User talk:Renamed user 8723489273
Renamed user 8723489273 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Unfairly provoked on numerous occasions. On 5 March I was permanently blocked for coming across as rude, bullying and incompetent. I think that is overstating the situation – the reality of which was that other editors were overruling me at every turn, for two solid months, in their attempt to protect the reputation of George Washington. I will admit that when perpetually and constantly cornered, and frustrated, I can be strident – but I do try very hard to stop short of rude (perhaps unsuccessfuly at times, but I make up for it by always thanking when thanks are due) – and I believe that to be an exaggerated accusation to get rid of me.
My background is that of a camp follower – the daughter of an army officer – and in my career as a WRNS officer – stridency is part of the job description. Yesterday I was happy to walk away. Today I feel the need to explain the situation in more detail. So far as my technological skills are concerned, as someone who was not born into the computer generation, I admit that they are certainly not top notch. However, with a crib sheet to follow, I can manage most things, except reference formatting, which actually makes me feel physically sick, I find it so hard. I get round that as much as possible by copying previous references to the same source. All this gets me by, but I am past the age of being a computer whizz-kid, which will never happen. But the fact is I am never going to create another article. My only wish to remain a member is to be permitted to keep articles neutral – accurate – and unbiased. Protecting Washington’s reputation is not part of my agenda, although protecting my ancestor, Charles Asgill, is – because for 2.5 centuries history surrounding him has been totally false – totally biased – in short – untrue.
I know this because in 2007 I discovered a hidden 18-page-letter, written by him in 1786 – in which he outlines exactly what happened during the so-called-Asgill Affair. Americans have become used, over such a long period of time, to believing every word stated by Washington, and do not like the new version of events which outline the lengths to which Washington went to protect his own reputation at the expense of Asgill’s. He did this by covering his tracks and blaming other people. Yes, I know, this is not what people want to hear – especially Americans. However, Lexington Books are thrilled to be publishing my book, which I believe will be out later this year. It is undergoing peer review a.t.m.
I made the mistake of going to the Washington Talk Page in January to see if a proposed edit would be acceptable. Of course, it wasn’t, and neither I, nor my message, were welcome. I was not treated kindly by anyone – except, back then, by one member who lulled me into believing that they might be my ally – as it turned out – I misplaced that trust. Having totally failed to get any amendments made to the Washington page, to reflect the true events of how Washington wriggled out of a bad situation, and managed to cast aspersions over Asgill for the rest of time, a COI was instigated against me. I slunk away from that – silenced – and tried to keep away from the turmoil. However, I became totally frustrated by the freedom my absence gave the Washington devotees to attack my work by changing facts back to ‘previously known history, as written by Washington himself’. What was the point of me spending £35,000 researching the truth, over the past 20 years?
What I had not expected, stupidly as it turned out, was that an army of Washington devotees would then start a systematic attack on every article I ever created, or contributed to, on Wikipedia. These would be approximately 25 or so – all articles surrounding the people involved in the Asgill Affair. They began by deleting a link to an interview I gave in March 2022 – which had gone through the COI process and had eventually been “closed” to the effect that the interview could be linked to Charles Asgill – his father and the Asgill Affair page – and a host of others so long as there was an appropriate mention of the Asgill Affair within those articles. I had to have a long and not very pleasant ‘discussion’- (for the second time, since the original COI had not been a bundle of joy), lasting weeks, for it to be reinstated as per the “closer” assessment. To my knowledge it remains on those three pages.
During my ‘absence’ a lovely image I sourced of Asgill’s wife was removed. Nobody had ever known what she looked like until my 3-year research uncovered her in a portrait by Hoppner of the Duchess of York – Sophia was her Lady of the Bedchamber. It was one of the most difficult pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to piece together, so that I was eventually standing in front of the Hoppner original in the palace of a Saudi prince, where it was like meeting Sophia in person. I took the photograph. This has been replaced by a magazine cover of the full Hoppner image of the Duchess. Sophia is so small as to be easily missed. I am deeply distressed by this development.
