User talk:NYScholar/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

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.