User talk:NYScholar

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

Talk  · Talkheader  · Userboxes  · Barnstars  · Contributions  · Key Wikipedia policies  · Wikipedia & Copyright-related Issues  · Sandbox

Please do not copy my comments placed on my talk page or other talk pages or editing histories of articles, or other Wikipedia pages, take them out of context, and/or move them elsewhere. Doing so distorts them. Thank you.

N.B. I archive comments on this User talk page according to TPG:User talk pages & WP:UP and by means of MiszaBot III. Please see the "Archives" box. If comments involve "personal attacks", are unsigned and/or undated, or are clearly not civil, I delete them, following WP:UP, WP:TPG, WP:NPA, WP:Etiquette, WP:CIVIL, and/or WP:HAR. I also remove warnings, as per WP:TPG:User talk pages: "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Please place comments about making improvements to articles on the talk pages of those articles. I move comments that others add to this page to more pertinent talk pages if I perceive them to have been misdirected and/or if I think that they are more relevant there. Most often I am extremely busy focusing on priorities related to my own professional work and travel schedule and not able to respond immediately to comments or queries in Wikipedia. Thanks very much to those who do understand for understanding. I appreciate your compassion. If you look at my "contributions", it is clear whether or not I am actively editing Wikipedia. The abbreviation "tc" in my editing box summaries stands for "typographical corrections." (Please see You can help! for information about the Wikipedia project relating to correcting typographical errors.)

---

Summer field in Hamois, Belgium
Photographer: Luc Viatour

---

Due process

I don't think due process has been observed in the case of your ban. The Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Banning policy to better reflect the facts of how ban's are executed. Please join in on Wikipedia 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 — ^talk 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)

[Later comments]

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; Wikipedia 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)

[Please read my earlier comments about my rejection of using e-mail of any kind with/with regard to Wikipedia. My previous explanation explains why I prefer not to use e-mail with/with regard to Wikipedia. I will not be using e-mail with/with regard to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]

Bad sign, I must say. This is the core explanation given: I cannot risk e-mailing any Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. Please stop pressing this matter. It is indeed my prerogative not to use e-mail as a preference in Wikipedia. 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)

Of course it is your prerogative. However, it is simply another aspect of shooting yourself in the foot, for you have insisted on it without giving any credible reason. I will stop commenting, but, in fact, I will stop commenting entirely; you have made it impossible for me to comment privately to you. I would have not submitted unblock templates yet, I would have suggested private negotiations first to gain possibly critical support. Good luck. Your second request might fly, but that's a lot of weight to put on what is always a bit of the toss of the dice. I do think you were quite a valuable contributor. If you change your mind, you can always email me. --Abd (talk) 02:07, 10 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 [the uploader of one of the 2 images] (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-mentioned AN/I and will not be doing that. (cont.)

It is up to Wikipedia to make sure that Wikipedia 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 [for the old material regarding "Adoption"] and increased the parameter for the amount being archived to 200K [in case that parameter was creating a glitch in the functioning of the automatic archiving bot]. 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). [The bot function is supposed to add on new archive pages as needed, but it was not doing that.] 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) [(Updated: Please see the revised #Request posted later. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 Wikipedia: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 [a period of over 4 years]. 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}} [{{MoSElement}}] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; as a result, it now veers towards Bias, which needs to be avoided, as per Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [1]. 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)

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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, especially WP:BAN; failure to achieve "fairness" and to observe "due process" in applying such policies and guidelines throughout Wikipedia; failure to prove the argument made by involved editors and administrators that the ban will actually improve either the content or the environment for editors of Wikipedia; retroactive attempts to revise and/or to re-interpret language in WP:BAN to rationalize closing of this case. *Cf. Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Banning of User:NYScholar (and subsequent sections of discussion there); see also parts of WP:DUE. *Note well: User:NYScholar understands the concerns expressed throughout the current and past AN/I, has addressed them (see both AN/I comments and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 27#Speaking for myself above), and already declared a self-imposed Wikibreak from editing any articles and any talk space in Wikipedia, except for NYScholar's own talk page and NYScholar's own user subpages (if it is possible to lift ban on the latter so that NYScholar can correct typographical errors in them when found). *Restored previous adoption template (see editing summary). (Updated links.)

Decline reason:

Another somewhat confusing unblock request. Anyway, I don't see much benefit in unblocking you to correct typos in your user space. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 11 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.

Further explanation (for those who need it)

The closing administrator and others claim erroneously that there was a "consensus" of the Wikipedia "community" Wikipedia:Community in "community banning" me from editing Wikipedia. There has not been. Please see the previous requests. The claims by 2 administrators so far who refused to unblock me that the reasons given are "confusing" or "still somewhat confusing" may be convenient for them to make but those claims are not accurate, in my view. There is continual discussion about "NYScholar" in which administrators and others are making further false claims and providing no "diffs." to support them throughout the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. There is edit warring among various administrators and editors ongoing in WP:BAN in what appear to be various attempts to rationalize a faulty banning of me throughout retroactive changes to that policy page. The page needs to be protected as it existed on July 1, 2009 and marked with an appropriate template that indicates that the policy is disputed. I understand that some editors think that my comments are longer than they would like them to be. But, as any neutral observer will see from what has been and is going on relating to this "community ban", the situation is complicated by the failure of so many people to follow WP:POL, Wikipedia:DUE, and general Wikipedia:Process. Explaining takes effort and words. I am trying to be as concise as possible given the complexities of this situation. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of diffs. both throughout the ANI leading to my "community ban" and throughout later discussions of it

Most egregiously, the administrator User:Sarah, who was engaged in a dispute with me about a matter that was resolved years ago, continues to distort the contexts of that dispute, making false statements about it and me and providing no differences to support her false statements. See her posts in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy; she is engaged in "bashing" me while I am "banned"; Diffs.. The entire matter that she purports to refer to is archived in my own talk page archive. It was resolved to the satisfaction of another user on whose behalf she commented on my talk page at the time. (She asked me to use e-mail then, and I told her that I do not use e-mail with or with relation to Wikipedia.) She continued after that to distort the situation. All of the discussion between me and Sarah is archived in my own talk page archives, with links to relatead discussions. I have never used and still do not use use e-mail correspondence with/relating to Wikipedia. The matters that I discussed previously with Sarah and others is a matter of Wikipedia public record.(cont.)