One of the things which hurt Asgill the most was to be cast as a “cad” for not writing a thank-you letter to Washington, following his 6-month-ordeal as a close-prisoner where he had been beaten up, deprived food, deprived family letters and generally treated so badly that he nearly died. Whilst a prisoner, in Chatham, NJ, he had even intimated the “horrors” he was undergoing, to Washington himself, so he had heard it from the mouth of the victim, but never acknowledged this. In his (unpublished for 233 years) letter Asgill explained that his conscience would not allow him to write with “genuine” thanks but yet he also did not want to seek retribution on Washington – in other words he simply wanted to stay silent on the matter. This is an exceptionally important element of his letter, and for several years has been on the articles relating to him. This is no longer permitted to appear and has been removed.
Katharine Mayo’s book General Washington’s Dilemma, is the only book every written about these events. As such it is the fullest and most detailed account available. To bring her political views into rubbishing her work is callous. There is no racism in her above quoted book. I am in awe of the lengths she went to (Africa) to research the story. To me she is a wonderful author. How she managed to write so compassionately and fairly, without ever reading one word of Asgill’s side of the story, leaves me in awe. Nor permitted is a link to Mayo’s Appendix II which is the most detailed account of the drawing of lots, by someone who was there. This appendix is not available in America, so American authors do not write about those events, since they do not know of its existence. But the link to Wikisource, which took weeks of my time to undertake, has been removed.
Now the main source of the other side of the story is the Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society, who, in December 2019, published Asgill’s 18-page-letter. The professional historians and researchers there worked tirelessly to create a brand new version of history and were the ones to discover that Washington withheld vital correspondence from his official account of events, published in the press on 16 November 1786. I had no part in writing up their work. Regrettably, in order to acknowledge that it was me who travelled to Lancaster to hand them Asgill’s letter, they decided to nominate me as a co-author. This fact means that the Washington devotees regard this as self-citing – which is ludicrous because the entire December 2019 volume was written by the experts in Lancaster – my only contribution being a re-print of my History Today article, written in 2007 (published in 2011), and regrettably somewhat out-dated now. Now devotees will not allow quotations from the only printed version of history to portray the new-truth. Given all the efforts I have made, ever since 2007, to get the truth out there, my frustration over all of this knows no bounds. Especially, since the publication of the Journal, quotes have been used extensively – until now.
I even notice that the very inadequate “Asgill Affair” section on the Washington page references a newspaper article about the Journal – so determined are they not to acknowledge the publication itself. It is not possible to give as a reference a newspaper account (which comes up with a 404 error message for anyone outside of America unless they use a VPN which, of course, is disallowed on Wikipedia) - rather than the Journal itself, with relevant page numbers. Yet, this is how it is because Washington devotees hold sway. Far, far, more examples of what they will not allow could be given, but this is already too long.
I am certainly not the best Wikipedian, on any level, and I do struggle at times understanding the rules, to the point of forgetting them too. But I do not want to create any more new article content. I do, however, want to be allowed to oversee the truth and be allowed to try to get wrong edits deleted and the correct ones reinserted, so editing permission is requested. The deletion of content is far too numerous to begin to list here. I can only do this were the committee prepared to reinstate my membership, but it would also help if the Washington devotees were requested to go back to their guard duties on the Washington page. I am sure there are plenty of other editors who could take their place, to oversee the overseer, but without an agenda of protecting George Washington at all cost.
