Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:52, 9 July 2009

NYScholar is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Disclaimer: NYScholar is not in any way affiliated with a personal website called nyscholar.com. This Misplaced Pages log-in identity is simply descriptive: "NYScholar" is an academic scholar who resides in New York. This Misplaced Pages log-in identity, used since June 30, 2005, pre-dates the existence of that website, which began on January 30, 2007.

Template:Archive box collapsible

More general comments

I am not asking for any special privileges or any release from Misplaced Pages editing policies or guidelines due to my expertise. I follow Misplaced Pages editing policies and guidelines, w/ ref. to WP:POL, particularly: WP:BLP, WP:V, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, and guidelines in WP:MOS, including WP:CITE and WP:EL.

There is no way that I could have provided the information that I have provided if I were not the specialist on Pinter that I say I am. That's not the point. I provide full citations to verified (not just verifiable, but verified) printed and online sources that I have copies of. I could not be providing the material (quotations, facts) if I did not have access to these critical books, articles, and newspaper feature articles and reviews. The idea that I'm asking not to follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is actually ass backwards. I'm giving page references to printed sources in my hands (from my own book shelves); and URLs from online sources which I have usually printed out. If I were not an expert scholar in this field I would not have this material to provide. Verifiablity is what WP:V requires; I've gone a step further; these are verified sources. If Misplaced Pages editors are going to question that, then they will have to check every source themselves, and that is not what WP:V is. The policy requires that the sources be "verifiable"; what I provide is "verifiable" and verified, going one step farther. (Sometimes a typographical error occurs in the peer revising process, as people move things around; I've tried to update URLs and correct those kinds of inadvertent errors when I become aware of them. I even took the time when I was working in London to alert Misplaced Pages that I would be checking sources when I returned home, and then I did that work after I returned home last week.

05:30, 7 July 2009] --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

" Page numbers within a book or article are not required when a citation is for a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view." (WP:CITE#Including page numbers). (updated). --NYScholar (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened after that has to do w/ 2 photographic images,File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg; Search results (my specific concerns about fair use criteria are provided on various user talk pages concerning images listed in those results; I hadn't seen these postings before today; the fair use rationale was changed to accommodate my concern about #8; it is different now than it was when I questioned its accuracy.] Diffs. (cont.)

Jezhotwells's insistence on turning the "peer review" initiated when his/her RfC didn't result in the outcome s/he desired into an "ownership" complaint relating to "MLA citation style" (again), etc. and etc. Small potatoes compared to the ongoing vandalism and sock puppetry.

[Jezhotwells moved the RfC to Talk:Harold Pinter archive, where the "Mediation" link also resides. If one wants to examine them, one has to go to that archived talk page. (cont.)

That "Mediation" remains/ed (?) open; the opener never returned to close it. After that Jezhotwells initiated a "review" of her/his own editing style, prominently focusing on "NYScholar", which, to me, appeared to be the reason for initiating that review of him/herself; I regarded it as a surreptitious way of focusing on me further. It really appears to me that Jezhotwells (et al.) were intent on taking over "ownership" of the article, and that the "ownership" argument applies to these current editors, who were determined to block the main contributor from working on it. Point of information: There were no source citations in Harold Pinter before I began editing it on 30 June 2006. (Updated.) -- 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember the user name; it's short and has a fancy script : But I have answered that generally very pleasant (up to now patient) person's question about whether I would work to change the sources to some other citation style. I answered that on this talk page several times; I am not writing anything in the AN/I space anymore and haven't for the past day or so. (Scroll up.)

I have said, no, I will not be doing that; I am leaving it up to the other editors (who do not want to work with me at all and who make that clear in their attempt to ban me from editing the topic Harold Pinter) to change my hard-worked on MLA style full citations to whatever style they decide they want.

They have explicitly asked me not to edit the article and to give them the "time"/"space" to do that. Initially, it was not I who did not want to work with them (Jezhotwells, et al.); it is they who do not want to work with me (who want to ban me from working on the topic, to start out w/ and now from Misplaced Pages entirely).Diffs.,Diffs.,Diffs.,Diffs.,Revision history, Diffs. (cont.)

See My July 1, 2009 Sandbox version of Harold Pinter, which contains page references to numerous printed sources (published books and articles on Pinter) and the "full citations" required for a "controversial topic" (which Harold Pinter still is, despite Ssilvers' removal of that template and the inconsistencies of punctuation now created in citations in Harold Pinter); all endnotes need to end with periods, as I provided originally, which are still visible in that Sandbox version; "p." and "pp." are "deprecated" (no longer used) in most current documentation styles cited by Misplaced Pages as options for citations (e.g., MLA, APA, & Chicago), and commas are not necessary between the name of the source and the page number or page numbers; in Misplaced Pages citation templates; "parenthetical referencing" (of various kinds) and "MLA style" in particular are still offered as optional selectable features in the {{MoSElement}} style template parameters in Misplaced Pages, the style sheet template removed by Ssilvers, along with the "controversial" template (which states the requirement for "full citations").Diffs.