Ongoing and gratuitous bashing of me since the "community ban"

Contrary to User:Sarah's false statements (with no diffs.) in her past comments in ANIs and in most recent lengthy and undocumented comments about me (with no diffs.) in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy attempting to rationalize her reverts to WP:BAN, in which she claims that "in SlimVirgin's case, it was a dispute from three years ago when NYScholar was socking" Diffs.. (cont.)

That is a totally irresponsible statement (as is the rest of her sentence following it): NOTE WELL: I did not and do not use "sock puppets" in Wikipedia. I have no idea what she thinks that she is referring to. (cont.)

[The editing content disputes with SlimVirgin are still accessible in archived pages in my own talk pages. One can read them there. One can also consult the full citations that I provided related to my reasons for posting in good faith a template about missing citations on Daniel Pipes at the time (approx. 3 years ago). I provide that example as an instance of an administrator holding a grudge about a completely-good faith editing content dispute that she has been unable to transcend and is hardly neutral or "objective" or "uninvolved" about (even still). Same thing applies to Sarah's continual dredging up out of context her imprecise memories of past events, without posting "diffs." and keeping a sense of full contexts. --NYScholar (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)]

User:Sarah is using me as a bashing object and casting aspersions against me while apparently attempting to counter opposition to her own positions in reverting edits to WP:BAN. (cont.)

My current concern is that people reading those false statements that she is making about me may think that they are facts. But they are not facts. They are lies. As in past ANIs, where User:Sarah has repeatedly returned to make negative statements about me, she presents no diffs. to document those statements, relies on unreliable memories, and takes matters out of their original contexts. The actual contexts are fully documented already in my own archived talk pages. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)]

This continual "bashing" of a user who is not able to respond on that talk page due to this block is patently against WP:POL. I believe that Sarah and the other administrators who are engaging in such activities in violation of WP:POL should be sanctioned and their administrative "powers" (such as they are) removed. They themselves do not follow the most basic policies and guidelines presented in WP:POL. They harbor personal grudges, engage in personal vendettas, and they should be removed of their administrative duties and "powers" (such as they are). Please see WP:ANOT. They have facilitated what was initially an edit war begun by User:Jezhotwells, shortly after that user re-entered Wikipedia, pertaining to Harold Pinter, centering on the proper and consistent use of MLA style in articles pertaining to literary subjects, and, accepting Jezhotwells' focusing on a contributor instead of on content and format, have magnified and blown it out of proportions into a "banning" discussion. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC) (updated. --NYScholar (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)]

The problem when you accuse people of telling "lies" is there's zero room to assume that you're abiding by the WP:AGF policy. If you were trying to assume good faith, you'd say that I've misunderstood things or even that I've said something that's not correct but "lie" by definition infers that I'm deliberately saying things that aren't true, and with that there's no room for AGF whatsoever. And right there is the key problem with your editing - you always assume others are acting in bad faith and with ulterior motives. You would do better to actually assume the other party is operating in good faith, explain why they're mistaken and let them refactor their comments. Most people here will do that if they're calmly and respectfully shown they've made a mistake, but most editors won't bother when you insult them. Secondly, you're accusing me of lying about socking? So do you contest the claim that you were Remain (talk · contribs) or Gentility (talk · contribs) or that you were blocked (not under those two accounts) prior to using this NYScholar account and that an article's talk page had to be protected because of your very disruptive and abusive editing, including some nasty attacks on SlimVirgin, which I referred to in my comment on the WT:BAN? I can certainly provide diffs if you wish me to, but I honestly didn't think you'd appreciate me doing that. Perhaps you'd rather call it "use of alternate accounts"? Because it's so long ago, I'd be happy to refactor "sock" to "alternate accounts" if you wish (and to be honest, I wouldn't even bother bringing it up as it was a long time ago, except for Abd's continual efforts to discount other's comments), but you were using other accounts on articles in which you were involved in very angry and nasty disputes without self-identifying and that is generally called "socking". I, too, wish you would open an email account for use on Wikipedia as there is some information I would very much like to pass on to you but am unable to do so in this public forum. FYI I was recently emailed by someone who claims to know you away from here and they pointed out aspects of your prior history, your use of these other accounts (including, but apparently not limited to, Remain and Gentility) as well as some other information which would raise possible flags with your articles if true. But I obviously can't say much further than that here in public. I appreciate your reasons for not wanting to use email but you have to understand that it does make things very difficult for others to communicate with you. I'm not asking you to register an email account, so no need to get upset, I'm just saying that your refusal to do so makes it difficult, as others have told you. Please understand there is usually a reason behind what others on Wikipedia do and say and if someone says something and you don't understand the reason for it, or you don't think it's right, you'd do better to ask them why they're saying it than to assume bad faith and accuse them of telling lies. I honestly don't think there's much hope of you being unblocked or unbanned while you continue assuming bad faith of others. Thanks. Sarah 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was very new to editing Wikipedia in 2005 (over 4 years ago) and not aware at that time that there was such a thing as a "sock puppet" in Wikipedia or any policy against such things. I had signalled on some project page or administrative area at the time that I was attempting to correct typographical errors in an article. If one examines all the edits in the "contributions" link to the identities linked, one will see that they are typographical and format corrections that I was making for the improvement of those articles. I do not remember the circumstances entirely, but the nature of the edits should be clear from the editing summaries on the article page. I recall signalling that I was trying to correct errors and explaining the reason for making the changes. I had a different computer at the time and was editing from a different IP address and a different internet provider. My editing as "NYScholar" began on June 30, 2005 (see edit history). I recall identifying myself as "NYScholar" to administrators in making the edits. I did not understand at the time the concept of "sock puppets" and there was no intentional attempt to contravene WP:POL. There was nothing nefarious or untoward in the edits that I made (typographical and format corrections to one article), I signalled to administrators that I was making them. Sarah's claim that SlimVirgin was objecting to my "socking" as Sarah states in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy is not the matter discussed in my archived talk pages as NYScholar. The user being "community banned" is "NYScholar". Sarah herself changed her names in her editing history throughout Wikipedia, just as Steve Smith (formerly User:Sarcasticidealist) has done more recently. There is nothing nefarious in their doing so either. But the changes of screen names can be confusing to others. At the time I made those typographical and format contributions (listed if one clicks on "contributions"), I did not fully understand the concept of "blocking" either. If one wants to examine the nature of the editing content dispute that SlimVirgin was actually referring to in the recent ANI about me (topic bans/community ban proposals) that User:Steve Smith (formerly User:Sarcasticidealist opened, in which she refers to my adding templates on an article (Daniel Pipes), one needs to look at the archived pages of NYScholar (this identity--the one that is blocked). The references to "nastiness" etc. have a context and the full context is in my archived talk pages. That is where the discussions reside. Sarah's allusions in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy to SlimVirgin's disputes with me are misleading and gratuitous in my view. I think that both she and SlimVirgin have posted enough words about me that are archived, and that it is not necessary for Sarah (or SlimVirgin) to continue to bash me while I am blocked. Sarah's continuing to do so in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy is both unnecessary and contrary to Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL as well as contrary to WP:BAN. (cont.)