I would appreciate being allowed to have the username “Camp Follower” but to retain my signature as “Anne”. I have no wish to deceive anyone as to my identity, but I realise I should never have used my real name, which was a huge mistake. Could this committee find it within themselves to forgive me for my transgressions, but also find it within themselves to understand my point of view? It is my belief that I was frequently provoked - provoked by having previously acceptable content deleted without even looking into the matter, or discussing it on the talk pages. I accept that there had been too much reliance on primary sources, and that needed attention, but it went far beyond that. I hope my words will be read, and consideration to them given. I will do my best to follow the rules, but when out of my depth will seek assistance from more capable editors. Anne (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Yamla I am upset by your decision, naturally, but if my evidence is denied, in what is essentially a court of law, on which my reinstatement or not depends - how can I present my case without presenting it? I am sorry for the length, but it could so easily have been twice as long. Anne (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are free to make a new unblock request. WP:GAB is worth reading before you do so. You need to be brief, as stated in WP:GAB. You wrote approximately 1850 words. That's ten times too long. You need to aim for 50 - 150 words, and certainly no more than 200. You need to address only your actions; saying you were unfairly provoked on numerous occasions counts against you, not in your favour. I suspect there's no reasonable chance you'll be unblocked unless you propose a WP:TOPICBAN covering Asgill Affair, anyone in the Asgill family, and US and British history from 1754 to 1812 at the very least. Note, though, that a different administrator will be reviewing any subsequent unblock request, so it isn't me you need to convince. --Yamla (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yamla, thank you for your explanation. Now that I know I must turn myself into the criminal, rather than the victim of repeated provocation, there will be no more appeals from me. I hope that by logging out, now, I will receive no further communications from WP whatsoever. Anne (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well said, Anne. That's Wikipedia for you. 2600:1700:8369:0:D3E:DCDC:C854:17CD (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yamla, thank you for your explanation. Now that I know I must turn myself into the criminal, rather than the victim of repeated provocation, there will be no more appeals from me. I hope that by logging out, now, I will receive no further communications from WP whatsoever. Anne (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are free to make a new unblock request. WP:GAB is worth reading before you do so. You need to be brief, as stated in WP:GAB. You wrote approximately 1850 words. That's ten times too long. You need to aim for 50 - 150 words, and certainly no more than 200. You need to address only your actions; saying you were unfairly provoked on numerous occasions counts against you, not in your favour. I suspect there's no reasonable chance you'll be unblocked unless you propose a WP:TOPICBAN covering Asgill Affair, anyone in the Asgill family, and US and British history from 1754 to 1812 at the very least. Note, though, that a different administrator will be reviewing any subsequent unblock request, so it isn't me you need to convince. --Yamla (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Request to be unblocked
Renamed user 8723489273 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please may I be unblocked in order that I may apply to "Vanish" entirely from Wikipedia? I hope that this will be permitted. I would like to concentrate on my exciting new life as a published author and leave behind troubling events on Wikipedia which, frankly, came about from ill health on my part. If anyone would like proof of this I can email them the medical reports. Please give this request your serious consideration. So far as editing another editor's userpage is concerned, I simply removed my own post, which I thought was perfectly acceptable on WP. Thank you and I hope you will allow me to leave WP permanently. Anne (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you are aware, vanishing is only available to accounts in good standing(i.e. not blocked). You won't be unblocked merely to vanish(as there would be little point in saying vanishing isn't for blocked users if we would comply with such requests). If you wish to leave, just leave. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Out of curiosity, are you thinking of Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing or something else, like having user/usertalk blanked? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- My so-called crimes were committed when I was not at all well. There is little point in going back over all that happened, but the instigator of my block simply wanted me out of the way, which was effectively achieved by my block. There is no right of reply here or now but I do not feel that my crimes were so heinous (amounting to a difference of opinion with that editor) that I deserve to have this stain on my character for time immemorial - long after I am dead - and for centuries to come. I would therefore very much appreciate it if I am permitted to "Vanish". Thank you. Anne (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- That did not make things clearer for me, so I'll leave this for the admins who happens to come by. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry that I didn't make myself clear. Nobody is permitted to Vanish from WP with the stain of a block to their name. I am therefore requesting to please be unblocked in order that the Vanishing process may then take place. Anne (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think you need be unblocked to vanish. If you look at WP:VANISH#How to request a courtesy vanishing it looks like you can just send a message by clicking on and filling out the form at meta:Special:EmailUser/Wikimedia Global-renamers. The only thing is WP:VANISH says it's discretionary and you need to be in "good standing" to vanish so I'm not sure how that would work in this case. DeCausa (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- They can request it, but accounts must generally not be blocked to receive a vanishing. We don't unblock accounts merely to vanish; if there is some reason for vanishing despite the block(i.e. a threat to physical safety or fear of government action), that should be explained in the request to vanish. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think you need be unblocked to vanish. If you look at WP:VANISH#How to request a courtesy vanishing it looks like you can just send a message by clicking on and filling out the form at meta:Special:EmailUser/Wikimedia Global-renamers. The only thing is WP:VANISH says it's discretionary and you need to be in "good standing" to vanish so I'm not sure how that would work in this case. DeCausa (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry that I didn't make myself clear. Nobody is permitted to Vanish from WP with the stain of a block to their name. I am therefore requesting to please be unblocked in order that the Vanishing process may then take place. Anne (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- That did not make things clearer for me, so I'll leave this for the admins who happens to come by. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- My so-called crimes were committed when I was not at all well. There is little point in going back over all that happened, but the instigator of my block simply wanted me out of the way, which was effectively achieved by my block. There is no right of reply here or now but I do not feel that my crimes were so heinous (amounting to a difference of opinion with that editor) that I deserve to have this stain on my character for time immemorial - long after I am dead - and for centuries to come. I would therefore very much appreciate it if I am permitted to "Vanish". Thank you. Anne (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I have been down every conceivable route and this one, here, has been suggested to me by an Admin. The point being that I do not believe that the so-called "crimes" I committed (as I have already said, what amounted to a difference of opinion) warrant condemnation for the next several centuries, into eternity. I wish my name to be cleared so that I can "Vanish" permanently from Wikipedia - and vice versa. After all my adversary wanted me abolished and I am only too happy to walk away permanently. Please ask yourselves if the punishment fits the crime. A difference of opinion and "words" happens in every pub all over the world every day. Probably in every household too. Does Wikipedia simply want to be vindictive to me and ensure that anyone looking at my page, now that I am published, sees all this for the rest of time - in other words - forever? That is vindictive for vindictiveness' sake. Charity would be in order, please. It isn't as though I have any wish to be a trouble to anyone here.Anne (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- You have not committed "crimes", as Wikipedia is not a government with authority over you, nor are you being punished. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruptive behavior. You can follow the instructions at WP:VANISH to request it, but I don't think it will be granted. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- The attendant reputational damage is most certainly a punishment out of all proportion to the crime of having a disagreement with another editor. I fully realise there is no point in applying to "vanish" unless my block can be lifted. I tried to explain that I was very unwell at the time too. What would Wikipedia lose by allowing me to walk away with this terrible block lifted? I am old, still unwell, and have absolutely no wish to have any interaction with Wikipedia, now or in the future. Isn't that enough? This really does feel like a centuries-long-never-to-be-ended punishment which would be simple to resolve. Even murderers get out of prison. Once dealt with nobody here would see sight nor sound of me ever again. I had swathe upon swathe of my work culled from articles I created, one of which has gone from a B to a C. It was distressing in the extreme back in the day. Of course I got upset about this. Anne (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- You may make a new unblock request for someone else to review, maybe you will find an admin willing to do as you ask. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- The attendant reputational damage is most certainly a punishment out of all proportion to the crime of having a disagreement with another editor. I fully realise there is no point in applying to "vanish" unless my block can be lifted. I tried to explain that I was very unwell at the time too. What would Wikipedia lose by allowing me to walk away with this terrible block lifted? I am old, still unwell, and have absolutely no wish to have any interaction with Wikipedia, now or in the future. Isn't that enough? This really does feel like a centuries-long-never-to-be-ended punishment which would be simple to resolve. Even murderers get out of prison. Once dealt with nobody here would see sight nor sound of me ever again. I had swathe upon swathe of my work culled from articles I created, one of which has gone from a B to a C. It was distressing in the extreme back in the day. Of course I got upset about this. Anne (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Request to be permitted to Vanish from Wikipedia