Ssilvers' claims about me throughout the AN/I are false and clearly not based on a careful examination of the editing history of Harold Pinter.Diffs.; I spent weeks working collaboratively with Willow in summer/fall 2007 to bring the article through a "good article review", which it passed with MLA style citations; it was only from December 25, 2008 (the day Pinter's death was announced) that Jezhotwells entered the process of editing Harold Pinter; after that, the prevailing citation style was constantly under attack by Jezhotwells, and later by his/her cohort of editors; Ssilvers et al., who were apparently enlisted apropos of the "peer review" initiated by Jezhotwells; I had not seen Ssilvers editing anything, including any articles on Pinter before that, between June 30, 2006 and the peer review initiated by Jezhotwells (May/June 2009). I made many changes to the citations based on Jezhotwells' requests from December 25, 2008 until I stopped editing the article last week.] (Updated.) -- 06:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So I repeat my own rhetorical question from earlier: why would I want to commit myself to taking even more of my time to convert the full citations already provided when (1) I don't know what they want to convert them to; and (2) whatever the Misplaced Pages citation template or style is--it is not one that I necessarily know how to use; and (3) I have my own non-Misplaced Pages work to do and now even less time left to do editing in Misplaced Pages, due to the time lost over these hugely time-consuming sanction battles.

My time is gone. I really wanted to turn back to my own work to begin with for the rest of the summer/fall, and now I've lost almost a week on this. So the time is gone.

If I am able to take any time to edit Misplaced Pages later in the summer, then I will need mentoring and I will call on my mentor if I am not banned and have one.

But I'm staying entirely away from copyright matters by choice not coercion. (I don't like getting involved in them and have stated that before.) It's just very time-wasting, in my view, and I'll leave it to others.

That means that I will not be taking the time to upload any more photographic images to Misplaced Pages probably. Not my own, and not anybody else's. I just don't want to get involved in such matters in Misplaced Pages. They always seem to engage one in controversy. To avoid it entirely is what I intend to do.

The DVD Illuminations image has stable fair use rationales; unless they are challenged on the image page, I don't see a problem with their current use in Harold Pinter. Another editor disagrees with me, but if he is going to do so, he needs to provide his challenges (dispute fair use criteria) on the image page, not in a talk page of the article or other talk pages or AN/I discussions. He needs to add his own templates and present his own arguments to the proper project image review pages and see what happens.

Offline after this....

Thank you and goodnight! --NYScholar (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

G'day NY

Hi there - I'm a wiki editor down in Australia, who's been trying to catch up with some of the controversy, trials and tribulations you've been involved in which seem to have resulted in a discussion at a noticeboard about 'community banning' you (if you're not sure what that means, don't worry - we're not either! ;-) - I thought I'd come by personally (if you're still around at all?) to ask if having had a short while to think about it all you're interested at all in continuing to contribute here on the wiki, and if you're interested in having a chat about some ideas which might make it all a bit easier? Hope you're well regardless, and maybe chat later :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you mean. Actually, I'm not that well, due to all this, and going to bed I hope; it's 6:07 a.m. now, and my internal time clock is totally turned around, having just come back from the UK and still not on EDT time. Do you mean "chat" here on my talk page? Perhaps if that's what you mean, much later might be possible. I am hoping to take a complete break from Misplaced Pages, however, as this has just proved too exhausting and demoralizing, and it just doesn't seem to be getting any better. (Due to the "shooting oneself in the foot" syndrome, I suspect....)

Perhaps you could just share the ideas you have which "might make it all a bit easier". Some advice that makes sense to me is to take an extended Wikibreak and just not come here at all. I do love the "G'day NY" in your Australian idiom!! Brightened my very dark night/day.... Off to bed, however.... :-? --NYScholar (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do get that rest, and do take at least some level of wikibreak. Let me suggest reading two essays: WP:DGAF, one of my favorites, and Defend Each Other. Don't worry about the ban, even if you are banned site-wide, that can be handled, if you are willing to cooperate with those who recognize the value of your work and want to foster it. Consider it as merely a speed-bump, which can only damage your vehicle if you are driving too fast. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

G'day again NY, I hope you got some good rest - and I'd certainly echo Abd's advice above too - I did indeed mean chat here, and look forward to you feeling suitably enthusiastic to exchange a few posts. I wish you a wonderful break, and a peaceful return to boot :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Privatemusings. I have posted my position (below) with respect to the "ban" discussions, and am happy to go back to what I prefer to be doing in my own life outside of Misplaced Pages. There is plenty that I have to do, and I hope to enjoy doing it. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

to use another colloquialism - good on ya, she'll be right! - I've mentioned before elsewhere that it's really important to only engage here as long as one is finding it rewarding, and preferably with a smile. Best wishes, and I'd welcome talking further with you should your time and energy permit at some point in the future. best, Privatemusings (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 'she'll be right' loosely translates as 'everything will work out for the best', I guess, if you were wondering!

