reasonable, responsible adult.

During his appeals to be unblocked AK made various comments that he thinks he retains IP rights to the deleted images that he cannot, in fact, claw back. For instance in this comment AK wrote:

  • "This does not mean I allow my deleted files to be used in any way..."
  • "Please also note that I rather blocked forever than have my images restored..."

In this comment AK wrote:

  • "I'm not trying to stir up any trouble here, but since those images were blurly put under free licence, all would assume "All rights reserved" now. Nobody, even if you have a copy of the image, is to do anything with or use them."

In this comment AK wrote:

"What I was earlier trying to say is that since the Commons and Wikipedia community are aware of everything, then they are not to use or do anything with the images that are otherwise allowable under the CC licence - play dumb and think it's All Rights Reserved. As for third parties (my definition of them is they are not on Wikipedia or Commons at the time of the incident), it's fine only if they got the image while it's still on Commons, but not if a Wikipedian or Commoner with a copy passes it to them. This are my main worries; I know Commons will not host those images anymore without my approval."

So, clarification first please -- are you supporting AK's assertion that those deletions were courtesy deletions? If you are supporting that assertion perhaps you could explain why that interpretation should be accepted, rather than that they were deleted because he was a minor who lacked the authority to release IP rights on his own image? If you accept the premise he lacks the authority to release IP rights on his own image could you explain how you came to support unblocking him?

If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept he has the legal authority to release IP rights on his own images, could you please explain to AK that this implies his original releases on his original files was valid, and there is no policy based argument against restoring them?

Could you please explain to AK that the wording of the CC license is specifically transferable, and that anyone who downloaded copies of those seven images, is entitled to re-use them, forever, under the terms of the initial CC license, and that if they uploaded those images somewhere, making sure to honor his initial license, anyone who saw that image would be entitled to download it, and re-use it elsewhere, provided they too honored his initial license?

During those initial discussions, last summer, I pointed out how the User:Essjay and User:Qworty incidents expose how vulnerable WMF projects are to what hackers call "social engineering". Qworty, an embittered minor novelists, abused the wikipedia for over five years to snipe at and try to destroy the reputations of his literary rivals. He would have got away with it even longer, except that a mainstream journalist figured out his long and very damaging charade. What this has to do with AK is that although he has claimed he deserves special consideration, because he is a minor, he has taken no steps to confirm he is a minor. Of course the privacy of minors should be protected -- but the protection to privacy we offer everyone else, through the OTRS system should be sufficient.

In my opinion, even if you had privately corresponded with AK, and thought there was sufficient confirmation of his age in that private correspondence, I suggest it still should have been essential for you to log that confirmation on an OTRS ticket. If no OTRS ticket has been opened to confirm AK is a minor, could you initiate one now? If he won't cooperate in this confirmation, may I suggest you stop offering any extra accommodation based on the idea he is a minor? If it seems incredible to you that an adult would engage in a long masquerade as a minor I need only point you to Qworty, whose cruel and disruptive masquerade lasted over half a decade. Geo Swan (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The point you seem to be missing is regardless of AK's age if he uploaded images and then realized what he was licensing away was not his intent he certainly could have had them deleted via courtesy deletion. This is what should have happened in the first place. Several senior members of the WMF and even Mr Wales himself has said we should not be in the business of resting works away from people who have a honest change of heart.
Your assertion that a minor who indeed licenses his own works could not have those licenses quashed by a court seems countered by precedence for other similar issues regarding contracts. I would suggest you get an opinion from CC on whether your assertion his works should still be held to a CC license before dragging us all through this crap again. Even if they are still subject to a CC license Commons has decided we will no longer distribute them. An UD request would be disproportionally disruptive to the value of those images. Surely little in the way of policy or precedent is likely to be set.
If you have other reasons for your frustration with AK then address them in an open way through the appropriate channels and perhaps this is the first correct step in that process. However, it is my belief AK is well on the road to being a highly productive member of Commons. We all make mistakes and with good guidance we all get past them... AK included. You should too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You might want to save yourself the effort. I am not getting into a debate with you and I am not interested in anything else you have to say on the matter. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Geo, you seem to be cross that you were away from Commons for a while and that when you came back things had moved on. The arguments you make above are outdated now, and AK has become a valuable contributor to the project as many of us had hoped and expected he could be from the start. I do not consider that it would be contructive to go back over repetitions of viewpoints you expressed long ago. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Coventry meetup

What are your plans for travelling to the Coventry meetup? I ask as I'll be coming from London and so it might make sense to coordinate timings, especially if you're planning on doing something other than walking from the station to the pub. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I was planning to check out train times, then walk from the station to the pub :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear MichaelMaggs/Archive,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Coloured Pensils image use

Hello Michael, I have a question regarding permission to use your Coloured Pensils Image. Could you please email me at THnak you! With Kinds regards, Jennifer Kerwin

Hi Jennifer. Feel free to post your question here, is it's non-confidential. Otherwise, you can contact me by email via the "email this user" link in the toolbar on the left (account required). Hope that helps. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism is not appreciated

العربية | বাংলা | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | Tok Pisin | 中文(简体)‎ | +/−

float You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits, as you did here, you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.

russavia (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have to template you Michael, but your doing what you did on my user page makes you look like a n00b, so a good templating like you are a n00b is well deserved. As I said, grow up. russavia (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Background --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Russavia, I would've thought that you'd know better, making uncivil remarks and using silly template warning is something that shouldn't be coming from someone whom is an Admin. Bidgee (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael, can you please explain this edit by you on en.wp where you state "no longer needed. can delete this page".

