User talk:Geo Swan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:01, 24 February 2022

My plan for re-instatement

It has been over 11 months since I received a warning, entitled #Only warning, from HJ Mitchell, and then a block from another administrator #March 2021. There is a process for re-instatement, which I plan to follow. But first, I plan on pinging HJ Mitchell, and some of the other people who voiced opinions, with some points I think they overlooked.

That other administrator started a thread, at WP:ANI (here).

Some people responding there, looked at Dan Trotta, and disagreed with HJ Mitchell's initial description that it was an "attack page". I didn't think it was an attack page, either. I thought it was a neutrally written stub, that fairly summarized the references it used.

Multiple other individuals weighing in there seem to be agreeing that what I was accused of - using the wikipedia to settle a pre-existing grudge - was terrible, and merited a block. It is unclear whether they actually looked at Dan Trotta, to confirm or refute for themselves, whether it actually had been an attack page.

HJ Mitchell, I am not aware of anyone making the assertion, before you did, that I had a grudge against Mr Trotta. I see lots of places where this assertion is repeated. And, sorry, I am afraid all those people may simply have trusted you. They shouldn't have. The assertion is false. I'll explain this, in detail, below at #Headshots snipped from Canadian Film Centre images.

I will temporarily snip other things from this page. If I am re-instated, I'll put them in my archives. I will snip anything on this page that is not related to my block, and that WPANI discussion.

Only warning

Do not write Wikipedia articles about people with whom you are in dispute elsewhere, and do not use your superior skills as an editor to get one up in a dispute. What you did at Dan Trotta was outrageous, and to continue doing it despite the request of the subject is appalling. If you ever do anything like that again I will indefinitely block you. Quite frankly, the only reason I didn't block you straight away is that I won't be able to be around for the fallout and it's poor practice to "block and run". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell DGG asked you, almost a year ago, on WPANI

`As for the deletion, and protection. HJ Mitchell, you did the deletion and protection. Do you truly consider it an attack page? Or as unsourced negative information?`

I saw the recent note on your talk page where you said: "I'll be back. I've never lost my love for the encyclopaedia, I just have a family and a demanding day job, neither of which I had in 2009!"

Okay, you are prioritizing. I get it. But I got blocked after you concluded I wrote an attack page. Some third parties reviewed the article and concluded it was NOT an attack page. I am concerned that a lot of the people who endorsed my block simply took your word for it. So, I think your returning here, to explain yourself, should be a higher priority. It has been almost a whole year, after all.

WP:Attack page has some simple criterion. An attack page "...exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or ... is entirely negative in tone..." I don't think the Dan Trotta article was negative in tone. I don't think it disparaged or threatened the real life Dan Trotta.

HJ Mitchell, if you saw something that made the Dan Trotta article an attack page, that I missed, and those third parties missed, I really hope you will share that with everyone.

Warning. I have further questions for you. But one thing at a time. Geo Swan (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I am going to check your contributions, once a day, and I am going to {{ping}} you every day I see you made edits, but did not come here to explain why you characterized the Dan Trotta article as an attack page. Geo Swan (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other people.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain that article that HJ Mitchell deleted, Dan Trotta, which you seem to have created following a personal off-wiki dispute with the person. You cannot just move on as if nothing happened. I've placed a note at WP:AN for other administrators to weigh in on the matter. You may respond here, and your comments will be copied over. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block of User:Geo Swan (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headshots snipped from Canadian Film Centre images

For more than a decade the Canadian Film Centre held events, attended by figures in the Canadian film and television industry, or philanthopists and politicians who supported the industry.. They uploaded several thousand images from those events to flickr. They released them under free licenses - licenses that allowed them to be freely re-used.

The images they released included very well-known public figures for whom we had not yet found free images - like Conrad Black and his wife Barbara Amiel. They also included figures from the industry who were on the cusp of being well-known, like Tatiana Maslany. We have lots of free images of her now. But for the first six months she was notable enough for a BLP the only free image we had of her was one I cropped from a CFC event.

I am not the only WMF contributor who cropped images from the images the CFC uploaded to flickr. But I did the lion's share of it. Media related to Headshots of individuals cropped from the Canadian Film Centre's photos at Wikimedia Commons contains almost 1000 headshots of about 700 to 800 distinct individuals.