Speaking for myself

• For the record: The only formal arbitration dispute that I was involved in occurred in 2007, it involved a source in the article Lewis Libby, and it was resolved in my favor: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar#Final decision. The "Findings" supported my inclusion of the source in question. (cont.)
• I object to the lack of "diffs." posted throughout the AN/I and the claims by many posting there that they know how I would react to whatever remedy a closing administrator might come up with; they do not know. They cannot speak for me.

[Contexts: One AN/I report is linked above (see previous comments regarding User:Orderinchaos above) in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 26#Summary. The first AN/I (whose subject was changed by User:Sarah, followed my AN/I report (circa Feb. 2008), complaining against quoted incivilities against me posted in my user talk space and in his user page by User:Stuthomas4, who later removed them [and apologized, but continued to post them in his own and various other users talk space and in article talk space: I gave diffs. in the report; here is just one Diffs. (scroll through "next"); the others are in the July 2008 report that I filed. (cont.)

That report (which I filed) involved not only me but also several other editors editing The Dark Knight, who work with User:Stuthomas4, including User:Orderinchaos and User:ThuranX (all of whom were directly involved in an editing dispute relating to that article); the other involved false allegations about me and my then-mentor Ecoleetage filed by Orderinchaos, in my view irresponsibly (see my previous discussion above and in my archived talk pages). Most recently, in addition to continuing to post false statements (without "diffs.") in the current AN/I filed by Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticidealist), more recently, Orderinchaos has opposed my comments relating to a deletion discussion pertaining to {{Ref indent}}; I voted to "keep" it; he voted to "delete" it. User:ThuranX, involved in previous editing and civility disputes pertaining to The Dark Knight is once again making false statements and not posting "diffs." and is now asking for a "resolution" of the attempt to "ban" me from Misplaced Pages. These users are not "neutral" observers. They are active participants in previous editing disputes. I have tried assiduously to avoid editing any article to which any of them contribute since my work in The Dark Knight, which I ceased doing as a result of my encounters with them.

• At the moment, I am tentatively hopeful that the other current editors of Harold Pinter—mostly Tim riley, it appears, whom I thanked for his peer review of the article and many of whose suggestions I incorporated in it (working from London on an unfamiliar laptop when I could find time to do that 2 weeks ago and, in New York, over the past week)—will be able to improve the article in the manner of the "Featured Article" style that they would seem to prefer and eventually (however long down the road, given the need for "stability"), that they might be able to nominate it successfully to be a FAC (featured article candidate). I myself have explicitly stated that I do not have the time to participate in that activity. I have done all the work that I want to do on the main article. (cont.)

• If Misplaced Pages is so unwise as to decide that it does not want my contributions of expertise on the subject in any way (e.g., to take a look at the article once they finish their editing of it), that is its decision, which, of course, I would abide by. In my view, that would be a loss to Misplaced Pages. Until Misplaced Pages's closing administrator (whoever and whenever that might be) comes up with a remedy, I have nothing to respond to and I strenuously object to anyone else but I being the ones who decide how and what I might respond. That is up to me. (cont.)

• Furthermore, the idea of some that it makes any sense to ban me from ever contributing to any article that relates to Harold Pinter has to be one of the most ill-advised that I could imagine. I would be willing not to participate in editing Harold Pinter until it is where the other editors would like it to be and then to look at it and offer (in talk space) my views of it or suggestions (in my own or article talk space); but, as I am the one who created many of the related articles and few if any editors currently in Misplaced Pages have both the expertise and the interest in correcting errors in such articles when they occur, to prevent me from editing the related articles on Pinter (none of which to my knowledge is involved in any dispute) makes no sense at all. (cont.)

• If that is the decision, there is a strong possibility that, as a matter of choice, I may not want to contribute any further to this project, though I will still think about that if and when the time comes. (cont.)

• Let me be crystal clear, however: I will not tolerate any more incivility, disrespect, discourtesy, and/or abuse directed against me either personally or professionally and I will not tolerate any unfair application of Misplaced Pages's own policies and procedures in dealing with me or any other Misplaced Pages editor or administrator, or by any of them. (cont.)