Why is this page no longer needed? Why can it be deleted? Did you consult with Mattbuck on before blanking his comments as well?

Of course, it could be a poor attempt at an April Fool's prank, but I think others will see it as vandalism, and people in this community may seriously question whether this is a good move for a bureaucrat of this project to be engaging in what others may very well perceive as an attempt to cover up something on that project.

In the meantime I have placed the content at User:Russavia/MaggsMattbuck-oped, and would appreciate comment from you on this. russavia (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, no idea what I did there. I was trying to go through and delete old sub-pages in my Wikipedia userspace that I hadn't looked at for ages. I was under the impression I was deleting an old private draft, but apparently not. Apologies to all. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries, you know how conspiracy-driven Signpost can get at times. :) russavia (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You probably intended to delete this redirect but was redirected to the Signpost page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did indeed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as the editor of the Signpost, I certainly didn't suspect anything untoward here. Conspiracy-driven is a bit of a stretch. Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 19:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Approving bot requests

Michael — please make sure to remove bot requests from Commons:Bots/Requests and the status table and remember to archive requests when you approve them. Thanks, odder (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I haven't done it for a while. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This projects bureaucrat's are asleep at the wheel? -- please wake up

As we know from COM:BUREAUCRATS, "bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues."

I need to draw your attention to an issue which is going to blow up in the collective faces of this project, and with the exception of User:Odder, every single one of our bureaucrats has been asleep at the wheel. We are now destined for a trainwreck, and a whole heap of fallout. Numerous chapters, including Wikimedia Israel, Wikimedia Spain, Wikimedia Argentina and Wikimedia Venezuela, are going to be in a mighty pissed mood and ready to have the head on a stick of any bureaucrat who dares come along and do what has to be done for the good of this project.

As User:Odder has opined in the discussion, him doing what needs to be done will surely have cries of "INVOLVED" levelled at him, so this is now left up to the remaining 8 bureaucrats to snap out of the slumber they seem to be in as it relates to this issue, and deal with it before it blows up further in our collective faces.

Further information can be found at:

  1. Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
  2. associated policy pages, templates, wikimedia-l mailing list, undeletion request forums, etc.

The community is waiting for immediate action on this issue. Can you please initially confirm that you have received this message, so that the community knows that you haven't died in your sleep :) russavia (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Russavia, I and several other crats are very well aware of this and are considering whether we can be helpful here, and if so how. But I have to ask whether you think that attacking me twice on my user page in the space of a couple of days is really the best form of encouragement. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I am sincerely sorry that you feel like you are being attacked, but you are not. But Michael, I don't know what encouragement you need; when you became a crat you took on shared responsibility to ensure that our mission and policies are adhered to; it took me all of 5 seconds to realise this closed proposal, and which is now endorsed by @Jusjih:, is not inline with our mission, and is in direct violation of numerous Commons policies. Sure, the right thing to do is going to piss of a few chapters who lobbied for this change, and canvassed heavily for it, and is going to be a partial rebuff to both WMF legal and the WMF Board of Trustees; but that's the price you pay for being a bureaucrat on this project. Also, Michael, I noticed that you posted to wikimedia-l that crats are discussing it. As there is nothing that is confidential in this discussion, this discussion should be held on wiki, rather than on the private mailing list, or on private email. russavia (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael, seriously, we are coming up to 4 days since I made this issue known. You have now found the time to fling shit at Fae on a public list, but as you can see undeletions are continuing. You seriously have your priorities wrong, so apart from telling you to grow up, is it too much to ask you to hurry up and do what needs to be done, or kindly hand in your tools so that someone who is more dedicated to this project then they are to flinging shit at others can step up to the plate and help guide this project and do what needs to be done. russavia (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Russavia, sorry to hear you are unhappy with the speed of community discussion on this issue. You mention 4 days, as if that is a long time, but I and others with an interest in copyright issues have known about the potential for problems since as least as early as Golan v. Holder in 2009, and neither I nor anyone else is in a position just to jump in and sort things out in a few days, much as we might like to be able to. If it were that easy this would have all been settled long ago. I have taken the liberty of deleting the 'mellow' userbox form your page, as it has been quite untrue for some time now (in my view). Of course, feel free to revert if am wrong and you still think you are the mellow sort. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Michael, 4 days is long enough that we now have images which were rightfully deleted re-appearing. So, perhaps, to show some leadership, you may like to do the following:
  1. State that undeletions are to cease whilst this the bureaucratic group is discussing the issue (preferably on project)
  2. Delete the files which have been undeleted thus far whilst this discussion is ongoing (we have a responsibility to reusers yeah?)
  3. Actually discuss the discuss the issue
How does that sound to you? As I say, if people put as much time into discussing the issue as they are on flinging mud at each other on external mailing lists, the issue would have been solved and dealt with by now. That there is going to be fallout from the right decision is something that would not be the case if the bureaucratic group as a whole was actually on the ball to begin with. As I stated to Dschwen, this is not passive aggressiveness or non-mellowness on my part, but being absolutely direct and reminding you of your responsibilities as a crat on this project. So I will repeat, if you are unable or unwilling to do what is good for the project, then step aside. This goes not only to you, but to all of you. russavia (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