Renamed user 8723489273 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am applying again for my blocking to be lifted in order that I may "vanish" from Wikipedia without this terrible stain on my character. Differences of opinion happen in all walks of life; at the pub; at home; at work, but those events don't end up with a permanent record being made and a person's reputation left in tatters, never ever to be forgiven. To be told "if you want to leave, just leave" doesn't begin to address my problem. I was not a vandal. I was not a criminal. All I was fighting for was truthful reporting on Wikipedia. With swathes of my work deleted from so many articles, one has now been downgraded from B to C. Yes, I most definitely want to leave, but why does falling out with another editor, who simply did not see eye to eye with me, end up with my reputation being trashed for all to see for centuries to come - stretching into eternity? I don't understand how a hardened criminal can be released from prison, but my reputation must be damaged for time immemorial. I just don't get it. I don't want to be here now, fighting my corner all over again. I want to leave Wikipedia once and for all, but not with this permanent everlasting never-ever-to-be-forgiven-stain-on-my character. Please will someone with a bit of compassion just allow me to walk away untarnished? Why am I such a threat? What is everyone afraid I will do? I won't be here to disturb anyone, so allow me to not be disturbed any longer. Please ask yourselves if the punishment ever fitted the crime and whether this couldn't be just an unblock request? [[User:Anne Ammundsen|Anne]] ([[User talk:Anne Ammundsen#top|talk]]) 17:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I am applying again for my blocking to be lifted in order that I may "vanish" from Wikipedia without this terrible stain on my character. Differences of opinion happen in all walks of life; at the pub; at home; at work, but those events don't end up with a permanent record being made and a person's reputation left in tatters, never ever to be forgiven. To be told "if you want to leave, just leave" doesn't begin to address my problem. I was not a vandal. I was not a criminal. All I was fighting for was truthful reporting on Wikipedia. With swathes of my work deleted from so many articles, one has now been downgraded from B to C. Yes, I most definitely want to leave, but why does falling out with another editor, who simply did not see eye to eye with me, end up with my reputation being trashed for all to see for centuries to come - stretching into eternity? I don't understand how a hardened criminal can be released from prison, but my reputation must be damaged for time immemorial. I just don't get it. I don't want to be here now, fighting my corner all over again. I want to leave Wikipedia once and for all, but not with this permanent everlasting never-ever-to-be-forgiven-stain-on-my character. Please will someone with a bit of compassion just allow me to walk away untarnished? Why am I such a threat? What is everyone afraid I will do? I won't be here to disturb anyone, so allow me to not be disturbed any longer. Please ask yourselves if the punishment ever fitted the crime and whether this couldn't be just an unblock request? [[User:Anne Ammundsen|Anne]] ([[User talk:Anne Ammundsen#top|talk]]) 17:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I am applying again for my blocking to be lifted in order that I may "vanish" from Wikipedia without this terrible stain on my character. Differences of opinion happen in all walks of life; at the pub; at home; at work, but those events don't end up with a permanent record being made and a person's reputation left in tatters, never ever to be forgiven. To be told "if you want to leave, just leave" doesn't begin to address my problem. I was not a vandal. I was not a criminal. All I was fighting for was truthful reporting on Wikipedia. With swathes of my work deleted from so many articles, one has now been downgraded from B to C. Yes, I most definitely want to leave, but why does falling out with another editor, who simply did not see eye to eye with me, end up with my reputation being trashed for all to see for centuries to come - stretching into eternity? I don't understand how a hardened criminal can be released from prison, but my reputation must be damaged for time immemorial. I just don't get it. I don't want to be here now, fighting my corner all over again. I want to leave Wikipedia once and for all, but not with this permanent everlasting never-ever-to-be-forgiven-stain-on-my character. Please will someone with a bit of compassion just allow me to walk away untarnished? Why am I such a threat? What is everyone afraid I will do? I won't be here to disturb anyone, so allow me to not be disturbed any longer. Please ask yourselves if the punishment ever fitted the crime and whether this couldn't be just an unblock request? [[User:Anne Ammundsen|Anne]] ([[User talk:Anne Ammundsen#top|talk]]) 17:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Wikipedia is a workplace and should be treated as such in as much as the employer has a duty of care to the employee. I’ve worked here for over 16 years and made some significant contributions which have changed recorded history. It must be very clear that what has happened to me is causing me considerable distress and my mental health is deteriorating as a result, just as it did earlier in the year. There is no HR Department for me to turn to under these circumstances. It must be equally clear that I have not only been absent from WP for several months but that I also have no intention of returning to edit articles or create new ones. Why did an Admin suggest I come here to make this appeal if there was no earthly chance of it being considered? All I am asking for is to be unblocked so that I can leave without this stain on my character. Do you really want this punishment to hang out with me for eternity? Anne (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Just on the workplace thing: it most certainly isn't. If you're looking for analogies from the real world, it's more like a hobbyist's club. There are no employers or bosses. Everyone is free to come and go as they please...so long as they abide by the communally agreed "rules". DeCausa (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Millions may agree with you. But you cannot speak for me. My poor IT skills ensured that every edit I made was accompanied by shaking hands and a sick stomach. It was work for me. To set the record straight. Besides, even a hobbyist's club has some responsibility for the welfare of its users. I expect disagreements break out in places like that too. Anne (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Just on the workplace thing: it most certainly isn't. If you're looking for analogies from the real world, it's more like a hobbyist's club. There are no employers or bosses. Everyone is free to come and go as they please...so long as they abide by the communally agreed "rules". DeCausa (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
A possible solution
Ms. Amundsen,
Part of vanishing usually involves renaming the account to something like "VanishedUser19425". But we can do something like that without unblocking.