I would greatly appreciate it if she would stop doing so there and here and if she would not keep posting these comments about me. I think that she needs to recuse herself from discussing my case, as she has been personally involved in it and refuses to see the nature of her personal involvement as a stumbling block to neutrality or objectivity. The record of my editing stands for itself. It does not need continual re-interpretation by Sarah and other previously-involved administrators. What is needed is impartial neutral administrators to take a look at the multiple violations of WP:POL that occur in WP:ANI. --NYScholar (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to stop posting here, and I will gladly do so, you need to stop making false accusations about me and I won't then feel the need to come here to correct you - remember, I only came here when you started talking about me, again. Prior to that I haven't posted here for ages. So it's really quite simple, if you want me to stay away from your page, stop talking about me and especially stop making false accusations about me. Also please note that I did not say that SlimVirgin objected to your socking. What I said was that at the time of the run in with SlimVirgin, you were using socks (or alternate accounts) and as far as I can see that is true. I also don't believe you told others that you were those previous users, in fact, when other editors asked you about it you repeatedly denied it. (since you like diffs so much, see here for example). But look, I don't really care what happened 3 years ago and as I said above, I only raised it because of Abd's claims about SlimVirgin. I didn't even know about it myelf until recently when I received a series of emails about you which pointed out your use of these accounts as well as other matters. Please be aware that there have been allegations that your editing of the Pinter articles involves a not insignificant Conflict of Interest. If you are ever to be unblocked or unbanned, that is going to have to be addressed and resolved if you are to edit Pinter articles again. Sarah 14:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You should not be bashing and repeating unsubstantiated hearsay about a blocked user. There is no WP:COI in my editing Pinter articles. Among multiple other specialties, I am a scholar of Pinter's work and criticism about it and knowledgable about these subjects. Being an expert on a subject of an article or articles in Wikipedia and also an expert researcher makes one a knowledgable editor. Such expertise is in no manner a "conflict of interest." The person who claimed (Viriditas) that later apologized in my now-archived talk space. Viriditas had thought that I worked for the Modern Language Association, which I do not. More recently, Viriditas has referred to me as a "special needs" (?) editor, which I am also not, if that means that I have some kind of physical or mental disability. I do not have any such disability. --NYScholar (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the request from the page protection page explaining the situation from 2006: [2] Scroll down to the part pertaining to the request pertaining to the article on Roy Dupuis. It was an alert to administrators. The other "contributions" which related to that situation are from the same finite period, again over 3 years ago. If one wants to consult the full editing history of each of those edits, one is free to do so. Calling that "socking" in a pejorative reference to my editing in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy in the recent ANI is extremely misleading and, in my view, it amounts to bashing of a blocked editor. --NYScholar (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional citation styles in WP:MOS via WP:CITE

WP:MOS (via WP:CITE) allows the use of multiple kinds of citation formats in Wikipedia as long as they are consistent. The failure of users who do not know the citation format to perceive its consistency is at the heart of the matter of that dispute. The matter is archived in Talk:Harold Pinter and in my own talk page archives and the talk pages of multiple places to which User:Jezhotwells attempted to find support for his/her position, despite the failure to find it in an RfC posted on Talk:Harold Pinter, which Jezhotwells archived in the midst of the then-ongoing ANI relating to the article. That user has now added an archiving bot to the talk page of Harold Pinter. Doing so was rejected earlier. If any "ownership" issues are clear from the recent editing history of Harold Pinter, those issues relate to User:Jezhotwells, User:Ssilvers, User:Wingspeed, and that coterie of editors who have attempted to remove the main contributor of content and sources from editing the article (me). Their editing of the article has not led to an improvement of that article. It has led to mistakes in both content and format. The current version of Harold Pinter now contains multiple errors of content and format which I am unable to correct. I warn readers about it. It is being edited by people who are not experts on Harold Pinter and who are not familiar with the sources that they are taking from my previous work on it. They have made serious mistakes that they do not have the knowledge or apparently the interest in correcting. (See below.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The archive bot

Clearly identifying the edit in an edit summary, I recently added an archive page 28 to my talk page archives for the purpose of the automatic archiving bot (I had to use my own anon IP address to do so). But the archive bot does not seem to be functioning correctly, as it did not archive the material on this talk page. After another editor removed the adoption template at the top of the page, it ceased functioning, though I have tried a number of times to restore the codes. I tried adding archive page 28 to my talk page archives (though I had to do so using my anon. IP address), but doing so has not made it work again. Perhaps someone else can get it to work so that I do not have to keep trying (apparently without luck) to fix it. It should be archiving as the message states, 48 hours (2 days) duration, beginning with archive page 28. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship history

Despite the current listing of me as User:Shell Kinney's "current" "adoptee" on her own user subpage, User:Shell Kinney/Adoptees, she is not currently my mentor. Shell explicitly resigned from mentoring me in March 2009. (See my archived talk page 25 for the discussion.) Nevertheless, she continues to list me as her adoptee on her user page. I am not her adoptee.