See here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

...and also my RFC at Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. Though I was saddened by your aggressive response, especially following the comments you made above about the need for immediate action. I will leave the validity of your comments for other to judge. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael, as the instigator of the PRP issue, can you please make comment at Commons:Review_of_Precautionary_principle#Case_study:_Fijian_photos_from_the_1940s.2F1950s as I'd be interested in getting your take on what I've written. Thanks, russavia (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind but in the circumstances I would prefer not to comment on what you have written. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain what the circumstances are that might be preventing you from discussing what I have written? Thanks, russavia (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, certainly: [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC

Michael, in the event that Commons:Review of Precautionary principle is unsuccessful, would you personally regard the entire URAA closure to be overridden by the PRP discussion? Your take on this would be appreciated. russavia (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

+ 1 --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
While I don't see an automatism that would just invalidate the previous URAA closure, one has to seriously consider the implications of rejecting an adjustment to a fundamental policy that (as far as I see it) is a necessary condition for putting the URAA closure into effect. We cannot on one hand say "let's not look too closely for URAA violations but on the other hand stick to our current rather cautious interpretation of the PRP. --Dschwen (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael, as you are now back to active editing, can you please answer the above question. I am sorry but an unwillingness to answer because of critical comments made is not acceptable -- this is, after all your dog and pony show. I know several editors would like an expedited answer to these questions, given you have now had 10 days to come up with an answer. russavia (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If people are not happy with the closing of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, discuss it again instead of attempting to override it by the opinion of another one not fully related to it. I can point several such previous cases; but don't want to bring it here. BTW, I wonder no admin is interested to delete thousands of copyvio from the Gulf countries as not FoP in Oman and Kuwait although they are running a crusade against URAA affected files. Jee 15:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It already has been over-ridden by Commons:Review_of_Precautionary_principle#Case_study:_Fijian_photos_from_the_1940s.2F1950s. That totally goes against the URAA closure, and it undermines Michael's position in a serious way, and it is a way that should have been bloody obvious to a bureaucrat on this project before it got to the point that Michael unilaterally placed this project in. But he won't comment on that issue because of some nonsense about my comments being critical towards his actions. Unfortunately, Michael has severely undermined his own position on this project with this issue and that is entirely evident by the fact that the only people really supporting it are the canvassed chapters people (including two of Michael's cohorts from WMUK), and criticism is fairly made under the circumstances. If he won't comment on the questions asked above, seeing as this is his show, it will be taken to COM:AN/U at first instance. It's his choice...simple as that. russavia (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Russavia, your anger seems to be running rather out of control here. I have no idea why you have singled me out, specifically, for your attacks and demands for immediate action, particularly as I am one of the few editors who has taken the time to put up community proposals (1 & 2) in an effort to ameliorate the URAA issue while staying within the confines of US law. But it seems you didn't much like those. But be that as it may, my role here is not to dance to anyone's tune, least of all yours. You appear to have totally misunderstood the community here at Commons - and the role of crats within it - if you truly believe that 'this is [my] dog and pony show'. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
But I've a difficulty to understand what Michael did against our policies. He made a proposal that anyone can do. It is still running and little chances that he himself close it. As far as I see, he didn't undelete any URAA affected files. It is upto the closer to advise the community further, and I will agree with you if Michael act against the community decision; but only time can tell it. It seems Michael already abandoned that proposal which looks fine to me. Correct me if I miss something. Jee 16:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #107

Wikidata weekly summary #108

Wikidata weekly summary #109

New nomination -- could you check my work?