Did this work fully comply with the policies of en.wiki, and the commons? I don't think there is any question that this work was fully policy compliant.

Was the effort I put into this worthwhile? Well, there were many dozens of BLP articles, that previously had no images of the BLP, until one of these images cropped from a larger CFC were added to them. So, yes, I think my efforts, and the efforts of some other people, were not only full policy compliant, but were completely worthwhile.

No, I can't agree that cropping those images was harrassment, for any meaningful definition of harrassment. Geo Swan (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia's vulnerability to being spoofed...

The wikipedia has proven vulnerable to being spoofed. Sadly, it seems there are individuals out there, with time on their hands, who are prepared to spend dozens or hundreds of hours to stealthily undermining the wikipedia. These individuals know how to make lots of valid edits, so that their disruptive edits either go undetected, or seem like good faith mistakes. I know of two individuals, who engaged in this kind of disruption, who, nevertheless, were entrusted with administrator authority.

There is the Essjay controversy example, and the User:Qworty example. See List of Wikipedia controversies#Robert Clark Young for a somewhat inadequate summary of the Qworty disaster.

In my opinion, the vulnerability to being spoofed particularly extends to courtesy deletion. In my opinion it should be regarded as essential that all individuals making requests to delete images or articles about themselves should first have the OTRS team confirm they really are who they say they are.

I think this is one of the things User:HJ Mitchell, the administrator who left the #Only warning here, did. I checked. Administrator HJ was not a member of the OTRS team. So, he made no attempt to refute or confirm whether User:Imissdisco was the real life Dan Trotta.

In my opinion, no matter how obvious it may have seemed to administrator HJ, that Imissdisco was the real life Dan Trotta, he should have recognized that it was essential that OTRS confirm his identity. If OTRS confirms it, there is an audit trail. If Administrator HJ privately satisfies himself that he was corresponding with the real life individual, there is no audit trail.

Who else could it have been? I have wikistalkers, one of whom is not only malicious, but is also extremely clever. Pretending to be a real life individual is exactly the kind of stunt this individual would pull. Geo Swan (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A request for courtesy deletion is not a criteria for speedy deletion

Many contributors who weighed in at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive330#Block_of_User:Geo_Swan voiced the opinion that administrator HJ Mitchell was authorized to delete the Dan Trotta article, on his sole authority, as a response to the apparent request for courtesy deletion. Leaving aside that administrator HJ usurped the authority of the OTRS team, and did not seem to make any effort to confirm the requestor was the real life individual, responding to courtesy deletion requests is not a Criteria for speedy deletion. Policy allows administrators to take a request for courtesy deletion into account, when closing a discussion. That means the request can be the deciding factor in a delete closure of an XfD that would otherwise close as "no consensus".

I went through a two year long process over the speedy deletion of a brand new article I started on Jeffrey Norwitz. I started the article in January 2009, or at least I thought I had. But, when I went back to add some more material, I couldn't find it. I was ready to kick myself, for merely thinking I started it, and failing to notice that it didn't get saved, due to a loss of session. But, that wasn't it.

I had started it, and an administrator had deleted it, without leaving me a heads-up. When I asked for an explanation he explained Norwitz contacted OTRS, and requested its deletion. The administrator was nice about it. He said Norwitz hadn't complained that the article was unfair, or inaccurate. Norwitz just didn't want to be covered by a wikipedia article.

That administrator and I had multiple discussions, over the next two years - every time the google news alert I had on Norwitz brought me a new reference that I thought further enhanced his notability. That administrator remained really nice about it, but he wasn't going to budge.

So, I told him I was taking the article to DRV.

At the DRV everyone agreed:

the granting of requests for courtesy deletion is not automatic;
the decision to delete, in response to a request for courtesy deletion, is only authorized when closing a discussion - ie XfD.

Yes, of course, administrators are authorized to delete attack pages - when those pages genuinely are attack pages.

