User:Geo Swan/wub

I am requesting my block be removed. Before I explain why I think it was inappropriately applied, I will acknowledge User talk:Geo Swan#I did fall short of my usual standards of behaviour.

I did fall short of my usual standards of behaviour

I believe my record shows I am almost always refrain from responding in kind to inflammatory language, from uncivil accusations.

In my 15+ years of contributing to the Wikipedia there have been multiple occasions when I played a role in interacting with third parties who have requested images be deleted, or have requested articles to be deleted. I think I have shown patience and restraint with these individuals.

I was triggered by Imissdisco's provocations.

Regarding the claim I was pursuing an off-wiki dispute...

HJ Mitchell's #Only warning admonished me for "... writ[ing] Wikipedia articles about people with whom you are in dispute elsewhere."

I am not in a dispute with Dan Trotta. I have never met Dan Trotta. I don't know Dan Trotta. Yes, in September, 2019, I cropped ten headshots from File:Gale Anne Hurd Masterclass 2 (6829984489).jpg, including [[:File:|Dan Trotta at the Gale Anne Hurd Masterclass (6829984489).jpg]]. The Canadian Film Center holds about a dozen events per year, where a photographer circulates, and takes photos they then upload to their flickr page, under a free license. Since 2012, when upload one of those images that include multiple individuals, have cropped headshots. The individuals in those headshots are either figures from the Canadian film or television industry, or some kind of VIP. So they are all properly licensed and in project scope.

I am not the only individual who has uploaded images from the CFC's flickr page, and I am not the only individual who cropped headshots from them. But, I did the lion's share. I found we already had one hundred or more BLP articles on these individuals, that lacked a headshot. I added the newly cropped headshots to those articles.

I thought that was a job well-done. I did not think I owed an apology for anyone for doing so. I still don't think I owe anyone an apology for doing so.

I did not take the photo of Dan Trotta. A CFC photographer asked Trotta and his colleagues to pose for the group photo. Trotta had the option of stepping out of camera range, and sitting out the group photo.

I have 

of

Courtesy deletion is not automatic

The first two instances where I was involved with requests for courtesy deletion. The wording of the wikipedia's policies, on courtesy deletion, authorize the closing administrator to take the third parties wishes into account, during discussions. My interpretation of this clause is that taking their wishes into account means closing an AFD on an individual of marginal notability as delete, rather than no consensus. Several individuals suggested administrator HJ Mitchell would have been authorized to speedily delete the [[]] article. I strongly believe their suggestions were incorrect, and that complying with a request for courtesy deletion never justifies speedy deletion. A third party who raises a concern about an article about them that genuinely measures up to the criteria to be considered an attack page? That would be a different matter. That would not be a courtesy deletion.

Was HJ Mitchell reckless to call the article an attack page?

Yes, I believe he was

cropping Canadian Film Centre images

I am interested in film. I am interested in Canadian film. The IMO prestigious Canadian Film Centre is a rich source of images of figures from the Canadian film industry. They hold a dozen or more events a year, inviting figures from the Canadian film industry, and other notable people. They hire professional photographers to mingle at these events. They uploaded about 5,000 images from these events to flickr, under a free license. Over the last decade or so I have uploaded many of these photos to the commons. Over the last eight years or so I have cropped headshots of these individuals. Once I crop the headshot of a figure from one of those photos I go see whether there is an unillustrated BLP about them, and I illustrate that BLP with the newly cropped headshot.

I am not the only contributor to upload images from the Canadian Film Centre's flickr stream, nor am I the only contributor to crop headshots from them, or use those images to illustrate unillustrated BLPs.

That I spent hundreds of hours, over the last ten years, uploading these images, cropping headshots, using those headshots to illustrate articles, would be irrelevant, if this was inconsistent with the goals of the commons and of the wikipedias. But I believe my activities were completely in line with goals of both projects.

Improving the experience of third parties with genuine requests for courtesy deletion

Four individuals have requested courtesy deletion images cropped from the Canadian Film Centre flickr stream. I re-read them, after my block, and re-read the other discussions

I suggest that, in addition to allowing third parties to initiate a dialogue with the trusted members of the OTRS team by emailing [email protected], we should provide a simple special purpose page similar to the simple page you get when you click "email this user".

What we insiders don't appreciate is that it seems genuine third parties are daunted and confused because they don't know what happens next. This special purpose page should tell them, briefly. They fill in a brief form where they state their private email address, the file or article that concerns them, and the nature of their concern. They should be told, briefly, that a trusted OTRS team member will have to first confirm they are who they said they are.

They should be sent a confirmation email, that gives more details of what to expect.

IMO it is essential that all individuals making third party requests confirm their identity through OTRS

In my experience the Wikipedia has shown it is vulnerable to spoofing and dirty tricks from determined vandals, impostors, and other bad actors.

The wikipedia's history shows there are individuals, like Template:U who are prepared to spend hundreds of hours making good policy compliant contributions in order to mask their hidden disruptive intent. Template:U would be another instance. I do not believe they are the only examples.

I had run-ins with two former contributors who turned out to be sockpuppetmasters, who had been entrusted with administrator authority.

For an individual like that, claiming to be a poor, put-upon subject of a BLP, in order to win an argument, is much less effort than making hundreds or thousands of good valid edits, to mask a disruptive intent.

Adminstrator HJ Mitchell was, IMO, reckless...

Adminstrator Template:U was, IMO, reckless to take comment from a third party at face value, when the third party had not taken the step of confirming their identity through OTRS.

Adminstrator Template:U was, IMO, reckless to take accept, at face value, complaints that I attacked anyone. That third party, whoever he or she was, stated "things got ugly"', "things got silly". That third party's three dozen edits were almost all edits that could be classified as vandalism. The ugliness and silliness? It was all from that third party.

A fair and neutrally written article should not be characterized as an "attack article", for any usual definition of "attack article". Third party Template:U claimed the article misrepresented Dan Trotta. Neither HJ Mitchell not Imissdisco said why they considered the Dan Trotta article misrepresent Mr Trotta.

I puzzled over what justification the third party might have offered for claiming I misrepresent Trotta. I wrote he was an alumnus of the Canadian Film Centre. Here in Ontario there are about two dozen Universities, and a couple of dozen Community Colleges, officially recognized as degree granting institutions. The Provincial legislature passed a law authorizing each one. The CFC is not a degree granting program. However, it is my impression that it is more prestigious to complete this one year program than to have earned a film degree, because of the prominence of those who were selected and completed the program.

The English language Wikipedia has multiple millions of BLP articles. We don't contact BLP individuals prior to good faith efforts to cover them with BLP articles. Only a tiny fraction of those BLP