Hi Michael, I created a new nomination for the deletion request you just closed. But there were all kinds of confusing naming conflicts. I think I sorted them out, but could you maybe take a look and confirm if everything is in order? Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg 02 I appreciate your efforts on this. -Pete F (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, all looks good. I have removed the categories and the redirect, and have commented further at the new DR. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #110

Russavia's block of Michaeldsuarez

Since you are already engaged in conversation about it - Michael's comment about Fae's past sockpuppet behaviour on EN-wiki and Commons was accurate. Fae's questions were not even thinly veiled references to himself to anyone who knows his history. Michael's opinion that he is opposing Krd because of it however isnt AGF. I am sure Fae's motives are entirely pure. However given he has a history of sockpuppeting and deliberately trying to avoid scrutiny of his actions, up to and including attempting to get the WMF to intervene directly when he was brought before arbcom on en-wiki, I am sure you can understand why someone may not think he has the best motives when he starts quizzing people on how they are going to use checkuser. In fact its a perfectly logical progression - an editor with history of avoiding scrutiny attempts to derail a trusted and (from my checking of Krd's history) ethically firm user from gaining access to rights that would allow him to make sure abusive sockpuppeting doesnt happen. As for Russavia's block, you know thats a load of rubbish. At best it warrented a 'Please dont derail this discussion by making it about Fae'. He can manage that by himself. Only in death (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

By removing talk page access and email, there is, effectively, no way to appeal this block and no rationale provided for it. I didn't realize that admins could impose blocks for secret, personal reasons. Where is the transparency here? Liz (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I have commented further here --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to that discussion Michael. I have not looked into the specifics of this incident, but it is very welcome to see someone holding administrators here to the policies they are required to follow. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Don Quijote de La Mancha, Teresa Carreño Teather.jpg

A question has been raised about copyright. I've looked at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Concert photography and Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 6#Copyright status of concert photographs# where you commented. This page] seems to suggest the set could be copyright. Can you advice, on the nomination page. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I am too late to comment as the image has already been accepted as a FP. Probably no need to say more for the moment, but if anyone should nominate it for deletion I would argue against for the reasons given on the pages you link to (unless there are issues under local copyright law - haven't looked at that). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #110

Wikidata weekly summary #111

Paedophile advocate needs blocking

Michael, we need to have a paedophilia advocate blocked on this project under en:WP:CHILDPROTECT. Leucosticte (talk · contribs) is the editor in question, who is en:Special:Contributions/Tisane. They have been blocked on en.wp as per en:Special:Contributions/Leucosticte. They have also been blocked on Meta for 3 months for continuing to advocate for pedophilia views, and they now need to be blocked on this project, as per the above mentioned en.wp policy. Of course, English WP Arbcom does not have authority over this project, but given your position as a bureaucrat you are in such a position, and I am bringing it here for your action. Thanks, russavia (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have warned Leucosticte (talk · contribs) here and have removed the links to their website. As to blocking, that would of course be immediate if there were to be any advocacy of the type you mention, on Commons, but would be done on the basis of Commons policy not enWP policy. I have checked all of the user's contributions and so far there has been no such advocacy. This user is definitely a concern and their contributions should be monitored closely, but is not our custom to issue a pre-emptive block for external acts or views that have no impact on Commons as that would open the door to the importing of controversies that have nothing to do with our educational mission, and would encourage off-wiki witchhunts. That's a good custom and applies no matter how abhorrent one may find a user's off-wiki views. Should the WMF think that a user should have no access whatsoever to any of their sites, they do have the option of applying a global lock. It remains to be seen whether Leucosticte is able to contribute usefully to our mission here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Michael, what exactly are you warning Leucosticte (talk · contribs) for? Given what the editor was suggesting on the talk page the links are actually required, and he is offering to provide nudity/sexuality-related images, so the links are not against COM:PS as was suggested in your edit summary. I have taken the liberty of reverting that removal as it was surely not within policy to do so.
As to en:WP:CHILDPROTECT, you are aware that this is not just en.wp policy, but it is actually global policy? russavia (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, there are two different issues here which we should discuss separately:
Your request that I should block Leucosticte
I'm not actually sure why you are asking me to block Leucosticte, given that you have sysop rights here and could do that yourself if you felt you had policy grounds to do so. As a crat I have no more power to block than you do. Be that as it may, I have explained above why - for the moment at least - I will not do so. That may change if the facts or my knowledge of them changes, but for the moment there is no policy basis that I am aware of that would support a block. The allegation you have made above - even if true - does not so far affect Commons and is not in itself sufficient for blocking action.
Contrary to what you say, en:WP:CHILDPROTECT is not a 'global policy' (amongst other things that would imply that the rules of the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia apply on Commons, which of course they do not). There is a global policy on Child Protection, which you can find here (see section 5), but it does not support your request for an immediate local block on Commons. As I said above, the WMF could apply an Office Action if they think it appropriate. And I will immediately block if I see anything untoward which impacts Commons, as I am sure any responsible admin would.
Removal of links to Leucosticte's website
My warning of Leucosticte on his talk page I think speaks for itself, and I have to confess I can't follow your thinking here. There is no problem in principle in Leucosticte offering to provide images for Commons, and it matters not that those are nudity/sexuality-related images. But the offer to supply images does not require live links to Leucosticte's own website. Their only purpose appears to be to drive readers to his website and they breach our policy on advertising and self-promotion: see here. The comment "or if you just want some for yourself..." makes it pretty clear that his intention is not so much to contribute to Commons' educational aims but to disseminate his own private images. And his subsequent comment makes that intention indisputable.
The links are not objectionable because they link to nudity/sexuality-related images, but because they amount to self-promotion. If anyone wants to check those links they are available in the page history.
I have undone your reversion and I ask that you do not revert again. If you disagree with my analysis of policy, please feel free to come back here to discuss, or if you prefer to open a wider discussion about the precise meaning of the policy prohibiting "Content that does not advance Commons' aims, including advertising, self-promotion.." (See here).
Finally, I'm finding it difficult to reconcile your two separate arguments: (a) that the user is a paedophilia advocate and should be blocked, and (b) that we must maintain live links to his website. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Theoretically, anything could be educational (depending on what you want to be educated about), and entertainment is not necessarily incompatible with education. Having the live links available helps people assess what their own opinions might be about the content, but my guess is that the community wants to construe "educational" narrowly enough as to support rejection of the content I was going to submit, so I'm not making any request that the live links be restored. I think another repository is needed for that.
If this were Quora, the matter would be addressed by downvoting/collapsing an offendingly spammy comment due to its uselessness to readers, which would defeat any promotional goals by making it less prominently displayed to readers. Regrettably, MediaWiki-implemented forums lack that functionality. It's one of the reasons I hang out at Quora more these days; the advantages of this type of feature, used in a decentralized manner by individual users, in promoting a better culture, I have described here and here.
With reference to the issue of pedophile advocacy, that's actually not been enacted as a global policy, that I'm aware of. Last I'd heard, metawikipedia:Child protection was still only a proposal. Once again, Quora trumps Wikimedia. Leucosticte (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #112