• Re: copyright matters in Misplaced Pages: if one scrolls up to my discussions with my new mentor (Cf. adoption template at top of page ; see archived User talk:NYScholar/Archive 27#Adoption), one will see that I have already stated that I have absolutely no interest in taking part in any discussions about copyright in Misplaced Pages . I have already (since 2006) designed a user subpage that states my preference not to do so. (See my talkheader above: User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues.) If it had not been for the problematic fair use rationale (since corrected by its uploader) in an image in Harold Pinter, I would not have had anything to say about that image (scroll up for links); there is no image currently in Harold Pinter whose inclusion I currently have objections to. This is a non-issue. (cont.)

• Finally, if I decide to continue editing any articles in Misplaced Pages, of course I would try to work even harder than I have already done to "get along" courteously and civilly and productively with other editors in Misplaced Pages. In my view, that goes without saying, but I am saying it for those who need to be reassured. --NYScholar (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Community ban

NYScholar, you are community banned from editing the English-language Misplaced Pages per the discussion at WP:AN. AdjustShift (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar, should you decide you wish to appeal this, and my sense is that Misplaced Pages would benefit if you do appeal, and I know there are other editors who will agree, and if you think I might be of some assistance, you may (1) email me, I will keep your email confidential, or (2) you may edit, as IP, from any non-blocked IP, my page User talk:Abd/IP; I have requested that edits to that page, in general, not be considered ban violations, and that seems to have been respected. You may also appeal to ArbComm by email. I suggested above that you establish a free email account for the purpose of Misplaced Pages communication; these accounts are private and Misplaced Pages editors cannot penetrate that privacy; it's only penetrable by law enforcement or court order, and nothing you have done even approaches that kind of situation. Good luck, in any case. And, remember, brevity is the soul of wit.

You may also, of course, indicate intention to appeal here on your Talk page. In the absence of any express intention on your part to appeal, I will assume that the ban declared by AdjustShift, based on the AN/I discussion, stands and that there is no dispute over it. You may also appeal the block, and may base that on an intention and promise to edit only for the purpose of appeal to ArbComm or to seek a mentor. I do not recommend appealing on the basis of any illegitimacy of the ban itself; challenging a ban like that is a difficult process and very unlikely to be supported by a reviewing administrator, ad hoc.

I do recommend avoiding long posts to your Talk page at this point; however, if you wish to write something long here, try this: Write the long post, putting all but a brief summary in collapse, to start, and save. Then delete the collapse, replacing it with a link to history, where the full post may be read. If it becomes tedious to read your Talk page, your block might be extended to your Talk page, it happens. --Abd (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar, I would strongly caution you against using an IP to edit any page other than this talk page, including Abd's subpage. A community ban does not allow for such editing. Instead I would advise you to take a break and think things over and then, if you wish, appeal to the ArbCom, either directly via email or alternatively by posting an appeal to this talk page which one of the watching administrators would be happy to copy over to the arbitration page for you. Using IPs to edit against the ban, even if only to another user's page is really not in your best interest. Sarah 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's her opinion. Mine is different, and I'm aware of quite a bit of precedent. If you are blocked from editing your Talk page, and can't use email, as you have expressed, you would have little to lose by messaging me through that IP page, and I would vigorously defend any blocked editor who does it in pursuit of any reasonably legitimate goal; even mild incivility to me would be acceptable. As the page states, it is merely a public equivalent to a private email. Don't abuse this to attack other editors, though describing behavior that should be investigated, in a civil manner, is legitimate. Sarah has properly given you some options that are obviously legitimate and I would consider better. If for any reason you find those impossible for you to use, that's why I suggested the IP page. Edits there will normally only be seen by those who track my contributions. By the nature of the usage, you would probably self-identify in the edit, and this actually would make ban enforcement easier, not harder. Some people haven't thought this all the way through.... --Abd (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that NYScholar will never be a good fit with Misplaced Pages, and I am confident that very few editors would support an appeal, while many editors would be extremely critical of NYS's editing history at WP. At the recent AN, no one supported NYS's editing techniques; most of those opposing merely said that a ban is an extreme remedy. I sincerely hope that NYS enjoys a very happy and productive career away from Misplaced Pages and finds other hobbies. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: until and unless there is a discussion where it seems an administrator might restore NYScholar's editing privileges, don't keep beating a horse that appears dead. There are, at present, three forms of appeal possible: to AdjustShift, to ArbComm, and back to a noticeboard. I would avoid the third option like the plague. And I have no prediction to make whether NYScholar will even want to come back. I wouldn't, unless I were confident that the community would protect me. As it should have protected you previously. --Abd (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Due process