I strongly suspect administrator HJ could not provide a meaningful explanation as to how he reached the conclusion the Dan Trotta article was an attack page. If they can provide a convincing explanation, I'll request re-instatement, and promise not to do whatever their explanation says I did wrong. But, it seems to me that neutrally written articles, that fairly summarize what the references say, are not attack pages, for any reasonable definition of "attack page". Geo Swan (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teachable moments

Administrator HJ Mitchell admonished me for using my "superior skills as an editor to get one up in a dispute".

Administrator HJ, my first problem with this passage is that, of course more experienced wikipedians should share their knowledge and experience with less experienced people. The wikipedia has no single training manaul, no single tutorial. This means Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.

My second problem with this passage is, where in the name of heck did you get the idea I engage in discussions in order to win them? I am committed to entering every discussion I engage in bearing in mind that I might be wrong, and the other guy might be right. If I realize I was wrong I try to say so. I try to acknowledge being mistaken even when doing so is unpleasant. I think my record of owning up to mistakes is pretty good.

Administrator HJ, all human beings are subject to normal human fallibility. I know this includes me. I know this includes you. I believe a fair and thorough review of my record will show that when I find myself in a discussion with someone for whom English is a second language, or someone who might have dyslexia, or something similar, I will do my best to respond to what they really meant, even if they actually wrote something that was vulnerable to misinterpretation or mockery. Why? Because we are all fallible, and their trouble expressing themselves doesn't prove they are wrong, and, if I am able to express myself more clearly, that does not make me right.

Yes, we can see discussions here, where an articulate person was able to evade acknowledging they were wrong, and was able to "win" the discussion, in spite of realizing they were mistaken. But I don't do that. I am mystified as to how you came to the conclusion I would ever do that.

I've stated that, in any discussion where a third party makes a request for courtesy deletion, I think it is essential they show us the courtesy of confidentially confirming they are who they say they are. I stand by that, due to the wikipedia's track record of vulnerability to being spoofed. I challenge your assertion that informing Imissdisco of this was an instance of me using my "superior skills as an editor to get one up in a dispute". I think you erred in usurping the role of the OTRS team. Geo Swan (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are all fallible - me too

We are all fallible - me too.

I am putting this section at the end, because I think my own mistakes are dwarfed by the mistakes made by other people.

Briefly, a fair and detailed examination of my record will show I have generally bent over backwards to NOT respond to triggers from angry respondents.

I didn't do that with the Dan Trotta article. I have held back from responding to triggers 99.x percent of the time. I didn't do that there. Why? My best friend died over Christmas, 2020. March 3rd, 2021, was over 2 months since his death, and I was still adjusting. Pre-covid we met at a coffee shop, and hung out, just about every day, for ten years. Even during covid I saw him several times a week. We went to the same pharmacy, and I brought him his prescriptions.

In late February I bought a twelve-pack, of alcoholic beverages. I hardly drink at all. But I drank a few of those, per night, at the time User:Imissdisco was demanding the deletion of the headshot cropped from File:Gale Anne Hurd Masterclass 2 (6829984489).jpg.

I think over ninety percent of Imissdisco's edits on the commons should be recognized as vandalism. I think most of their edits on en.wiki, were vandalism as well. I have my preferences set so an email is sent to me whenever someone edits one of my User talk pages. Those emails make my call phone ding. On February 28, 2021, my phone dinged, again, and again, as the individual behind Imissdisco left a series of redundant re-nominations to delete the headshot I cropped. Those redundant re-nominations had frivolous edit summaries were clearly intended to provoke me. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I copied the Dan Trotta article to wikipedia article space while Imissdisco's redundant and offensive renominations were ringing my phone.

99.x percent of the time I rise above petty provocations from vandals. I didn't anticipate that two drinks was all it took for my normal restraint against responding in kind to lapse. But, apparently, that was all it took. Geo Swan (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a lot here, and candidly, I’ve just spent too much time on this issue. This will be it for me. So many people have reached out and offered to help, and I’m really grateful. I thought this was over, but Geo Swan is back, apparently. So I guess I am too.

Before this exhausting experience, I had little to no experience with wiki pages, other than reading them. Even now, after Geo Swan forced me to get involved and defend myself, I can barely keep my head above water.