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

I have replied to your question; sorry for the delay but it was night down here. LGA talkedits 22:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Just waiting for Yann now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a small reminder that this is still awaiting a close. LGA talkedits 04:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Noted, but I will probably not be able to look again for a few days. Rather busy elsewhere at the moment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi Michael, I have noticed that the sysopflag of was removed under very strange circumstance. He is a trusted long-term user (i think you know verry well that he is trusted, so i don't need to say more). I think it wold be fair to restore his flag. Wmuk should assume good faith (which is one of wiki(p/m)edias fundamental principe. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Steinsplitter, I am afraid I will not be discussing that issue, and in any event it is not Commons-related. As I explained on the Wikimedia UK Engine Room, community admin rights on the charity's websites are restricted to members of the charity only. The charity does not publicly discuss any application made by an individual for admission as a company member, and will not be doing so in this case. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #113

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Closure of the review of precautionary principle RfC

Hi Michael — this is just to officially (ie. on-wiki) inform you that on Saturday, I closed the review of precautionary principle RfC that you started on April 9. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the reasoning behind my closure — as always, comments are more than welcome :-) Thanks :-) odder (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

On that subject, Michael, would you mind implementing the policy changes that the outcome of the RfC implies? I've been asked to do that, but I think the action will carry more weight if it were done by you, who started the RfC in the first place. Thanks a lot, odder (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
See this too. :) Jee 12:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Odder:@Jkadavoor:@LGA:@Yann: Thanks for the messages and emails. I'm afraid my unavoidable absence from Commons for the last few weeks came at rather a bad time, as it seems both from the Wiki postings and the increasingly ill-tempered [Wikimedia-l] debates that you could have done with a few more mellow contributors over that period. I'd be more than happy to sweep things up, as you've suggested, but as as I'm out all day tomorrow the earliest I'll be able to get to it will be Thursday. It is likely to take a few hours work, as I'd like to take the time to add some hopefully useful comments and not just change things without explanation. I don't expect Commons will totally fall apart due to another day's delay. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Bleah. Flashing lights and migraine. Unable to think straight at the moment, but hope to be able to follow up more reasonably tomorrow. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Take time; and care your health. When back, read Erik's comment too. Jee 12:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


Michael—I took the liberty to simplify your addition to the licensing policy. After your change, the policy basically said URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion in one sentence, and then URAA can be used as the sole reason for deletion in the next one, and that looked pretty bad. Please do feel free to reword that further if need be :-) Thanks, odder (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to do it without touching the previous text too much, but your simplification is better. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #115

Wikidata weekly summary #116

Wikidata weekly summary #117

Wikidata weekly summary #118

Wikidata weekly summary #119

Wikidata weekly summary #120

Wikidata weekly summary #121

Learning patterns

Michael, I've just gone through your excellent "Improving your building photography". This is just what is needed to enable project managers (and individual contributors) to improve their pics. It should have a large footprint in the movement, considering how much we fund photography-related project work. Thank you indeed.