Shell had replaced User:Ecoleetage, who had offered to mentor me as a result of my being required to have a mentor as a result of an ANI which I had initiated protesting uncivil remarks made about me by User:Stuthomas4 (who is not currently active in Wikipedia and who did not reply to the attempt by User:Steve Smith (formerly User:Sarcasticidealist) to have him add to the discussion in the more recent ANI). That ANI was full of unsubstantiated allegations relating to the editing of The Dark Knight. User:Sarah changed the heading of the ANI that I had filed to focus it on me--that is, in part, how she is involved in the "underlying dispute" relating to the community ban discussion in the more recent ANI. As I stated way back then, she was posting (what I considered and still consider) false allegations about me without posting "diffs." to document them throughout the earlier ANI as well; she continued to do that in the recent ANI, and she is, even after my "community banning" continuing to do that now. These breaches of WP:POL are going unchecked.

Late in August 2008, Ecoleetage informed me on my talk page that he had decided to end his mentorship of me because he felt that I was receiving praise from others for my editing and that, on the basis of that, he did not think I needed to be mentored further. Before posting that decision on my talk page, he did not consult me and apparently [I realized only later] he did not consult or inform User:John Carter (the closing administrator in the ANI leading to his adoption of me). Ecoleetage had been my mentor for a few weeks, which I had referred to in voluntarily contributing a comment in his RfA as (what I saw then as a relatively) "brief" time.

After I posted my comment in totally good faith in his RfA, I became the subject of an ANI called "NYScholar revisited" filed by User:Orderinchaos, in which Orderinchaos made what both Ecoleetage and I and others found to be outrageous and totally-unsubstantiated false allegations of "collusion" between Ecoleetage and me: NOTE WELL: There was no collusion of any kind about anything between Ecoleetage and me, contrary to Orderinchaos' false allegations. (All of my communications with Ecoleetage on my talk page are archived in my talk page archives; I did not and do not use e-mail with Wikipedia or with or relating to Wikipedia. All my comments are publicly posted.) (cont.)

Those commenting in that ANI (some of the same ones as in the previous ANI and in the more recent one), posted no "diffs." to support their false allegations. Nevertheless, the result was the requirement that I be mentored. Again I immediately and without any hesitation agreed to that (despite further false allegations by User:ThuranX that I had not done so--the record in my own talk page archives clearly disproves that). I contacted Shell Kinney and asked her if she would be my mentor, and she agreed to do so. From that time until the most recent ANI, I had no blocks of any kind. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Background

Beginning on December 25, 2008, the day that Harold Pinter's death was announced publicly, I began encountering User:Jezhotwells while I was trying to keep Harold Pinter free from vandalism and then also up to date. Jezhotwells engaged in continual complaining and edit warring over the format of source citations, which was a format listed in its templated style sheet. The MLA style format used was both permitted then and it is still permitted by WP:MOS. (cont.)

I brought the multiple problems that I was encountering from Jezhotwells to the attention of Shell. But at times, without my realizing it, Shell was not active in Wikipedia. and at times I was not getting replies to my requests for assistance. (Later, I found a notice at the top of her talk page that I hadn't noticed earlier because I was just adding comments to the bottom of her talk page.) When she was active in Wikipedia during that time period, she did not read all of my comments because she lost patience with them and said that they were too long. Nevertheless, I had explained the situation in a detailed manner and as clearly as I could to her and in responding to her. The fact that she refused to read all of my explanations does not mean that the explanations were not worth reading. They were and they are worth reading. Shell dismissed what I still insist were my entirely good-faith attempts to respond to her comments. Anything that I said was dismissed as saying too much. She claimed then that I was "blaming" her for things. I was not doing so. In retrospect, it appears to me that she was being highly defensive and over-reacting to what were simply intended to be rational explanations on my part. I had no intention to "blame" her then, and I do not "blame" her now for what happened leading to her decision not to be my mentor anymore. As I said then and later (in the ANI), where she stated that I in effect "turn her stomach" and then called into question that I am an academic scholar and alleged (falsely) that I am a student: I am not a student; I am a trained academic scholar with a Ph.D. and, among several specialties in cognate fields, a specialist on Harold Pinter. I have served the academic profession of English studies, drama, theater, and related subjects for over 35 years after the earning of my Ph.D. My user boxes (see above) are all accurate. Those false allegations are violations of WP:AGF. (All of our prior discussion is still archived in my talk archive and some of our communications may be found in Shell's talk archive; Jezhotwells did not archive all of my comments and deleted some of them from his/her talk pages.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

While I personally believe you are telling the truth about your identity and your academic background, unless you're willing to prove your identity and qualifications, referring to them is pointless and just gives others a bad impression. On Wikipedia, we evaluate a user based entirely on the quality of their edits and whether they're an academic with a collection of PhDs or a high school student is just not relevant for editing purposes. Many, possibly most, of the people you have had problems with have academic qualifications and I know some also have Phds but none repeatedly refer to them as you do. I would suggest that you simply stop talking about your PhD and your job unless you're willing to prove it. Also, if you were having problems contacting your mentor for advice or assistance, the appropriate action would have been to post a request for an admin to help you or to request a new mentor. It's not really good enough to turn around once you get in trouble and try to use Shell as an excuse. I read the mentoring and I believe she did her best to help you but was unable to get through to you that you need stop several problematic behaviours, including assuming bad faith when other editors don't agree with you, which is still a problem to this day. Sarah 06:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I identify myself by my real name or "prove" my real-life identity. I use a screen name in Wikipedia for purposes of personal privacy. The provision of sources in many, many articles throughout Wikipedia that I have contributed to for over 4 years as "NYScholar" in my attempts to improve the documentation of articles are indications of my professional expertise. I stand by these edits. (cont.)