I don't think due process has been observed in the case of your ban. The Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community_ban states three ways in which a ban can be imposed on an editor by the community. One is a topic ban imposed by a consensus of non-involved editors. The two other kinds involve an editor who is already blocked for violations of WP:Policies and whom no administrator is willing to unblock. as far as I know you were not blocked at the time of the discussion, and if that is the case it seems that the gravest punishment the consensus at ANI could have imposed on you based in the Banning policy would be a topic ban.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The great majority of community bans are enacted on users who are at the time unblocked, but with whom the community has lost patience - we actually used to have a board for these (CSN) but it got merged with AN some time ago. It should not be forgotten that NYScholar was indefinitely blocked at one point but was unblocked providing certain criteria were met - in the end, two rounds of mentorship from entirely different individuals failed to resolve the problems this user has in interacting with the community. Additionally, insisting that community ban discussions should only take place on users who are already blocked (although necessary in the case of certain types of editors) is actually somewhat of an indignity and an injustice to the user, as they have no ability to defend themselves. I don't think anyone can really argue NYScholar's view of the situation was not heard - noone removed or reverted their comments at any of the locations that I am aware, and so they had both sides of the story in real time at their disposal, and they put plenty of material in front of the community both at the discussion and at their own talk page for consideration. Conducting a discussion in the absence of that rather resembles a judicial process where the defendant is locked out of the room. Orderinchaos 00:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We are in the process of discussing how to change the wording of the Misplaced Pages:Banning policy to better reflect the facts of how ban's are executed. Please join in on Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that the right thing was done with respect to consensus. Should you ever return, I will be happy to help you (and any other user) as much as possible. — BQZip01 —  23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BQZip01, take a look at this analysis of the ban !votes, and WP:BAN on community bans. What would have maximized consensus, I believe, would have been careful mentorship plus an admin on the case to block if needed (and I proposed that the close be with a voluntary site ban with NYS limited initially to edits seeking a mentor; I've brought this up with User:Steve Smith, who previously made some nice noises about it; we will see what happens. I've now done about five hours of research into NYScholar's edit history, and my conclusion is that I don't feel ready to judge it yet! It looks to me, though, like an editor with a lot to contribute and willing to put in insane amounts of time, for a long time; on the other hand, I'm seeing some long-time contributors claiming it's junk. I rather doubt it, in fact, and long-time contributors have a tendency to lose patience at some point. I'm just amused that we have some editors who will !vote to ban an editor based on little more than perusing a discussion that is actually short on solid evidence, and that has been drastically warped by pile-in of editors with a history with NYScholar, instead of it being a decision by uninvolved editors as the policy requires. I agree that there was a serious problem with NYScholar's editing, and, it seems to me, NYScholar agrees too. So ... one step at a time. NYScholar gets a wikibreak, and if he or she ever wants to come back, it might be doable. Not that we necessarily deserve it. But maybe our readers do. --Abd (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, NYScholar. I see you already have a mentor. I'm nevertheless offering to help too. Feel free to contact me by email if you wish. However, I'm usually only available on weekends these days and my time is limited. I'm not an administrator but unofficially have some experience with mentor-like activity helping other Wikipedians. BQZip01, please also feel free to contact me to discuss this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar, it seems that you would prefer to see a resolution of this such that you can, ongoing, contribute constructively to the project, regardless of what happened in the past. It's my opinion that it's possible to negotiate this, and that it would not place an onerous burden on you nor on anyone else. However, there is a political situation; Misplaced Pages isn't always "fair." One of the errors that people who expect fair treatment often make is to overlook the effect of self-defense. Perhaps you may have noticed, in one-on-one relationships, that if one person complains to another about some supposed offense, if the alleged offender puts up a defense, it often has the result of escalation of the complaint. This happens socially with communities as well. The more you defend yourself, the more "enraged" the community will become. Hence my recommendation: stop. Stop completely. Work on negotiating terms for your return as an editor. Part of that may involve acknowledging mistakes. It's quite possible to do that without humiliation and loss of self-respect.

And I strongly advise that you set up an anonymous email account, such as one at googlemail, because negotiating your return publicly will have negative effects; there are editors who are clearly opposed to any return, a priori, no matter what. It's not just for your protection, it's for the protection as well of anyone who might assist you. Personally, I would keep any email you send to me in strictest confidence. Sure, such private "negotiations" wouldn't be final, I'm not suggesting that you would be quietly unblocked without consultation with AdjustShift. But going ahead without the focus that could be developed, to penetrate the noise over your ban, would be pure foolishness, practically guaranteed to fail. Discussion of your ban, at WP:BAN may have had some effect on ban policy, because of a procedural error, but I should hasten to add that a procedural error doesn't invalidate the ban, and that if an alternative to ban that would garner wider consensus isn't prepared in advance, I'd see no hope of reversing the ban. If that alternative is first developed, it's entirely possible that the ban could be lifted with little or no fuss.