I've made quite a few minor changes, so would you mind checking through them some time? (Revert anything you don't like.) In brief, I enlarged the pics to 240px, used more contractions for a friendly tone, added a little here and there (I know zip about photography, so that was reckless), and recast the boxed summary—in a similar way to my suggestion here, which Jessie Wild liked. I also tweaked a few things that might risk mistranslation ("decent" -> "good", for example).

It might defeat your purpose if you went into further details in this nicely short, beginner-pitched piece; I noticed these "rules" of composition, and wonder whether you might consider writing another learning patterns that goes into those rules. That is, if you agree with them. :-)

Thanks again. Contact Tony (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tony1: Many thanks Tony. All your edits look good to me. On the question of doing a more advanced learning pattern, that's not out of the question but I wonder how useful going beyond beginner comments would really be? Once we start getting into more advanced stuff, there are huge online and printed resources already available for those who are interested in photography, and people who are will I imagine have already seen some of those. Where there's perhaps a need is to encourage those who know very little to take the next steps. I wrote the hints initially for last year's UK Wiki Loves Monuments contest, and I don't really know how much the community knows about or looks at the Learning Patterns pages. Do you have any idea? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Michael, sorry for the lag in replying: I was away with poor connectivity last week. I think this is an important juncture in the way we evaluate PEG grants, and ultimately for how we shape the culture of designing and conducting WMF-funded programs. I'm a regular reviewer of PEG applications, and participated in the most recent video hook-up with Learning and Evaluation on the topic of PEG. I don't think anyone at that meeting objected to the notion that there's an impending challenge in coming to grips with encouraging quality outcomes—and not just the quantity-based predicted measures of success and vaguely expressed wishes that have until now been the dominant fare. Quality is hard: it brushes on the subjective, and it's typically multidimensional and complex. It's one thing to predict that x number of images will make it as Commons featured or valued pics, thus outsourcing the judgements; but it's another thing to intervene early in the process to give volunteers the means to skill up. This is why the WMF's learning patterns are, as I see it, a critical improvement in infrastructure—one that will give volunteer program-makers the ability to achieve greater quality. My feeling is that people would love online training resources for the greater personal satisfaction it would bring them as contributors. I need help myself on many matters!

I've thus far mentioned a learning pattern only once in reviewing an application; the applicant followed the link (to your piece) and was enthusiastic. How, he wondered, will we get it translated into Romanian, for his community of volunteer photographers? :-)

So I'm cautiously optimistic that we can build a large and rich suite of resources to skill up our project participants, and we've only just started referring people to them. I intend to send a note to the manager of Learning and Evaluation asking whether we might develop a strategy for building the learning patterns. Depending on what she says, I might return to you with ideas.

Warm regards. Tony (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tony. It's really interesting to get to know how these things are used by the community in practice. I was speaking to Anasuya about learning patterns over dinner on Tuesday at Wikimania, and it does seem there is great potential for them to be used as a way of pushing up quality generally. I'd be happy to help in any way I can. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Michael, I've mentioned you here and linked back to this thread. Tony (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #122

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Wikidata weekly summary #123

An important message about renaming users

Dear MichaelMaggs,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

WLM dates

Your post to the Village pump says "It doesn't matter when your photos are taken so long as they're uploaded by the end of September. If you took some stunning pictures back in April, or five years ago, you can still upload them." This might encourage people to upload images right now, but they have to wait till 1st Sept. It should say "so long as they are uploaded during September 2014 UTC". Also Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 contains images, particularly from Ireland. Can you contact the Irish team to find out why? -- Colin (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, will correct. Note sure about Irish images - will try to find out. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems the Irish team started their competition on 23rd August. See --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK website

Hi Michael, I tried to access the Wikimedia UK to do a little research on an issue, and I am getting a message that the organisation's SSL has expired. I am able to proceed to the site, but I won't because I won't have faith that the site hasn't been compromised.

You may want to get this rectified ASAP, and let the people within your organisation know how important SSL is in this day and age. And possibly buy a calendar to place in a central area so that important dates can be marked and staff can make sure that others are doing their jobs properly. :) russavia (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are aware and as you may understand we are hugely frustrated by this, not least because Wiki Loves Monuments opens tomorrow. We consider this to be a really serious issue. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I can totally understand the severity of the situation. But you know, if WMUK spend more time on such things, and spent less time and money on ridiculous things, such as keeping Fae out of the chapter, things like this might not occur in the first place. But maybe that's just me who thinks that way. russavia (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #124

Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 in the United Kingdom/Competitors' FAQ

You might want to update this now, given that it is in fact September.