I am very tired of the personal and professional aspersions cast on me by Sarah and Shell and others. I am not "continually talking about my PhD" etc; but when administrators like Shell falsely state that I am a "student" in direct contradiction of my userboxes and those comments are referred to by others such as Abd as if they might have any value, these other editors are impugning good faith userboxes and my responses to questions that others have asked me about my background as a "scholar", which I have responded to in good faith (see my archived talk pages). My pointing out their violations of WP:AGF is in no way a violation of the policy WP:AGF. That itself is part of the policy. They should simply stop attacking me personally and professionally in various talk pages and on this talk page. It is more humiliating for them than it is for me when they continue to do so because it shows how low they are willing to stoop to attempt to prove their false points. Their continual misstatements about me does not make them any more true. They are still lies. --NYScholar (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My repeated good faith attempts to try to resolve the problems caused by the entry of User:Jezhotwells in Harold Pinter beginning on December 25, 2008 disprove the false statements that are being made about my editing or my "editing style" throughout the more recent ANI and that various involved users (including administrators like User:Sarah and User:Shell Kinney) continue to be making about me unnecessarily and without "diffs." in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No Wikipedia editor should be subjected to the kind of unfair treatment that I am being subjected to in Wikipedia. There is no single prescribed "editing style" in Wikipedia. What are prescribed are good faith attempts to follow WP:POL, which I was attempting to follow in good faith. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What has been and is going on following the ANI "topic ban" and then "commmunity ban" "proposals" posted initially by User:Steve Smith (formerly User:Sarcasticidealist) is yet another disgrace to Wikipedia, in my own view and that of other educated editors.

The outcome (my "community banning") discourages any academically credentialed scholar such as myself from contributing his or her own time to attempting to improve the content and documentation ("sourcing") of Wikipedia. The current version of Harold Pinter, on which I worked for over four years in good faith (WP:AGF) prior to this "banning" now contains multiple errors of content and format. (The correct information appears in the editing history's version from June 26 (on which I worked last) and also in my last my sandbox version.) I am warning Wikipedia readers about the current version of Harold Pinter. It is being edited by people who are not experts on Harold Pinter and who are not familiar with the sources that they have attempted to re-construct from my previous properly documented work on it. They have made serious mistakes that they do not have the knowledge or apparently the interest to correct. They have removed quotation marks from whole quoted sentences and phrases, sometimes leaving an open quotation mark and no closing quotation mark, for example. They have altered previously neutral presentations of statements documented properly by sources to biased statements using their own opinions (and thus [violating WP:NOR); those statements are not supported in actuality by the sources, which they have moved around. They may eventually submit the article for a "featured article review"; it might pass that review if the reviewers are no more knowledgable about Harold Pinter and the sources than they are. Doing so will not "improve" Wikipedia. It is a "travesty": a word used by editors like User:Keeper76 (see also Keeper's Barnstar on my Barnstars page) in the ANI filed by User:Orderinchaos. Ecoleetage cited Keeper's barnstar positive comments in explaining why he had decided to end his mentorship of me when commenting in the ANI filed by Orderinchaos. Orderinchaos (as is ThuranX) is an "involved" editor in the "underlying dispute" relating to the "community banning" of me. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for a full investigation of my "community banning"

I respectfully request that totally uninvolved administrators (multiple ones) who may have accepted arguments for my "community banning" review it much more carefully. The banning of me (either from editing the article on Harold Pinter or from editing any other part of Wikipedia) is not based on any "banable" offense that I know of. Prior to this "community banning", I had not been "blocked" for any "blockable offense" for over 10 months. The only comments being made against me were initiated by User:Jezhotwells in support of his/her edit warring about a citation style which had prevailed in Harold Pinter from long before October 2007, when it passed a "good article review" with that citation style. It continued to have the same prevailing citation style until Jezhotwell's entry into editing the article;. At one point, Jezhotwells changed the format of citations to the 3rd edition of MLA Style Manual from the 2nd edition but introduced multiple errors in formatting. Having already attempted many times to accommodate Jezhotwells' continual complaints and to incorporate live links in reference citations for the convenience of Wikipedia readers, I corrected Jezhotwells' multiple formatting errors and updated the citation style consistently to the 3rd edition, which went into effect in the MLA's own publications in early 2009. [There is currently no style sheet showing what the optional citation style is for Harold Pinter. The alphabetizing of its long list of asterisked items and their formatting are currently incorrect. [The correctly alphabetized items are still in Bibliography for Harold Pinter and in my sandbox versions of the article and the bibliography.] (updated. --NYScholar (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Further information: Speaking for myself

Moreover, I did not disrupt Wikipedia or the editing of the article on Harold Pinter; I spent many, many hours attempting to improve it and thus to improve Wikipedia. Beginning on December 25, 2008, it was actually User:Jezhotwells who was disrupting the editing of Harold Pinter, not I. (See the editing history of that article and its now-archived talk pages.) (updated. --NYScholar (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)) (cont.)

There are no "diffs." supplied by those commenting in the ANI to substantiate the false allegations that I was "disruptive" at the time that I became the subject of Steve Smith and Ssilvers' "topic ban" and then "community ban" proposals. After I pointed out problems in the fair-use rationales for 2 images, other editors adjusted the image file pages to incorporate more correct information that I supplied. (cont.)

The action started by User:Steve Smith (formerly User:Sarcasticidealist) when he posted his intention to propose topic bans against me and then initiated a community ban against me based on his claims that I do not understand U.S. copyright law's fair use is based on his opinion without actual diffs. He omitted my explicit references to the false application of specific fair use critera to which I objected that I had posted on his own talk page. He enlisted User:Ssilvers and others to engage in first a topic ban and then a community ban against me as a result of his difference of opinion about 2 images in Harold Pinter, whose current file pages now incorporate the information that I provided and which still remain in the article, despite other editors' attempts to remove them. (cont.)

That action and the "proposals" for these bans appear in my view to have been "punitive" (based on false allegations about insufficient reviewing of past events by a number of "involved" editors) and not "preventive". (cont.)

