User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2020-06

This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

Explain

I pinged you to SilkTork, because I am lazy, and didn't want to repeat the whole thing here. In the meantime, SilkTork explained that he is tired of the topic, therefore perhaps free his talk from your response, and place it here, and I'll reply here. Or where I also copied it to, WT:QAI. My position is on WP:QAI/Infobox. I am also a FA writer from time to time, - please don't put us all into one pot ;) - I learned the hard way that arguing with certain editors about certain topics is a complete waste of time. It boils down to the unforgettable comment from the discussion for The Rite of Spring, "Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article." (I'm not making this up.) And what could you possibly reply? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of Gerda not wanting to talk about a subject that she "never talks about". It's a real shame you have these lapses, Gerda. And to link to something I said - seven years ago, is it? - is absurd. Cassianto^Talk 05:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, your comment from seven years ago sums the whole thing up for me. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, you seem to be calling Gerda Arendt's comment absurd.

You and I had never interacted, up until a week or so ago, when you left a followup comment to something I wrote, implying (baselessly, IMO) that I had a long pattern of problematic comments.

I think your unhelpful comment about my behaviour is very similar to your unhelpful comment, above, about Gerda. If you think you have genuine policy based concerns over some other contributor's comments, or edits, you are allowed to civilly raise your concern. But I think you have an obligation to only raise policy based concerns if you do so in a way that is a likely path to resolution, re-education, because every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. Remember, everyone is fallible, even you, so you should voice your concerns with humility - just in case the current concern is an instance where your correspondent is blameless, and your concern was misplaced.

I am not your friend. I have barely had any interaction with you. I have had enough interaction however, that I have some advice for you. This is the same advice I would offer you if I were your best friend. Your pattern of comments on other contributors' edits and comments seems generally unhelpful and unnecessarily confrontational. I suggest you consider being nicer, genuinely nicer, genuinely more humble, as I think you run the risk of being identified as lapsing from WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Cooperatively... Geo Swan (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Cassianto^Talk 21:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See? This comment is completely unhelpful. If you have a civil comment that you think might make me a better contributor, that would be welcome here. Unhelpful, face-saving sarcasm? Yeah, I am not really interested. Geo Swan (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions notifications

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Nick (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Geo Swan/archive,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USCGC Anacapa references

Hi Geo Swan!

I noticed you edited some references on the USCGC Anacapa page. I'm not sure what happened, but there are a bunch of error messages associated with them. I know you had something specific in mind when you made the edits so I don't feel comfortable simply changing them. Could you take a look at this please?

Thanks!Jordanroderick (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't know what went wrong here. I reverted myself, and will take a harder look, later. Cheers1 Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Nazi slave labor camp" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nazi slave labor camp. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Nazi slave labor camp until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. b uidhe 05:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP warning from Johnuniq

You received the BLP discretionary sanctions notification on 16 June 2020, diff. At ANI permalink, 30 June 2020 some stiff advice was given. Please take that into account while editing because using Wikipedia to highlight individuals in the way proposed will lead to an indefinite block. Others would be content with an indefinite BLP topic ban, so they might replace the block with such a ban. It would better to learn from the experience and avoid exploring the limits. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, I don't like the feeling of being bullied, and I don't like trying to respond when I feel bullied. Since your warning above is quite inaccurate, it feels unfair, like a form of bullying.
You refer to "using Wikipedia to highlight individuals in the way proposed" implying I, Geo Swan, had made a proposition, that was counter-policy. If you actually believe this I am concerned you took an unfair strawman accusation someone else flung against me at face value. I do not think I ever "proposed" a scheme to "highlight individuals".
I do have an opinion, on a certain issue.

The wikipedia isn't a totalitarian dictatorship, like North Korea. Wikipedia contributors should not be expected to totally suppress their opinions on areas where they think our policies are ambiguous, or suppress their opinions on areas where they disagree with those policies.

I have tried to be selective on where I voice this opinion. Nevertheless, my opinion has triggered some anger, anger I can't help feeling is misplaced.

In this comment on WP:ANI you wrote "Another more interesting question would be Should editors who use Wikipedia to right great wrongs by naming and shaming individual cogs in the wheel be indeffed?. Put me in the yes camp.

While administrators have the authority to block individuals, they only rarely jump immediately from noticing problematic behaviour to an indefinite block. Except in emergencies an indefinite block, follows a series of blocks of lesser duration, with each preceded by warnings. Those warnings, unlike the warning, above, should be specific as to what the individual was doing wrong, and how they should amend their editing, to be policy compliant.
I don't know what to make of your allegation I have been using the wikipedia to "right great wrongs". This is a rarely voiced concern. Anyone actually doing this would be lapsing from NPOV. I work hard to comply with NPOV. I first read this concern over a dozen years ago. I looked into this concern. If I recall correctly, I think I concluded, after my self-audit, that I had not been lapsing from NPOV, and I had not been using the wikipedia to "right great wrongs".
I am subject to normal human fallibility, just as you are subject to normal human fallibility. Even though I think I do a good job at complying with NPOV it is possible you came across one or more instance(s) where you thought I was pushing a POV. I suggest you should have voiced your specific concern(s) at the time you noticed them. I get very few specific concerns over lapses from NPOV. I think this is because I do a good job at complying with NPOV. If you were to notice a specific lapse from NPOV, and you pointed it out to me, and I thought it held merit, I'd fix the problem, ASAP. But, if you noticed a lapse, you didn't do that, did you?
I don't know where your "shaming" allegation came from. I don't think I have said or proposed shaming anyone related to the killing of George Floyd, or anywhere else.

If I am not mistaken, administrator block are only supposed to be put in place by uninvolved administrators. Sorry, your vague and inaccurate warning, following your left-field accusation at WPANI, strongly suggests to me that you are not an uninvolved administrator. I think this means if you conclude I should be blocked, you should recuse yourself, not block me yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you were not trying to shame anyone. You just worked hard to name an individual for no reason at all other than you can do what you like at Wikipedia unless someone can point to the policy that prohibits your edit. Of course I am not involved and if you pursue this matter past the standard venting period I will indefinitely block you. The consensus at the ANI discussion was very strong and now would be a good time to work on something else. You are free to regard that as bullying. We are free to regard your persistent attempts to work around a strong consensus as requiring action to ensure BLP applies and to reduce the waste of time and energy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am sorry but the track record of disregarding BLP policy needs to stop by Geo_Swan. Their edit history is full of BLP violations and bad faith behaviour. Geo Swan you are not competent to edit in this space and you need to stop. You have attempted to WP:OUT people, doxx people etc and you need to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.228.89 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am leaving a final comment here, in spite of archiving this thread, because I think it needs to be said that 104.249.228.89 is one of the almost 100 IP addresses used by a long term abuser who has spent over three years wikistalking me. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]