Also, is there a way to add the WLM stuff manually? I tend to upload by transferring my files from flickr using UploadWizard, in fairly large batches, which therefore won't just be of a single building. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. Yes, it's fine to submit entries in some other way (not via the WLM campaign wizard) if that's more convenient for you. You'll need to make sure entries show the correct listing number and location and are put into the appropriate hidden Commons categories, eg "Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 in England" and "Listed buildings in England with known IDs", or whatever. As an example, see this image from last year. Hope that helps. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael, the pages I created wrt WLM2013 (linked at User:Colin#WLM UK 2013) are possibly in the wrong namespace. I think I intended them to be sub-pages of my own user page but ended up at root. Do you know where they should go? -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Colin, just a quick note to say I have seen this. Have been a bit tied up over the last few days but will reply shortly. Sorry for the delay. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WLM-UK technical issues

Hi Michael, I've been keeping an eye on WLM-UK uploads from Scotland for the last couple of days, and there's a catalogue of errors at the moment I really need you guys to get on top of (they're impacting more significantly on the more popular uploads, unfortunately).

The biggest problem is the WLM-UK website not correctly passing through listed building IDs for Scottish buildings from the map to the upload wizard, it's passing through the WLM-UK map/website's own reference number for each listed building. An example is it's passing through 365417 for "Edinburgh Castle, St Margaret's Chapel", when it should be passing through 48228.

The next problem is inaccurate data on your website - when I look at the map and hover over the Official Listing number, such as #365417, it links to a valid Historic Scotland page, but it's imprecise and generic - for "Edinburgh Castle, St Margaret's Chapel" the WLM-UK map/website links to the wrong listing for the Edinburgh Castle site, in this case it's linking to reference 28010 and not 48228. It's understandable as you probably didn't expect Edinburgh Castle to have more than one listed building entry, but it has many and it's a bit confusing trying to figure out where each aspect of the building should go and how it should be categorised.

The next problem (sorry, but it's a wee bit of a list) is sites (primarily bridges) which have two listings, one in each of the two parishes or burghs which they connect. The WLM-UK map/website lists the Forth Bridge twice, the Forth Road Bridge twice, could you fix it so that those bridges (and others) automatically add both listed building IDs when being uploaded. If not, it's not an enormous problem as I can batch process them.

The next problem (and I'm hoping this is a user error) was the Tyne Bridge, in Newcastle, appearing in Scotland. Is there any way to check lat/lon data and ensure the upload goes into the correct campaign and is categorised correctly ?

Finally, I think (for now, anyway) is the issue with categorisation, at the moment, uploads for Scotland being added to Northern Ireland specific categories. Edinburgh Castle uploads are going into Category:Grade A listed buildings, with other uploads of category B and category C buildings going into non existent Category:Grade B listed buildings and Category:Grade C listed buildings. The correct Scottish categories would be Category A listed buildings, but it's a top level category which only holds other categories and not images.

Sorry for bringing such a huge list of issues, and apologies if it's a bit rambly or nonsensical, if you look through my contribs for the last couple of days, some of my edits should help make all of the above make sense.

Cheers, Nick (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thanks for the feedback. I've passed your comments on to Magnus Manske who has kindly written the interactive map tool for us and who is working with the Wikidata links. If you're not already subscribed to the WLM-UK mailing list you might like to consider doing so, as that is where much of the work is going on. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #125

Wikidata weekly summary #126 appears to be down

Hi Michael, I just wanted to check the rules for submissions regarding Northern Ireland for some last-minute uploads for WLM but unfortunately appears to be down. Is there any hope to see it online before the deadline? Or is it possible to find the rules and eligibility criteria elsewhere? Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, bad news and bad timing. I'll ask WMUYK's IT consultant to check what the problem is. I certainly hope it will be up again tomorrow. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
AFBorchert, I can confirm it is down just now. However, these links may help:

Hope that helps. -- Colin (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MichaelMaggs and Colin, thanks for your help. File:Drumnakill Church and Murlough Bay 2014 09 18.jpg is my first attempt to submit a photograph for WLM in Northern Ireland. Does this submission look ok or is anything missing? (Sorry, I do not use the upload wizard.) Thanks for any help. I intend to upload some additional photographs tomorrow short before the deadline hits. Thanks again, AFBorchert (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, is up again. But this leads to another question: The specification of eligible buildings apparently does not include scheduled monuments in Northern Ireland. Is this intentional? Why is the Northern Ireland Sites & Monuments Record not linked to? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andreas. No, it's not intentional, and scheduled monuments in NI are indeed eligible. I'm not quite sure what happened there, but for some reason - as I just found out last week - it appears that we have not extracted the data for the NI scheduled monuments lists into Wikidata and the WLM interactive map. So, as someone else recently pointed out, it's unfortunately not possible to use our map to search for and display NI scheduled monuments. This seems to have been an oversight, and I apologize for it. Hopefully we can get that fixed for next year, but fortunately as you aren't using the contest upload Wizard, the issue should not affect you directly. Your upload looks fine: it's entered into the contest as it's in the right category (Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 in Northern Ireland) and links to the NI monument number. I do hope you'll have time to upload a few more before midnight tonight! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteering for WLM

Hi Michael,
I saw your post on the FPC page and I'd be happy to help. I think I do fulfill the requirements well enough, so please feel free to include me if my help is desired.
Best regards, --DXR (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes please. Many thanks; will be in contact soon with more details. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Great, just drop me a line when the time has come. --DXR (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #127