What would you, and the other admins here, think about:
- Renaming the account to something that absolutely could not be connected to you,
- Deleting the user and user talk pages, and
- RevDel'ing any edits that mention your name or identity
These steps, if taken, would make it really difficult to connect your identity to this account (save for someone who would know where to look and had the proper user rights, i.e. another admin), and don't require unblocking. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Daniel Case. I do appreciate your compassionate approach and that sounds like a possible way out of any impasse. I would only say that for my own self-esteem unblocking and then vanishing would be good. I will give my guarantee that I would never return to WP where there will always be people who do not embrace the fact that, with new evidence, history can change. I'm now published, so that battle is over! Anne (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- If my opinion is being asked for, I oppose unblocking even if the other stuff is done. I'm concerned that the other stuff sets a precedent but not enough to say I oppose those things. However, I'm content with whatever you or anyone decides. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm posting this since it is much easier to express my position through the words of someone else. I have now received a copy of my first Review, by Dr. David Smith of Hull University [1] who ends by saying "Ammundsen (a descendant of Asgill’s) has uncovered a fascinating story and tells it well. This book has clearly been a labour of love spanning two decades, and a large amount of background detail on Asgill’s life has been uncovered, most important of which is an 18-page letter from Asgill himself, which helped the author refute the falsehoods in Washington’s own account of the affair." It is the "falsehoods" I have been trying to rectify on WP, which is distasteful to some editors, and led to the position I now find myself in. Anne (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Case One month has now passed since your last post and I wondered if you could explain the procedure to me and what (and more importantly when) the next stage will be? Anne (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I haven’t forgotten … it seems there’s no objection to doing what I have proposed. I might be able to start implementing it when I’m back from Singapore and have readjusted to EDT later this week. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Case I'd be grateful to know if this project is still going to reach the conclusion you outlined above? The uncertainty has been hanging over me since 20 July and it is not something I can simply forget about. My life is now devoted to responding to requests for interviews and articles (incredibly time-consuming!), so I would greatly appreciate knowing where I stand here. Anne (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have been having some computer problems lately … I apologize. I haven’t forgotten. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Case I'd be grateful to know if this project is still going to reach the conclusion you outlined above? The uncertainty has been hanging over me since 20 July and it is not something I can simply forget about. My life is now devoted to responding to requests for interviews and articles (incredibly time-consuming!), so I would greatly appreciate knowing where I stand here. Anne (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I haven’t forgotten … it seems there’s no objection to doing what I have proposed. I might be able to start implementing it when I’m back from Singapore and have readjusted to EDT later this week. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Case One month has now passed since your last post and I wondered if you could explain the procedure to me and what (and more importantly when) the next stage will be? Anne (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm posting this since it is much easier to express my position through the words of someone else. I have now received a copy of my first Review, by Dr. David Smith of Hull University [1] who ends by saying "Ammundsen (a descendant of Asgill’s) has uncovered a fascinating story and tells it well. This book has clearly been a labour of love spanning two decades, and a large amount of background detail on Asgill’s life has been uncovered, most important of which is an 18-page letter from Asgill himself, which helped the author refute the falsehoods in Washington’s own account of the affair." It is the "falsehoods" I have been trying to rectify on WP, which is distasteful to some editors, and led to the position I now find myself in. Anne (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- If my opinion is being asked for, I oppose unblocking even if the other stuff is done. I'm concerned that the other stuff sets a precedent but not enough to say I oppose those things. However, I'm content with whatever you or anyone decides. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, before I delete these two pages, I realized that RevDel'ing the edits where your name is mentioned would probably mean all 6228 of them since your signature is still there, and even then the pages would still show the signature ... renaming would only remove it from page histories. This might take more time than I thought. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, it does change the sig, but that's still a lot of work. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm out of my depth with the technicalities, but have been hoping for your plan to materialise for some time now, so do hope it won't be abandoned? Anne (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is that every comment you've left on a talk page (e.g. Talk:Asgill Affair/Archive 1) has your name at the end, and renaming your account to something anonymous won't change that. Daniel Case, such action isn't usually part of vanishing actions, is it? See meta:Right to vanish#How a request to vanish may be fulfilled. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- If it matters, your name is also in places like this: Sir_Charles_Asgill,_2nd_Baronet#External_links. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- But that link does not show me as a member of Wikipedia. It is what it says on the tin; an external link to an interview. An important one, as it happens, and everyone judging me here should listen to it.Anne (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, just rereading your message of 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC) fills me with hope that this might yet come about. However, can I possibly still be considered a dire threat to Wikipedia? If not, all I want to achieve is to not be recognised on or off WP, now and in the future. And for my userpages to vanish. The desire to edit vanished long ago. So, is there any other way? Anne (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think what is being said here is that while it is technically possible to make your userpages vanish it's going to be difficult (maybe impossible) to remove your name from wherever you posted a message across Wikipedia. So, it looks like if all you need is for just these user pages to be deleted then it could be resolved relatively quickly. Is it? DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, just rereading your message of 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC) fills me with hope that this might yet come about. However, can I possibly still be considered a dire threat to Wikipedia? If not, all I want to achieve is to not be recognised on or off WP, now and in the future. And for my userpages to vanish. The desire to edit vanished long ago. So, is there any other way? Anne (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- But that link does not show me as a member of Wikipedia. It is what it says on the tin; an external link to an interview. An important one, as it happens, and everyone judging me here should listen to it.Anne (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm out of my depth with the technicalities, but have been hoping for your plan to materialise for some time now, so do hope it won't be abandoned? Anne (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
DeCausa, in Daniel Case's message he indicated vanishing would involve "renaming the account to something that absolutely could not be connected to you", so yes, there is more to it than you suggest. Anne (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Although renaming your account changes the name your article edits are under, I'm pretty sure that it won't change the signature of your posts to, eg, article talk pages. They won't change. DeCausa (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm simply referring to this:
- Renaming the account to something that absolutely could not be connected to you,
- Deleting the user and user talk pages, and
- RevDel'ing any edits that mention your name or identity
- Anne (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The first two are easily achieved; it's the final one that it's not clear is doable. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, but it has not yet been ruled out. While there is hope, hope reigns supreme. Anne (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think revision deletion would be required, but rather replacement of talk page signatures - but that itself would be a huge task (and possibly be outside the vanishing norms). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you could always give me a new identity, unblock me and send me on my merry way? Quicker, easier and then you'd never hear from me again! All my useful references were on WP (none on my hard drive). Now nothing I need or want is there. There is nothing to come back for. Anne (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but the issue is that all of your talk page comments would still be signed with your old identity (though you might be fine with that - I don't want to assume). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry - I just want to Vanish, as you well know. I would like it to be as though I had never spent 16 years of my life contributing in a way no other contributor was able to do. I want all this to be over and have for a long time now. It is not me who will find the means by which this can be achieved. Anne (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but the issue is that all of your talk page comments would still be signed with your old identity (though you might be fine with that - I don't want to assume). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- My idea was that RevDel would only be necessary for edits that identified inline, not in the signature.