The banning of me does not "improve" the content, the format, or the environment of editing in Wikipedia. The "community" that may have "lost their patience" with me are actually a very small number of "involved" users who do not constitute a reasonablysized (or representative) sample of "uninvolved editors" in the "Wikipedia community" Wikipedia:Community (said to have over 10 million in just registered users). Most of them were involved in content and/or format editing disputes or, in the case of User:Shell Kinney, may have "lost their patience" due to mitigating factors that have nothing to do with me (lack of time, busy otherwise, concern off-Wiki with personal matters). It is my ongoing firm belief that Shell misinterpreted what I stated on my talk page (which is still there for consultation). I am not the cause of their loss of patience. I have, however, several times apologized for not being "concise" enough for their liking. (Many of my comments are actually shorter than those of, say, User:Sarah or User:Abd, who has come to my support to some degree at times but who has also not read the full record [over 4 years of contributions] and who makes statements in support of community banning me without knowing the full record, even though I do thank him for the several hours that he says he took to look at some of it. I find Abd's comments far longer than mine in many instances, including on talk pages of articles and project pages. At least one time that I have seen Shell has expressed an unwillingness to read what he has to say and belittled it too.Diffs. (cont.)

I believe that Abd has posted in the ANI concerning me and on my talk page in good faith, but I also understand that his posts do become very long and that they seem to try other people's patience. I also cannot discount the possibility that his posting about "the sad case" of NYScholar (me) here and elsewhere has some strong involvement with his own situation relating to a topic ban discussion concerning him (in arbitration). As he noted earlier, his being involved himself in such a matter, he is not the most effective advocate on my behalf. Nevertheless, his linked account (in his own user talk space sandbox) referring to the unfairness of the closing administrator's community ban of me here is indisputable. [Re: current edit warrning over WP:BAN, one needs to consult vehement protestations of the editors and administrators involved in the "underlying dispute", some of whom are also involved in editing WP:BAN and in discussing it quite heatedly in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy.] --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC) (Updated. --NYScholar (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)]

(ec) It should also be noted that the closing administrator (User:AdjustShift) had been an administrator for a relatively short time (since April 2009) prior to responding to the urging of 2 involved editors (User:Orderinchaos and User:ThuranX) to close (and community ban a user) on the basis of what was still an ongoing discussion in WP:ANI, and that the closing administrator has subsequently participated in the ongoing discussion in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy and in making edits to WP:BAN for which there are ongoing disputes about the matter of what constitutes "a consensus". There is currently no clear consensus about the changes being made to WP:BAN retroactively after AdjustShift's "closing" decision to "community ban" and indefinitely block me. --NYScholar (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of diffs.: Speaking for myself

I see no basis for others' acceptance of false allegations presented without "diffs." that I have been "disruptive" in editing Harold Pinter or in making comments on 2 images (whose image files now have been improved as a result of my bringing problems in their fair-use rationales to the attention of others). Claims of others that I act as if I "own" the article or that I have been "disruptive" are not the same thing as actual evidence of such "ownership" or "disruption". WP:MOS clearly states that one should not edit war over an already-consistent prevailing citation format. User:Jezhotwells and User:Ssilvers and others have engaged in such edit warring. Moreover, inability of recent editors to use quotation marks properly is resulting in plagiarism from sources in the article. In moving items around, they are falsely attributing some material to incorrect sources when I supplied the quotation marks properly and attributed the correct sources accurately originally. (cont.)

When the WP:MOS permits a citation format that one has used since contributing the first citations to an article such as Harold Pinter as I did (beginning to edit it on June 30, 2006, when it had no source citations at all), to continue updating the format (as the style guide itself was updated), is not a "disruption"; it is an "improvement" of an article. (cont.)

If other editors who are not experts in the subject cannot perceive that, that is their lack of perception, not "inconsistency"; MLA style allows and uses both parenthetical referencing and endnotes, as do many articles currently in Wikipedia, including some featured articles.

[Note: Most citation styles, including MLA, APA, Chicago, and others, recommend and feature in their sample entries the use of hanging paragraphs or hanging indents in lists of works cited and other properly formatted bibliographies. Wikipedia editors not familiar with such documentation formats (both in print and online) are misinformed about how to format such bibliographies, which include lists of "Works Cited" ["Works cited" in Wikipedia], "Further reading", "References" (that are not "notes", "footnotes", or "endnotes"), and so on. Wikipedia recommends no single citation style. (addendum) --NYScholar (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)]

The use of "p." and "pp." no longer appear in several citation styles that are currently options in Wikipedia: including: MLA, APA, and Chicago. Following current WP:MOS, these citation styles are being used in many articles throughout Wikipedia; some are being used consistently; some are used with many inconsistencies due to the nature of peer editing and vandalism in Wikipedia. In any case, however, it would be clear to any competent reader that numbers placed directly after a source's last name or after the title of a work cited or a parenthetical publication year in a citation refer to page numbers. "P." and "pp." are deprecated in many current versions of citation styles that are options according to the WP:MOS. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also explained that when hearsay and lack of "diffs." and misinterpretations of online communications lead to false assumptions, as in this instance, it sometimes does take more words than some (involved) people would like to see to straighten out such problems. (cont.)

The group of Wikipedia users involved in underlying disputes who acted to "ban" me from Wikipedia need to reexamine the limitations of their so-called patience and whether or not those limitations actually result in improving the content and format of Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not use e-mail with/with regard to Wikipedia

I do not use e-mail with/with regard to Wikipedia, and, therefore, I will not be e-mailing any Wikipedia addresses relating to reviewing this so-called community banning of me. --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Project page WP:BAN disputes

I am also very busy with non-Wikipedia-related work. I do not have time to deal further with policy-related matters on Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia needs to examine the disputes occurring in relation to editing WP:BAN and the gratuitous false allegations being made about me in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, to warn users against continuing to engage in them, and to add a {{Disputedtag}} template to that project page; it is the subject of ongoing edit warring. --NYScholar (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Adb