Wikidata weekly summary #128

Wikidata weekly summary #129

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Wikidata weekly summary #131

Wikidata weekly summary #132

Wikidata weekly summary #133

Wikidata weekly summary #134

Wikidata weekly summary #135

Please stop with your anti-Fae campaign

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)

Wikidata weekly summary #136

New level {{User PH-4}}

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

WMUK's MacMini

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 #138

Leonard Landy

Hey, could you please response to this? Thanks! OscarLake (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes all the difference, and I've restored the image. Thanks for looking out the evidence so quickly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Permission copyright from "Erik Pevernagie" to User:onlysilence

Dear Michael Maggs,

Thank you for your kind reply Below I send you permission for publication of the works Erik Pevernagie in category : Erik Pevernagie

Best regards and happy New Year

Erik Pevernagie

"Permission to publish the files under a free license in Commons Wikimedia , Files uploaded by Onlysilence and International-critics . Erik Pevernagie, artist, Avenue A. Lancaster 118O Brussels Belgium Tel <redacted> <redacted> I am the copyright holder,painter, photographer and creator Erik Pevernagie (<redacted>) and have given permission to publish the files under a free license in Commons Wikimedia , Files uploaded by Onlysilence and by International-critics My work is catagorized under category : Erik Pevernagie. Best regards Erik Pevernagie" • Date :25/12/2014 • Sujectline: • permission for Files uploads by User:Onlysilence and by User:International-critics . ‏ • • • • File:Z- Halte dans la fuite.jpg • File:Z- A flair of inspiration.jpg • File:Kein Schwein ruft mich an.jpg • File:Disruption.jpg • File:C'est quand le bonheur.jpg • File:Unfulfilled meeting.JPG • File:Waiting for the unexpected.jpg • File:Life out there !.jpg • File:Is Heaven is a place in the sky?.jpg • File:A change of vision.jpg • File:All the words he always wanted to tell her.jpg • File:Loss of urban benchmarks.jpg • File:One drink after work....jpg • File:Quest for the real moment.jpg • File:Even if the world goes down, my handy will save me.jpg • File:Those journeys of love.JPG • File:Going back to yesterday.jpg • File:The Postman came twice.jpg • File:Uber alle Gipfeln ist Ruh.jpg • File:Mes cliques et mes claques.jpg • File:Final decision.jpg • File:Blame storming.jpg • File:When is art ?.jpg • File:Waiting for emancipation.jpg • File:Tout compte fait....jpg • File:The dirty bike.jpg • File:The day the mirror was talking back.jpg • File:The daily job.jpg • File:Steps into the unknown.jpg • File:Rooting hogging or....jpg • File:Only needed a light.JPG • File:Not without the past.jpg • File:High noon !.jpg • File:I seek you.jpg • File:Could time be patient.jpg • File:Bread and satelite.jpg • File:Consumers' Dream.JPG • File:Alors Tout a bascule.jpg • File:Not without you.jpg • File:Should I shave first.jpg • File:Brussels with a view.jpg • File:Twilight of desire.jpg • File:Ruling the waves.jpg • File:Words had disappeared.jpg • File:Absence of desire.jpg • File:When forgetting the rules of the game.jpg • File:Tiptoeing into a new life.jpg • File:Waiting for a place behind the Geraniums.jpg • File:The upper lip must never tremble.jpg • File:Lost the global story.jpg • File:Letter that came too late.jpg • File:Waiting for the smoke signals.jpg • File:In the doorway..jpg • File:If he doesn't play ball..jpg • File:Everybody his story.jpg • File:Hinter der Mattscheibe.jpg • File:Give me more images..jpg • File:Fear of the white page.jpg • File:Man without Qualities 1.JPG • File:Just for a moment.JPG • File:Words flew away like birds.jpg • File:Why an egg every day?.jpg • File:Low profile.jpg • File:Waiting for the pieces to fall into place 100 x80 cm.jpg • File:Sweet smell of Submission.jpg • File:No monsters.jpg • File:New York at arm's length of desire.jpg • File:Step on the gas.jpg • File:Homeless down in the corner.jpg • File:The sorrow of Belgium.jpg • File:This is no chicken food.jpg • File:Woman in progress.jpg • File:Trompe le pied.jpg • File:Thank God for the Belgian chocolate.jpg • File:Swim or sink.jpg • File:News of the world.jpg • File:Penis envy.jpg • File:Measuring space.jpg • File:Knowing somebody was waiting.jpg • File:Could the milkman be the devil.jpg • File:Digging for white gold.jpg • File:Juicy rumours.jpg • File:I am young and have no dog (100x100cm).jpg • File:Happiness blowing in the wind.jpg • File:I am young and have no dog.jpg • File:Labyrinth of the mind.JPG • File:Voices of the sea.jpg • File:On a doggy day.jpg • File:Only silence remained.jpg--Onlysilence (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Onlysilence. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)