So be patient. And get that email account, and email me. I am doing this, you should understand, because, from what I've seen, and I've spent about five hours with your contributions, you were a valuable contributor and you could be even more valuable in the future. Plus I know what it's like to be blocked and banned. It's possible to rationalize it with a sour grapes argument, that might even be true, but, bottom line, it sucks. There is no way to define a truly positive experience out of being rejected by a community when you were trying to help. --Abd (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

">02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]

Bad sign, I must say. This is the core explanation given: I cannot risk e-mailing any Misplaced Pages editor, who may, for what he or she considers at the time "good" reasons, but contrary to my wishes, decide to share my private e-mail messages with others in Misplaced Pages. This is too great a personal risk for me to be willing to take.

It makes no sense, for what was suggested was the use of an anonymous account, and unless NYScholar directly reveals personal information, or is involved with illegal activities where a court order could be obtained to find IP address from, say, googlemail, there would be no way to connect NYScholar's real identity to the email. I would not suggest revealing anything that would not be revealed here, unless NYScholar decides to take the risk, in terms of damage from the email being revealed. What NYScholar has written here is quite damaging; the same material written in a private email couldn't possibly be more damaging, it could only be less. With email, what NYScholar wishes to say could be, with help from the correspondent, boiled down. Posted directly here, as it is, it confuses and conceals whatever is legitimate about it. Certainly this is NYScholar's choice to make, but, unless the suggestion I make below is taken up by some administrator, I'd hold out no hope of lifting the ban. In theory, one should be able to wax eloquent on one's own Talk page. In practice, I was once indef blocked for it.

Instead of starting with basics, NYScholar argued the case, which will almost never be reviewed in depth by an admin based on an unblock template. The basic, bottom-line promise for NYScholar to make was actually made, but was buried in the noise: a promise not to edit outside of the editor's user space pending the development of assurances that would prevent further disruption. NYScholar has already admitted that there were problems with editing style, and that help was needed. That would be enough. More is less. --Abd (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please accept the fact that, as I have expressed since 2005, I will not engage in e-mail correspondence with/relating to Misplaced Pages. Please stop pressing this matter. It is indeed my prerogative not to use e-mail as a preference in Misplaced Pages. No one should be pressured to do so contrary to their clearly expressed wishes. Please stop commenting on this matter of e-mail and respect my wishes. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose that NYScholar's unblock request be declined

Currently, NYScholar has an open unblock request template, visible at the top of this page. I was trying to decide if some response is appropriate. Since his final words in that template are Please note: User:NYScholar will not be taking part in any further discussion of this situation or in any further arbitration proceedings involving it, for personal and professional reasons. Since he has made that statement, I suggest that an admin should decline the unblock request. There seems to be a large consensus in support of the community ban, and if he has not willing to participate any further, or make assurances about his future behavior, it's very unlikely that his block will be lifted. Closing this unblock request does not shut off his options for the future, since he can make a new and more credible request at some future date. He can also send mail to unblock-en-l or to Arbcom if he wishes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that he/she is community banned, it is my view that unblocking requires either a community consensus or (more likely) an appeal to Arb Comm. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at AN wasn't adequate to establish a community ban, because of failure to analyze for involvement as required by WP:BAN (I did the analysis, and found that there was no consensus, support and opposition were evenly divided among editors who were clearly not involved; likewise, if we look at the later !votes, where arriving editors were much less likely to be involved, a majority were opposed to a ban); what it is, instead, is an ordinary administrative ban as determined by AdjustShift from the weight of arguments as the admin determined. As such, any admin could, in theory, lift it, but would be well advised to do so with consultation, specifically with AdjustShift. Below, Sandstein declined the request, which is quite what I would have expected under the conditions. The editor continues to shoot self in foot, which, I must admit, is a Bad Sign. Still, there is a path forward which doesn't place the community at risk, if NYScholar accepts it and likewise an admin; it's expressed below, and in this diff. I'm asking Steve to consider it. If Steve -- or AdjustShift -- wishes to actively cooperate with it, it could be easily done, I'm sure. --Abd (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors and administrators involved in underlying content dispute

As pointed out above, User:Steve Smith/User:Sarcasticidealist, requested the topic ban poll after being engaged in a content dispute relating to images in Harold Pinter. He encouraged another involved editor User:Ssilvers (who has made many false statements in the recent AN/I about me and my editing, providing no "diffs." to support them) to initiate the topic ban poll regarding Harold Pinter and to take part in a community ban poll relating to me; he engaged in selective WP:Canvassing regarding these polls. He is involved in the "underlying content disputes" over 2 images in Harold Pinter, both of which are remain in the article, as a result of editing of the image file pages after I raised concerns about the validity of their "fair use rationales" and/or after I provided corrections to them. --NYScholar (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (corr.) --NYScholar (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Appealing the community ban

Anyone is free to appeal to Arbitration on my behalf. I myself am an involved editor in the afore-mentioend AN/I and will not be doing that. (cont.)