NYScholar is correct that WP:BAN was not followed, specifically the requirement for a consensus of uninvolved editors; there was no finding of such a consensus, only an overall consensus that did not consider involvement, nor has the closing admin for the ban clarified this, when it was pointed out, but simply relies on what is adequate -- and preferred! -- for most WP decisions, the arguments. However, community bans are an exception. This is not wikilawyering against the ban; what the defect means is that the ban is simply an administrative ban, it is still valid. There was clearly disruption over NYScholar's work, which it was essential to address. However, this does mean that more consideration should be given to measures short of a site ban, for there has been no determination by a consensus of uninvolved editors that NYScholar's work is, overall, damaging to the project. If NYScholar is willing to confine edits narrowly as promised, there is a purpose to unblock, contrary to the second decline. In addition to working on possibly useful material in user space, NYScholar would be able to seek a mentor, and then lifting the ban under agreement between the mentor and the unblocking admin could be considered. If NYScholar is disruptive during this process, the unblocking admin could reblock (or any other admin could). Complicating this is NYScholars refusal to use email, which I have not been able to understand, it's unfortunate. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar, you continue to shoot yourself in the foot. Sure, my comments are sometimes longer than yours. However, I'm also banned from an article with that being one of the reasons! That is, at least, being used as an excuse, and I might end up being site-banned if things go badly at ArbComm. It's quite unpopular, and any admin looking at your unblock request is going to see all this talk after the request and think, "So this is why they blocked this editor." And whatever reality underlies this will, quite simply, not be seen. I advised you, initially, not to even put up an unblock template until there were negotiations for your return, but your refusal to use email made all this far more difficult. See, with email, you can write as much as you like and it won't be used against you, unless you seriously email the wrong person, and you could remain absolutely as anonymous with email as with a Wikipedia account, maybe even more anonymous. Your alternative, writing that material here, is simply guaranteeing the damage, plus you can't email ArbComm, you can't seek support, you depend entirely on whoever reads your Talk page, which will be increasingly few. You should also be aware that three unblock requests is often grounds for protecting your Talk page so that even it can't be edited by you. Unfair? Perhaps. Sometimes unfairness is necessary, because being fair isn't practical, it can take resources that aren't present. --Abd (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Please adhere to your earlier statement that you will cease commenting on this matter on my talk page. I do not and will not use e-mail with/with relation to Wikipedia. Nothing you say is going to change my preference not to use e-mail with/with relation to Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Request (Attempt to make clearer)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Past and ongoing failure to follow WP:BAN in effect at the time (July 1, 2009); failure to observe Due process (See #Due process above); past and ongoing failure to follow multiple core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they are listed in WP:POL. Re: closing of the ban discussion: Misleading and erroneous counting of involved editors and involved administrators by the closing administrator and others in determining that "a consensus of uninvolved editors" had been reached. See link provided below this request (so it will format correctly) and previous discussions following #Due process.

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.

Administrator use only:

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=Past and ongoing failure to follow [[WP:BAN]] in effect at the time (July 1, 2009); failure to observe [[Wikipedia:Process is important|Due process]] (See [[#Due process]] above); past and ongoing failure to follow multiple core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they are listed in [[WP:POL]]. Re: closing of the ban discussion: Misleading and erroneous counting of involved editors and involved administrators by the closing administrator and others in determining that "a consensus of uninvolved editors" had been reached. See link provided below this request (so it will format correctly) and previous discussions following [[#Due process]]. |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=Past and ongoing failure to follow [[WP:BAN]] in effect at the time (July 1, 2009); failure to observe [[Wikipedia:Process is important|Due process]] (See [[#Due process]] above); past and ongoing failure to follow multiple core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they are listed in [[WP:POL]]. Re: closing of the ban discussion: Misleading and erroneous counting of involved editors and involved administrators by the closing administrator and others in determining that "a consensus of uninvolved editors" had been reached. See link provided below this request (so it will format correctly) and previous discussions following [[#Due process]]. |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=Past and ongoing failure to follow [[WP:BAN]] in effect at the time (July 1, 2009); failure to observe [[Wikipedia:Process is important|Due process]] (See [[#Due process]] above); past and ongoing failure to follow multiple core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they are listed in [[WP:POL]]. Re: closing of the ban discussion: Misleading and erroneous counting of involved editors and involved administrators by the closing administrator and others in determining that "a consensus of uninvolved editors" had been reached. See link provided below this request (so it will format correctly) and previous discussions following [[#Due process]]. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Link that won't post above without undoing format of request: See "this analysis of the ban !votes, and WP:BAN on community bans" as it existed when this link was posted above by Abd on this talk page). (updated and moved to bottom of this page. For details, see above discussions. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Sarah

The analysis you point to is fundamentally flawed. Uninvolved in the underlying dispute, doesn't mean "only those who have never commented before on prior ANI complaints about this user". There was only a small number of people who participated who were actually involved in the underlying dispute and they self-identified as such. Abd's "analysis" is also unbalanced in that he attempts to discount users who had previously commented on ANI complaints about you or had previously had contact with you (in one case, three years ago) but fails to discount those opposed who didn't investigate the complaint and merely have an ideological objection to long term blocks and bans. His analysis only examines those supporting and is thus unbalanced and it is based upon an incorrect understanding of policy and his own desire to change several aspects of the banning policy to something prescriptive, rather than a mere description of what we normally do. Sarah 05:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sarah

I respectfully request User:Sarah to stop commenting about these matters on my talk page. I have been and am personally and professionally offended by her comments to me and about me over the past several years (in ANI and most recently in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy), and I do not enjoy reading such comments or having to take the time to respond to them while I am "community blocked". They are, in my view, not the comments of a neutral observer, very often entirely wrong-headed, very often gratuitous, and, in my own view, they do not "improve" Wikipedia or in any way serve Wikipedia well. They show a very bad side of Wikipedia to the public. --NYScholar (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to do so. As I said above, stop talking about me and making incorrect claims about me and I will stop feeling the need to correct you. I don't get any pleasure out of coming here (and in fact, find it incredibly frustrating) but when you keep making false accusations about me, you can expect me to correct the record. Sarah 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If I thought that my statements were false, I wouldn't have made them. Please reread what I stated. In sum, you should not be bashing a banned editor in talk pages in Wikipedia. There is no need for you to keep my talk page on your watch list if you don't want to return here. --NYScholar (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, your claims are false. And more than that, you seem to insist on always using the mot inflammatory language to talk about other users. You constantly insist that we AGF of you but you never AGF of others and always use the most insulting and inflammatory language and accusing me of being a liar is just a recent example of that. You would find that a lot of your problems on Wikipedia would go away if you made a deliberate effort to follow the AGF policy and stopped assuming everyone is out to get you or deliberately out to cause mischief for you. Sarah 15:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

