Geschichte

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Geschichte. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be more careful

I just became aware you initiated en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Andrea Werhun on January 20, 2024. You did not, however, leave a note on en:User talk:Geo Swan. You did not ping me. You did not send me an email, or otherwise make any effort to inform me of this discussion. Informing people when you think material they started should be deleted has been a long-standing courtesy. I regret you did not take this step here.

I am going to point out that a brand new article en:Andrea Werhun, was started in September 2024, by User:Bearcat.

That article was started without benefit of my draft, thanks to your efforts. I find that regrettable.

I am going to ask either @User:Pppery, the administrator who draftified the page, and, since they are on a wiki-break, @User:Liz the administrator who deleted the draft at the six month mark, to merge the revision histories of the material I worked on with the newer version of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You did not, however, leave a note on en:User talk:Geo Swan. You did not ping me. You did not send me an email, or otherwise make any effort to inform me of this discussion. Informing people when you think material they started should be deleted has been a long-standing courtesy

It's long been standard practice of mine (and presumably Geschichte's) to not notify indefinitely blocked or long-inactive users, especially banned users.

is implying a causation chain that isn't there. Bearcat is an admin so could have looked at the deleted draft, and if Geschichte had not taken action still nothing would have alerted Bearcat to the existence of your draft.

I am going to ask either @User:Pppery, the administrator who draftified the page, and, since they are on a wiki-break, @User:Liz the administrator who deleted the draft at the six month mark, to merge the revision histories of the material I worked on with the newer version of the article -> Granting that request would be impermissible proxy adminning. And I'm not sure whether I would have granted it even if you weren't banned.

I'll admit I never thought you being indefinitely banned from enwiki was justified, but that doesn't matter now. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• You wrote that you didn't think an indefinite ban was justified? Thanks for that.

The justification for my block was that I started an "attack page".

Wikidocuments that give advice to people who have been indefinitely blocked, who want to be re-instated, recommend being contrite, being really contrite. They recommend acknowledging that they acted wrongly, being specific about their recognition they acted wrongly, and promising, super-promising, to never do it again.

I can't be contrite, because I believe I started a fair and neutrally written BLP, and I honestly don't believe that a fair and neutrally written BLP should ever be characterized as an "attack page". It seems to me that everyone who actually looked at the page in question was puzzled, because all they saw was a fair and neutrally written BLP -- not an "attack page".

So, how did dozens of people come to endorse my block? Most of those dozens of people were contributors who had never engaged in a discussion with me, and, I think the record shows they simply took the false accusation I had created an attack page at face value, without confirming I wrote an attack page. I am sure they would be shocked to be informed that it looks like they agreed to be meatpuppets. Nevertheless, !voting, or weighing in with an opinion, at the direction of a meatpuppetmaster, makes one a meatpuppet.

Now, if there were someone who could offer a meaningful explanation as to how a fair and neutrally written BLP could, nevertheless, be an "attack page", and that explanation was convincing, I would apologize, I would be contrite. But I honestly do not believe anyone could offer that convincing explanation.

Thanks for your time. Geo Swan (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll make one attempt to try to explain this, although I suspect it's futile. The logic (which I'm attempting to put into words, not saying I agree with), is that your motivation for creating w:Dan Trotta was allegedly to ensure that c:File:Dan Trotta at the Gale Anne Hurd Masterclass (6829984489).jpg was kept per c:COM:INUSE despite the subject wanting it to be deleted, which was seen as a way of attacking the subject, possibly aggravated by off-wiki disputes I don't care to dig up. The argument goes that the mere existence of the page was attacking the subject given the context, and has nothing to do with whether the content of the page was fair and neutrally written.

Finally, there's no evidence any of the people there are meatpuppets - it's far more likely they did their own independent evaluation of the situation and agreed with the logic I wrote out above, even though I don't necessarily. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 22:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)