It is up to Misplaced Pages to police itself and to make sure that Misplaced Pages administrators follow WP:POL. As many have pointed out, that has not happened. It is not up to me to post "diffs." for other editors involved in content disputes. (cont.)

I have posted diffs. throughout the previous AN/I notices; they are already linked in this current one. There is no need for me to continue posting them. (cont.)

I am taking a self-imposed Wikibreak from editing anything other than my own talk page. (cont.)

I have returned periodically to ascertain whether the automatic archiving bot is functioning. It was functioning correctly until the adoption template was edited out by my last mentor. I have tried to restore its functioning by deleting the adoption template entirely. I moved the oldest material into archive page 26 and created archive page 27 and increased the parameter for the amount being archived to 200K . If someone familiar with the archive bot can fix it so that it works correctly (as per the 2 day/48 hours parameters), I would appreciate that. I created archive page 27 so that there was a page for material to be archived (see edit history). Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (corr., clar.) --NYScholar (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

failure to follow WP:POL, specifically WP:BAN, and failure to follow "due process" in use of community ban: (1) lack of prior warning before attempt by an administrator User:Steve Smith, formerly User:Sarcasticidealist, who was involved in prior content dispute (under former name "Sarcasticidealist"), in posting of "topic ban" and "community ban" polls in an AN/I; (2) counting of editors and administrators involved in content and format disputes by closing administrator, User:AdjustShift, who closed the matter prematurely at the urging of 2 editors involved in the underlying dispute, User:Orderinchaos and User:ThuranX; (2) lack of "Diffs." presented throughout by the above-linked "involved" editors and administrators, as required by WP:ARBITRATION for blocks and bans; (3) lack of use of proper WP:ARBITRATION proceedings; (4) failure of closing administrator to consult full record of "Diffs." in accepting opinions of involved editors and administrators posted in an WP:AN/I; (5) miscounting of poll votes of "involved" editors resulting of faulty judgment that they constitute a "consensus" of "uninvolved" editors"; (6) failure to investigate the origins of content and format dispute initiated in previous RfC archived by complaining User:Jezhotwells, who violated WP:CITE and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines since 25 December 2008 pertaining to Harold Pinter; failure of Jezhotwells to "respect" the long-standing "prevailing citation format" in that article and constant disruption in order to change it, contrary to WP:CITE, part of WP:MOS. Please note: User:NYScholar will not be taking part in any further discussion of this situation or in any further arbitration proceedings involving it, for personal and professional reasons.

Decline reason:

(Edit conflict with the above) This request is confusingly written and partly concerns issues not relevant to the validity of your community ban, such as the stuff about "failure of Jezhotwells to respect the long-standing prevailing citation format". At any rate, the discussion linked to in your block log shows a pretty solid consensus for your ban.  Sandstein  18:39, 9 July 2009 (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.

The consensus is not a consensus of editors and administrators who were not involved in the underlying dispute. The opposite is the case. They did not supply diffs. to support their claims. Yet the opinions of these involved editors and administrators were accepted by the closing administrator as facts. The facts in this case have not been investigated. They need to be investigated fully. Please see my user subpages, including userboxes that are accurate, while even my past mentor questions their accuracy, violating WP:AGF. The instances in which violations of WP:BAN have occurred in this "community ban" are numerous and need thorough investigation by uninvolved administrators. The statements about my previous "block" record do not notice or acknowledge that some of those blocks were reversed, including one by Sandstein (10 Feb. 2008). Please read the full records. In one early case, the block was inadvertently made against me instead of against a user who engaged in personal attacks and then the administrator reversed that block and blocked the actually offending user (within 4 mins., see the one in Jan. 2007: Block log. The record is a record from June 30, 2005 to the present . Until this "community ban" went into effect (July 2009), I had not been blocked for over 10 months. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The matter of User:Jezhotwells constantly disputing an already-prevailing citation format that is a usable option in WP:CITE, as per WP:MOS, is at the heart of the "topic ban" regarding the editing of Harold Pinter proposed (on behalf of Jezhotwells) by User:Ssilvers, who is an involved editor pertaining to the "peer review", in which he stated that he had only "glanced" at the article prior to posting his views of it. The changes being made to the article are full of formatting errors, have not identified what "citation style" is being used in an alternative "Style sheet", available via {{Style}} and has, without any rationale, removed the pertinent {{Controversy}} template requiring "full citations" from Talk:Harold Pinter. (cont.)