This started when he created a page on Wikimedia that had a tagged photo of me. I wasn’t crazy about the photo, so I politely asked if it could be taken down. I was met with wild accusations - that I was trying to manipulate the page for nefarious reasons, that I was only there to vandalize it, that I was looking to sabotage Dan Trotta’s image, etc. The lion’s share of these accusations were made by Geo Swan.

Maybe it was dumb to ask for the photo to be taken down. It certainly was vain. But I didn’t think it warranted that kind of abuse. I got frustrated, and decided to drop it. But not before telling Geo Swan what I thought of him. He responded by saying if here were so inclined, he could create a Wikipedia page about me.

Then he did create it.

I tried to delete it, then when he wouldn’t let me, I attempted to at least alter it, because he completely misrepresented my bio. Geo Swan apparently glanced at a few interviews I gave, then threw something together as a quick “FU” to me. This was distressing for a couple of reasons, primarily because I had no control over the page. He’d made it so I couldn’t alter any of the info. Assume for a second you’ve never contributed to a wiki page - I don’t know the protocol, and it was way more complicated than I thought. Any time I tried to do anything, it was shot down. Then I was labeled a “vandal”, or something, I don’t remember the term exactly. Finally, after HJ Mitchell recognized what was going on, he labeled it an “attack page”, and I think Geo Swan was banned or something. I’m still really grateful to HJ for stepping in and making it right.

Users who had assumed I was a vandal apologized when they saw their mistake, and we’re extremely kind and helpful. They saw what Geo Swan had done. It was really kinda sweet, actually.

A page with a bad photo and some incorrect info might not seem like a big deal, even if it was created with malicious intent, as this one was. But my work info was misrepresented by Geo Swan, and that was particularly stressful. Even after I gave up and said I wouldn’t fight it, and asked if he could just correct the info, he refused. Im a screenwriter, and when I’m up for a job, people google my name (as with most industries). If they see false or incorrect info about me, that reflects directly on me. Even now, Geo Swan’s created a page about me on Wiki Alpha, and the info is incorrect. I can’t go through the rigamarole of this fight again, so I’ll just have to hope it’ll right itself at some point.

I’m sorry for his loss, but this situation went on for days (still is!). His excuse of “I got drunk” just doesn’t hold water, imo. He’s still altering wiki pages about me. Has he been drunk this whole time? Imissdisco (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the restoration of the image, on commons -- here's why

Whoever is using the Imissdisco wiki-ID has asserted, above, they weren't really a vandal. I thought their edits to the image in question would show otherwise. The image has been restored, and I think edits 2 through 8 do show clear vandalism.

11:49, 26 February 2021‎ It's a photo of me and I'd rather it not be public
13:40, 28 February 2021‎ Fuck you that's why
13:42, 28 February 2021‎ Just because
13:41, 28 February 2021‎It's Sunday
13:42, 28 February 2021‎ Geo Swan is a real feckless douche
14:00, 28 February 2021‎ Get back
14:00, 28 February 2021‎ To where you once belonged
13:59, 28 February 2021‎ Let's keep going

In the commons deletion discussion I explained the importance for the person using Imissdisco to confirm their real world identity, because we couldn't know they were the real Dan Trotta, or a frenemy. This is probably what Imissdisco meant, above, when he asserted he was met with "wild accusations". In that discussion I said if they followed the simple steps to confirm their identity I would support courtesy deletion.

For no reason at all Imissdisco claimed they didn't believe me. And made the seven redundant, insulting vandal nominations. I've now captured diffs, and the text of those insulting redundant vandal nominations.