General queries

What precisely was (were) the so-called underlying dispute(s) of the ANI ban proposals (topic and community ban proposals) filed by User:Steve Smith (formerly User:Sarcasticidealist) and User:Ssilvers? In the proposals that they filed, the "underlying dispute(s)" appear to be shifting and multiple and to encompass what a whole host of users "involved" in them decided to call them and many of whom had participated in previous ANI discussions about me (and other editors). User:Sarcasticidealist (using that moniker) is an administrator who was involved in content disputes relating to 2 images in Harold Pinter that led him (in my view extremely prematurely and without advance warning) to post ban proposals in ANI, to claim that he would not support a "community ban" and then to reverse course after a short period in which he could not possibly have had enough time to examine my 4 plus years of contributions to Wikipedia, to decide on posting a community ban proposal "poll" in addition to the topic ban proposal "polls" posted by him and Ssilvers, which led to my community ban. In the course of those discussions the "underlying dispute(s)" became multiple disputes dredged up by a host of people who had participated in previous "underlying dispute(s)" and those are the people who Abd has labelled to be "involved" and not "neutral" participants. My mentor Shell became an involved participant when she sided with User:Jezhotwells without reading the full record. She accepted Jezhotwells' claim to have "apologised" for his/her incivility toward me, but the apology was directed to Shell, not to me, and the incivility continued after the so-called apology. I did not ask for an apology; what I asked for was the cessation of the incivilities. That did not occur. Yet despite the history of filing an RfC about the use of MLA citation style in Harold Pinter (the immediate center of an editing dispute initiated by Jezhotwells) and a "mediation" focusing on me as a contributor and a RfC on Jezhotwells' own editing focusing also on me as a contributor, nevertheless, Jezhotwells' comments are being "counted" as if they were those of a "neutral" observer, which they are not. The same may be said of others (including Sarah and Shell) whom Abd has (in my view correctly) discounted as "involved" in the "underlying dispute(s)" in Steve Smith/Sarcasticidealist's and Ssilvers' polls. --NYScholar (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The underlying dispute appears to be the Pinter article, talk page and it's related pages and sub-articles, including the image pages. I have never touched any Pinter pages, have no interest in Pinter and was not even remotely involved in that dispute. I became involved with you in my role as an administrator and an OTRS agent for the Wikimedia Foundation and not in any kind of editing or content disputes or as an editor of your articles. Of course you think Abd is right, it's in your best interest that he is as it's really the only leg you have to stand on in arguing against this ban. But even if for the sake of argument we take Abd's (extreme and unrealistic, IMHO) viewpoint and say this is a block, not a ban, you still need to deal with the reasons for the block and your above unblock request is just wikilawyering and doesn't address the conflicts or the reasons many felt a block was necessary. I would not unblock someone who argued that the block was illegitimate because of legalistic reasons rather than addressing the reasons the block was deemed necessary. Also, "discounting" opinions of involved parties means taking it into consideration when weighing comments, it doesn't mean deleting or ignoring those people's opinions, especially when they make strong policy-based arguments (and as the closing administrator noted, he found the arguments of the supporter's strongly based in policy). Just a thought you might like to consider. Sarah 14:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely clear from the breadth of discussions of me in the ANI in which you yourself commented, that the discussers have broadened the subject of the "underlying dispute" to be "ownership issues" in general, my "editing style" in general, the nature of my actual expertise in general, my forthrightness in general, my personality in general, and many specifics about me, about all of which Sarah has commented in the past and continues to comment both on this talk page and in other talk pages, including in Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. Sarah is not a "neutral" observer when it comes to assessing my contributions to Wikipedia, in my view. Her previous involvement in previous ANI discussions makes that very clear. --NYScholar (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am leaving the matter to anyone who wants to examine it to do so. That is my stance. --NYScholar (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself again: In my own understanding: I have been "community banned" by the closing administrator, User:AdjustShift, who lists this in my "block log" as such. It is both a "community ban" and a "block" of User:NYScholar from editing Wikipedia (other than my current talk page). I speak for myself. Neither Abd nor any other user of Wikipedia speaks for me. I linked his assessment of the "polls" and the closing by AdjustShift because it makes sense to me. I do not agree with all of what Abd says about me or about other subjects in general. He does not speak for me. As should be entirely clear, we have had no communication other than what appears in public Wikipedia space. --NYScholar (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

General comments

It is my sense that the convoluted, unfair, and dysfunctional nature of Wikipedia administration will ultimately lead to the demise of Wikipedia. I do not believe that Wikipedia administrative processes are fairly or consistently being followed (not only in my own case but in other cases as well), perceive a great deal of contradiction throughout Wikipedia policy and guideline pages WP:POL, and I do not believe that these policy pages are clearly enough understood by many Wikipedians or believed to be fairly followed by the larger so-called Wikipedia:Wikipedia community (notice the redirection). These draconian procedures and the "lack of patience" throughout a very small portion of this community to tolerate a variety of "editing styles" that are actually options in Wikipedia drive away expert scholarly editors like me from contributing their knowledge and expertise to editing Wikipedia. (cont.)

I stand by my edits to Harold Pinter over the past four plus years and by my other contributions throughout Wikipedia. I have tried to improve that article since I first began editing it on June 30, 2006 [including spending several weeks working collaboratively with User:WillowW to bring it successfully through a Good article review, which it passed in early October 2007. [Note well: I was not its nominator; WillowW served as the reviewer. For related discussion, see Talk:Harold Pinter/archive7, which User:Jezhotwells archived in the midst of the ANI filed by User:Steve Smith (formerly User:Sarcasticidealist.] (cont.)

Between the beginning of my editing as "NYScholar" on June 30, 2005 and my recent "community banning" (June 30-July 2, 2009), I have tried to improve many other articles and sections of articles on other subjects throughout Wikipedia. (My "Barnstars" user subpage lists some appreciation for those efforts.) The record of my discussions with related links is in my archived talk pages and my "contributions" are accessible via my talk page header. See my other responses above. Thank you. (updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)