- i 5himk, actually, we can have all signatures renamed and replaced; it would take a bureaucrat to do that, though … Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is a name change plus remaining blocked an option? Plus removal of userpages? Anne (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- I just put in a request for the renaming part at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. We'll see how it goes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- OK, they just told me absolutely no way ... only users in good standing get to do this, and as an indefinitely blocked user, you're not. They also say it would be technically impossible to do all this, so I should just delete these two pages as that's all I can do. This can be done by any admin as soon as you acknowledge this reply. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is beyond belief that someone published in their field is shown such utter disdain here. People editing the pages I created don't even know what the "City of London" is and think the Asgill family were aristocrats. Asgill's father was a debt collector. So far as Americans are concerned someone with a title is automatically an aristocrat, having no concept of the meaning of the term. Totally ignorant of the Asgill story, yet hailed as heroes for demolishing my work. And people wondered why that upset me - and allows my punishment to last until the universe ends. Unbelievable. I hope you are all very proud indeed of yourselves. Of course you are. Anne (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, I don't think this user talk page should be deleted. It's exceptionally rare to do so, and WP:CVUT says it should only be done in cases of "serious privacy concerns and the potential for real-world harm". Even then, it's supposed to be done by a functionary or ArbCom, not an admin. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- My response to this is that (a) for a couple of months I have been led to believe that some compassion was finally surfacing and (b) I have been approached by a national organisation wishing to make my research publicly known, nationwide. I maintain that Firefangledfeathers approach would damage my working life as a published author. I conclude that that would be "real-world harm". Anne (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please do not mistake what we are able to do for a lack of compassion. We are under certain limitations and we can't just do whatever you want even if we feel bad about it. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why on earth was a told by an Admin that my best course would be to apply to "Vanish"? I am being tossed by the wind which blows at random, depending on who is pumping the bellows. Anne (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure that, in good faith, they thought there was a chance. Perhaps you could contact Trust and Safety or the Arbitration Committee. I think we might be approaching above-our-pay-grade territory. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would endorse that approach (and yes I did believe that would have been possible to do it all at this level) T&S would be able to override policy on this if they deem it desirable. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure that, in good faith, they thought there was a chance. Perhaps you could contact Trust and Safety or the Arbitration Committee. I think we might be approaching above-our-pay-grade territory. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why on earth was a told by an Admin that my best course would be to apply to "Vanish"? I am being tossed by the wind which blows at random, depending on who is pumping the bellows. Anne (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please do not mistake what we are able to do for a lack of compassion. We are under certain limitations and we can't just do whatever you want even if we feel bad about it. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- My response to this is that (a) for a couple of months I have been led to believe that some compassion was finally surfacing and (b) I have been approached by a national organisation wishing to make my research publicly known, nationwide. I maintain that Firefangledfeathers approach would damage my working life as a published author. I conclude that that would be "real-world harm". Anne (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- OK, they just told me absolutely no way ... only users in good standing get to do this, and as an indefinitely blocked user, you're not. They also say it would be technically impossible to do all this, so I should just delete these two pages as that's all I can do. This can be done by any admin as soon as you acknowledge this reply. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I just put in a request for the renaming part at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. We'll see how it goes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is a name change plus remaining blocked an option? Plus removal of userpages? Anne (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you could always give me a new identity, unblock me and send me on my merry way? Quicker, easier and then you'd never hear from me again! All my useful references were on WP (none on my hard drive). Now nothing I need or want is there. There is nothing to come back for. Anne (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The first two are easily achieved; it's the final one that it's not clear is doable. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm simply referring to this:
Hello, I'm yet another admin. If I'm reading this correctly, Daniel is proposing, and you are agreeing that you want the following pages deleted:
I've done that. When all conversation is over here, we can 'blank' this page - it's pointless doing that if there's an ongoing conversation. This keeps the history intact. I believe you can get a rename to something random, especially if no one here objects. As others have said, this won't remove any signatures you've previously used on talk pages. I think that's the best deal available. Let us know what you think. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also your meta page at m:User:Anne Ammundsen can be deleted, but we don't have the means. You need to use your account to edit that page, and add
{{db-user}}to it. You'll need to do this yourself. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) - zzuuzz Thank you for bringing this much closer to a speedy conclusion. I downloaded pdf versions of a couple of the pages you have deleted and I had forgotten about the others. I am certainly hoping that the Asgill Affair and Appendix 2 of GW'sD are on the main pages, and will assume the affirmative. As for a name change, that would be welcome too if you could arrange? As for deleting my meta page (if that is my userpage) I am very sorry to tell you that I do not know how to do as you recommend. Please would you give me more detailed guidance? Anne (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)