The Dan Trotta crop is merely one of a thousand similar crops, and I do not consider it much of a loss if imissdisco takes the simple step of confidentially confirming they really are the real life Dan Trotta, and we honour an identity confirmed request for courtesy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. Even now, you can’t own the fact that you created a wiki page as an attack on me. That’s why you’ve been banned. You want to be reinstated, but you’ve shown no remorse or even responsibility for your actions. I am Dan Trotta, and I definitely told you to F off. I’d happily do it again if you treated me, or anyone else that way, again. I’m not going into the weeds with you on this. You knew I couldn’t navigate the system or protocol, yet you offered no help or guidance. All of this is someone else’s fault, to hear you tell it. HJ was right - you used your editing skills to get a one up in a dispute. You just can’t admit to what you’ve done, can you? Imissdisco (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as an aside, you’ve only included the edits that occurred after things got heated. I was totally civil and decent when I initially requested deletion, not to mention upfront about my inexperience. Thanks again for your help Imissdisco (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. I said I was done, but I’ll make time. I may have little to no acumen when it comes to wiki, but as long as you continue to vie for reinstatement, I’ll be there to remind people of what you’ve done. Imissdisco (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find your intense hostility utterly exhausting.
I don't apologize simply because someone demands an apology. I wrote an essay on apologies, which you are welcome to read.
Before I go any farther discussing your complaints I am going to point out one of two things you and I both know, that no one else here knows.
You and and both know I do not know you, in real life. We have never met. I have no grudges against you, in real life.
I know you know this.
Our first exchange was in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg [8] [9]
You told me I was blocked over what you said I did to you.
That is incorrect.
You have acknowledged your inexperience with WMF projects, so you have not understood why I was actually blocked. I am going to paraphrase for you, in layman's language, what the administrator who blocked me told the WMF community.
They said, you had said, I HAD known you before we exchanged comments on the wikimedia commons. He told the WMF community I "fabricated" an image of you on commons, as part of a pre-existing real-life vendetta against you, that started off-wiki, and that I subsequently wrote an article about you, to attack you, as part of that real life vendetta against you.
As an outsider you don't understand that there is a huge difference between what you thought you said, and what he claimed you said.
So, Imissdisco, you have a test of your character here. Can you acknowledge we don't know one another, in real life?
In the interests of brevity, I will stop with this single point, and call on you to acknowledge we don't know one another, in real life. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant and silly. What difference does it make whether or not we’ve met? We had a dispute on Commons, and in retaliation, you created a Wikipedia page about me. It’s documented, and everyone knows it. Blocked, banned, whatever. Your test of character would be acknowledging what you did without couching it with “I got drunk”. Anyway, this is delicious to watch. I notice you deleted your friends post, the one where they told you how ridiculous your arguments have been. Why not keep it up in the interest of transparency?

Also, you know who I am. I have nothing to hide. You’re the one who’s hiding behind a username. That’s the difference between us. All my cards are on the table, I’ve done nothing wrong. You’re still trying to convince everyone what you did was justified. THAT’S why you haven’t been reinstated.

And I love it. Exactly what you deserve. Imissdisco (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals whose articles are illustrated with an image cropped from a Canadian Film Centre photo

For fifteen years or more the Canadian Film Centre published images from events they held, and released them under a free license. Those images became a rich source of headshots to illustrate our articles. Many individuals cropped headshots from the original Canadian Film Centre images, but I cropped the Lion's share of them. I make absolutely no apology for having done so.

Who would have thought there were no other free images of former Lieutenant Governor Hilary Weston, or of Barbara Amiel, or of Flora McDonald, from Joe Clark's cabinet?

Below is a gallery of some of those images, with a link to the associated article... Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 187: / Line 187: @@
 ::* So, [[User:Imissdisco|Imissdisco]], you have a test of your character here.  Can you acknowledge we don't know one another, in real life?
 ::* In the interests of brevity, I will stop with this single point, and call on you to acknowledge we don't know one another, in real life.  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan#top|talk]]) 21:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
+Irrelevant and silly. What difference does it make whether or not we’ve met? We had a dispute on Commons, and in retaliation, you created a Wikipedia page about me. It’s documented, and everyone knows it. Blocked, banned, whatever. Your test of character would be acknowledging what you did without couching it with “I got drunk”. Anyway, this is delicious to watch. I notice you deleted your friends post, the one where they told you how ridiculous your arguments have been. Why not keep it up in the interest of transparency?
+Also, you know who I am. I have nothing to hide. You’re the one who’s hiding behind a username. That’s the difference between us. All my cards are on the table, I’ve done nothing wrong. You’re still trying to convince everyone what you did was justified. THAT’S why you haven’t been reinstated.
+And I love it. Exactly what you deserve.  [[User:Imissdisco|Imissdisco]] ([[User talk:Imissdisco|talk]]) 16:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 ==Individuals whose articles are illustrated with an image cropped from a Canadian Film Centre photo==