Harold Pinter (Cf. Version 298803059 and User:NYScholar/Sandbox) is still a "controversial article", according to the guidelines in Misplaced Pages:Controversial articles. The reference to "controversial" is not (only) to the (contentious) editing of the article but to the nature of the subject, Harold Pinter, who is the subject of "controversy" (as even still stated in the lead of the article) and in the discussions of his "controversial" 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature. (cont.)

Some of the changes to the previous versions of the article have removed sourced material that strove for Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view; as a result, it now veers towards Bias, which needs to be avoided, as per Misplaced Pages core editing policies. None of the current editors of the article Harold Pinter is an expert on the subject (Harold Pinter); they are not familiar with all of the sources cited in the article and are introducing errors of citation (both style and content). (Please see the changes via editing history and compare with the sandbox version prior to the changes. Thank you.) --NYScholar (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar, if you don't care about being unblocked, carry on. The response of Sandstein was totally predictable and normal. It may not seem fair to you, but that's because you don't understand how Misplaced Pages process must operate.

To any future admin reviewing unblock requests from NYS. NYS is technically correct. The consensus in the ban discussion was flawed by a lack of consideration of involvement of editors, as required by WP:BAN. I did a review of involvement which can be seen at . While decisions re involvement were based on page edit histories, and are to some extent arbitrary, I did apply a standard neutrally, and found that there was no consensus for a ban when prior involvement was set aside. This is not an argument against NYScholar's indef block, for any admin may declare a ban and enforce it with an indef block, based on the welfare of the project. Regardless of fault, NYScholar's work, as it was, clearly had a disruptive effect, and required attention.

I specifically make this recommendation, should NYScholar request unblock again: Unblock on condition of a voluntary site ban, as NYScholar has already declared, with the following exceptions: NYScholar may edit his or her own user space, provided it is non-disruptive (defending himself in his own user space may be useless but it shouldn't be considered disruptive), and may make edits to user talk pages or project pages, but only as appropriate to seek a mentor. When a mentor satisfactory to the unblocking administrator is found, the mentor and the unblocking admin may determine further possible lifting of the ban under conditions that are not likely to be disruptive. NYScholar, in these discussions, should respect whatever boundaries are set by prospective mentors, by the mentor as chosen, and especially by the unblocking administrator, who may decline to receive direct communication from NYScholar if it becomes tedious to read, and who may reblock if the conditions given here become burdensome.

And I suggest one very specific unblocking administrator, should he choose to do it: User:Steve Smith, who set up the discussion on a site ban. He is not likely to neglect the needs of the involved editors who had difficulty with NYScholar, but I also know him, from his history, to be scrupulously fair, and thus he would also be unlikely to decline a reasonable request from a mentor. If, however, Steve doesn't wish to take this on, any administrator could do it.

I also know two highly experienced editors who have expressed interest in mentoring. --Abd (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar (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=Failure to follow ], especially ]; failure to achieve "fairness" and to observe so-called ] in applying such policies and guidelines throughout Misplaced Pages. (] parts of ]: i.e., those relating to avoidance of ]; ], including core editing policy of ] both throughout Misplaced Pages content ''and'' in administering ]; inequitable application of ] to all parties in "underlying dispute".) Note well: ] understands the concerns expressed throughout the current and past AN/I, has addressed them (see both AN/I comments and ] above), and already declared a self-imposed Wikibreak from editing any articles in Misplaced Pages, except for NYScholar's own talk page and user subpages (if it is possible to lift ban on the latter so that can correct typographical errors in them when found). |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=Failure to follow ], especially ]; failure to achieve "fairness" and to observe so-called ] in applying such policies and guidelines throughout Misplaced Pages. (] parts of ]: i.e., those relating to avoidance of ]; ], including core editing policy of ] both throughout Misplaced Pages content ''and'' in administering ]; inequitable application of ] to all parties in "underlying dispute".) Note well: ] understands the concerns expressed throughout the current and past AN/I, has addressed them (see both AN/I comments and ] above), and already declared a self-imposed Wikibreak from editing any articles in Misplaced Pages, except for NYScholar's own talk page and user subpages (if it is possible to lift ban on the latter so that can correct typographical errors in them when found). |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=Failure to follow ], especially ]; failure to achieve "fairness" and to observe so-called ] in applying such policies and guidelines throughout Misplaced Pages. (] parts of ]: i.e., those relating to avoidance of ]; ], including core editing policy of ] both throughout Misplaced Pages content ''and'' in administering ]; inequitable application of ] to all parties in "underlying dispute".) Note well: ] understands the concerns expressed throughout the current and past AN/I, has addressed them (see both AN/I comments and ] above), and already declared a self-imposed Wikibreak from editing any articles in Misplaced Pages, except for NYScholar's own talk page and user subpages (if it is possible to lift ban on the latter so that can correct typographical errors in them when found). |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock