This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
Hey, it seems like there is some wp:own going on with this article. Including to remove an area wikiproject. I dislike sarcasm in written forums like this, but it is hard not to introduce it. I will refrain from suggesting names for the WikiProject that might want to own this article. doncram (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original lead paragraph for this article was in violation of copyright, lifted with only cosmetic changes from here and here. Some of this material could be rewritten to add to the article, but some of it probably belongs in "History" rather than in the lead. Choess (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Choess! It would have been easier to simply delete the article as the contribution of a banned user, but Doncram fought that. As I commented on his talk page, yesterday I stopped waiting for him to clean the article up, and trimmed everything except the lead section down to what I could find support for. When it came to the lead section, I was tired of the effort, so I simply added a batch of "CN" templates and hoped for help. Your help was fast and effective! Thanks again. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the criticism: Deleting this article and starting over would not make much real progress in my view. If you are fighting copyright vios or locals addition of advertising or anything else, it needs to be established what are the sources. In my view, talking about sources on Talk pages and building up links to the possible sources helps, while deleting all record of previous discussion and problem hurts. It leaves knowledge of past problems only in the hands of a few. As Orlady has expressed elsewhere, she dislikes New Rochelle and dislikes writing about New Rochelle area places. So, in general i think it is unhelpful for her to operate in ways that tend to centralize all ability to edit New Rochelle area articles in her hands. And, in general, I will oppose any deletions of New Rochelle area articles for these reasons. In terms of deletions brought to AfD which I have known about and participated in, I think the score, if anyone is counting, is something like: Orlady 0, Doncram 2. I think that reflects the wider wikipedia consensus in my views here. Orlady contends elsewhere that the articles were not deleted because she managed to force other editors to make changes for her. I think the forcing others to do stuff, and the forcing to make articles show what she wants, is not really fun or helpful for wikipedia. doncram (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why banned user articles are supposed to be deleted!!! Never mind AFD - AFD is not always correct. There are too many crusaders at AFD who have a misguided desperation to save all content contributed by anyone at any cost. This is a great example of how high that cost could be. Copyright violation! There are few bigger sins here than copyright violation! But by all means, continue to focus on Orlady - an editor who has been reasonable and patient and has even apologized in places where I would have ranted back in a blind rage. Keep coddling a serial copyright violator - now caught in the act by a neutral third-party - and deflect attention away from his misdeeds in order to facilitate your campaign against Orlady. For shame. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i am not aware of Orlady ever sincerely apologizing about anything, really; I'd appreciate being pointed to any examples. What W and O have pursued here has developed into a big game between them and one or more persons caught up in the sockpuppet accusations, which W and O appear to have enjoyed playing as much as anyone else. W and O apparently feel justified in their treatment of others, and one or more of those persons feels wronged and feels justified in cutting and pasting stuff sometimes, I assume as part of a taunting game sometimes. Since one or more others of those sometimes does not engage in that behavior all the time, it continually raises question to me whether they are all the same person or not. Certainly W and O's accusations are sometimes wrong. What would resolve the game, I think, would be to allow any person involved one open account and a re-start. That would make the contributions traceable and limit the scale of what goes on. It would allow W and O to follow, and it would allow others to act to protect the person(s) legitimate edits. W and O, why not consider this? What would you have to lose, really, except for the continued big game? doncram (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hunting for an example of Orlady's patience - believe it or don't. Your "big game" is that one person got in trouble a year ago for violating copyrights and stealing others' hard work and has spent the last year trying to obscure his identity. But he's done a terrible job. Every time he tries speaking with one of his new identities, he gives himself away with various writing styles that I've only ever seen him use. (I'm not going to divulge what those are so don't ask). If he sincerely wanted to better himself and be mentored and supervised by someone, I bet someone would take on that challenge - let him ask. But he doesn't. He'd prefer to duck and weave and take on different identities and try to trick us all - all the while continuing the exact same behavior that he exhibited an entire year ago. This is not new. There are dozens of banned people following the exact same behavior pattern, "I will do whatever I feel like, regardless of whether it falls under your rules, and there's nothing you can do to stop me because it's an anonymous project." The idea of taking your (good) advice and seeking mentorship is totally beneath him and contemptible. He'd rather disappear than be mentored and follow all the rules. He probably laughs at you just as hard as he laughs at the rest of us. We're powerless losers and you're a sucker. But, like I said, keep taking potshots at Orlady and myself while Jvolkblum keeps laughing and laughing. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i'd like to agree that you are powerless losers (your words), but you aren't quite that. You and Orlady show considerable power in obtaining Checkuser investigations, in deleting articles, and so on, which generally perpetuate your big game. I thot you had retired, but perhaps you are re-energized into playing the game again, by what you might perceive as recent "wins" you had at wp:an and in the decline of arbitration on the case.
You do have a legitimate point that the person(s) should ask to be reinstated, and they are not really clearly and unambiguously requesting that. But, Jvolkblum the original did ask and was denied, apparently, and there is far from certainty that a new sincere request would be accepted. What are your terms, if any, for allowing an account and a restart? I get the impression you will bitterly oppose anything to break the game, even though you would risk very little. There was in fact recent indication by "Person G" at my talk page that she/he would like one account to edit from, however. It's a chance to convert the long-running game to something else, but your and Orlady's opposition to an Unban seem to succeed in derailing that. At least if I couple an Unban request with other suggestions that would help clear this whole mess. Do you want to keep playing the game, W, or would you like to change it? doncram (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I can't navigate your peculiar code. Who is "Person G"? Second off, it's not a game. I haven't "won" anything - unless you count frustration and a broken keyboard from typing so hard on this page a "win". Third off, the first term for me to support an unban (keep in mind, that's "support", not a final say-so - none of us individually have final say-so) is to ask. Not the latest Jvolkblum edit where he rambled on about Google alerts and (proven) lies about having disappeared and only noticing this was ongoing because his name kept appearing in Google and ombudsman commission - whatever that is - and blah blah blah. And more attacks against Orlady which continues to mystify me. That was so totally not the correct first step. Ask. Some honest contrition would help. As Rlevse pointed out, he could also show evidence of positive contributions elsewhere. How does one get let out of prison early? By shouting and screaming about the unfair legal system and their horrible accusers and how life has victimized them at every step?! Of course not. Common sense. Try to join us instead of fighting us. Use common sense. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
