User talk:NYScholar/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg

The template you applied to that page is one which requires an administrator to review and decide whether the image meets the WP:CSD criteria for speedy deletion. As an administrator, I reviewed it, did not understand on what basis you were claiming that the fair use rationale was invalid, questioned you on it, received no answer that convinced me that the CSD criteria were met, and removed the template. When speedy deletion taggings are declined, you are not supposed to just re-tag them. If you continue to believe that the image should be deleted, non-free content review is the place to take this. Do not replace the tag again. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The fair use rationale is full of false statements. That is why I dispute it. Just because one makes statements in a fair use rationale does not mean that the statements are accurate and true. In this case, they are not. I will look into the matter later, when I have more time, and I will not replace the template again, as I understand that to do so would be problematic due to WP:3RR and civility (respect for your administrative judgment). Please reread my concerns if you have time. Otherwise, if/when I can, I'll go look at files for deletion non-free content review and do what you suggest (if it makes sense to me then). Thanks for your time. --NYScholar (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. It may well be that there is a case to be made that the image fails te non-free content criteria, but your tagging did not make that case. You also did not make that case at Talk:Harold Pinter, despite my specific request that you identify which of the non-free content criteria you disputed. In light of that, the tag could not stand. If you do intend to take this to WP:NFR, I strongly advise you to read WP:NFCC first and identify exactly which criterion/criteria you dispute, and exactly on what basis you dispute it/then; otherwise, you may find the experience singularly frustrating. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This image (and its fair use rationale) fail criteria 6, 8, and 10 and do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia Image Policy as linked in the criteria for usage of non-free images. This particular image is not adding anything essential to the article that is not already accessible via linked source webpages from Pinter's official website, one of which features the (it appears) exact same version of this image (not a diff. in resolution). [I also responded to the issue of criteria not being met in the talk page of the article.] --NYScholar (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There we go, now we're making progress! I don't see how it violates 6 or 10, and you'd want to explain that more fully. I think there is an argument to be made that it violates 8, since it's not clear to me that the picture significantly enhances the reader's understanding, but criterion 8 is always read as being in the context of the Wikipedia article, so I don't think you'll get anywhere with the argument that if people want to see a picture they should visit another website (by that logic, Wikipedia wouldn't use any non-free images that were available elsewhere on the web; in fact, it uses thousands of them). But we're definitely making progress now, anyway. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: 6 and 10: The criteria include a link to Wikipedia image use policy, which includes a section on "fair use" stating (in part): "Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal." In my view of this situation, the claim of fair use in the fair use rationale for this image is erroneous and misleading and inaccurate, and thus "invalid"; as I have already stated elsewhere (several times). (cont.)

Re: 8: What people want to do relating to other images in other articles is not applicable, since we are talking about one particular image taken from a copyrighted official webpage and placed in this article. Whether it adds anything essential to knowledge for this article is the germane issue. I believe that it does not and that the use of the image is purely for adornment of the article and not to add essential information to it. (cont.)

I know from my discussions in London that this official website is now the purview of Harold Pinter's agent, who will update and oversee the website. Knowing that the website is currently still copyright protected and that its "upcoming events" section was already updated after Pinter's death in 2009, I provide "2000–[2009]" as its publication date. The date of 2003 was provided by one of Pinter's earlier assistants in developing the site over its first 3 years, and it has not yet been updated; but it will be. The site is still considered to be the property of Harold Pinter (whose estate controls it via his agent), which is Judy Daish and Associates. (cont.)

Wikipedia's image policy clearly states when "in doubt" about the usage of an image, to contact the copyright holder(s); in this instance, one would contact his agent, Judy Daish and Associates, whose name and address are available from the "Plays" section of his official website and in all of his currently published works (in print). If one is able to get permission for posting the photograph in this one Wikipedia article and/or in Wikipedia Commons, one writes for permission, places the correspondence in a Wikipedia file whose number is linked in the image page description. If one is denied permission to use the image, one removes it from Wikipedia. As the usage of this image is in doubt, that is the most cautious route to take, in my view. (As I do not maintain any email correspondence with Wikipedia for privacy reasons, I will not be the editor to do this.) --NYScholar (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The notice on every Wikipedia editing mode page states: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." I believe that the posting of this image in Wikipedia (under a Creative Commons license now), taken from Pinter's official copyrighted website and whose image description page provides in my view invalid fair use claims, does potentially "violate copyrights" (his copyright [still in force] and the unidentified photographer's copyright). The image comes from his personal archive, now owned by the British Library, which clearly states that Pinter's copyright still pertains and must be observed in the photograph albums and other materials housed in its holdings. Permission from Harold Pinter's estate is now required for use of any of those materials in his Archive. --NYScholar (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[It is Wikipedia copyright policy to remove material that potentially violates copyright/s. (Its aim is to protect Wikipedia from possibility of adverse legal action/law suits.) --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)]

I've added an external link to the Archive article:

• "Manuscript Collections: Copyright Guidance" in "Help for Researchers" at the British Library. The photograph in question is published on Pinter's official website, which features a copyright notice. See earlier comment above for point that the photograph is from his personal archive, now part of the BL Archive and subject to its copyright notices and policies, which defer to Pinter's estate for permissions pertaining to it (as per the notice). --NYScholar (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note the definitions pertaining to "fair use" in that official BL webpage; there is a distinction between "research" and criticism being done by individuals and use of manuscripts and other copyrighted properties (including photographs) by individuals for their own personal use and posting material under Creative Commons licensing on the internet for others' use; that type of activity is not within these exceptions relating to "fair use". It is not within fair use (as stated in the above linked "guidance") to post (publish) copyrighted materials on the internet without permission of the copyright holders. The "fair use rationale" claim to be within "fair use" in this instance is "invalid". Moreover, the photograph is not a "unique historic image" as claimed. It is easily accessible via Pinter's official website, which is public on the internet, and it is not necessary to copy the image from that copyrighted site in this article. It adds nothing of educational value to the article not already visible in the source. --NYScholar (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that I had originally placed a template pertaining to "puic" and a bot had me place the one you removed? Please see the history. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your posting of the image at WP:PUF, and I saw the automated message that the bot gave you. The problem - as the bot, being a bot, could not know - was that the rationale you provided did not back up the tag. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Copied from talk page of Ssilvers as per its top notice

Harold Pinter and Harold Pinter and politics

[To Ssilvers:] Please place the question that you ask in your edit summary (editing history) in the discussion page for the article(s) [both of which contain the sent. about which you ask your question]. I cannot quote from those sources without violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; the sources are extremely biased in my reading of them. The source citations are there so that people can read the full citations themselves. Other editors are free to try to work on this article, but please consult the "controversy" template. Previous versions of Harold Pinter (which contained parts of this new article previously) particularly after October 2005, when Pinter won the Nobel Prize in Literature were highly contentious and full of violations of NPOV, as anonymous IP users were frequently vandalizing Harold Pinter. Please consult the archived talk pages and the editing history from the earliest date of the creation of Harold Pinter (by another editor) on; the evidence is all there. By creating this article (Harold Pinter and politics), I've done the initial work. My views of prev[ious] editing wars about it are all in Talk:Harold Pinter and its archives and related discussions. Thanks very much. --NYScholar (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would ask you to discuss everything about these articles on their talk pages. Please do not post to my talk page about them. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that in my own talk page, I ask for the same courtesy (but it is not always followed). I am just asking that you not place questions in an editing summary which have no way of being answered in an editing summary. Please place them in the talk pages of articles [so that people can answer there]. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans proposed

I am sorry that it has come to this, given that I believe without reservation that your contributions are being made in good faith. See here. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to "ban" me or "block" me; I'll be taking a voluntary extended break; I'll be away doing other things. I've only been back from the UK a week, and I wanted to "help" with the article on Pinter, but since the help is not being appreciated, I just created Harold Pinter and politics, which I leave to others to work further on, and I leave the main article to others to work further on.

I still prefer the correct citation style for the subject in literature, but that is because (1) I am a literary/dramatic criticism scholar trained to teach and use it for 40-plus years; and (2) I really think it is a great service to students to have proper discipline-specific citation styles so that they can see the correct usage of them, rather than the hodgepodge that often appears in Wikipedia. I created the model citations as a service. I am disappointed that that is not clear to many editors from the UK who prefer Harvard style referencing or (outdated) Wikipedia citation templates. But c'est la vie!! Thanks for your comment. I will now take my "respite" from all this. --NYScholar (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I have no thoughts on the proposed ban from the Pinter article. However, I will be going ahead with my request for an indefinite ban on copyright-related issues, since I believe that this has been a long-term issue with you. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Before a Wikipedia editor and/or administrator requests "an indefinite ban on" a topic, don't you think the person should inform the potential victim/bannee in question that there is a concern and advise the latter that there is such a thing as "indefinite topic ban"? I never heard of such a thing, and no one came to my talk page to bring the matter to my attention first! (E.g., to tell me it was even a possibility). That is just dreadful, in my view! Instead of coming to talk to me about it here, they went to one another's talk pages, which just happened to come up on my watch list bec. I had communicated w/ them about other matters earlier. So I became concerned about this "conspiracy" going on behind my back, so to speak. This is really not civil behavior. At least I'm civil. A person should have some kind of warning first, not be banned without warning and an opportunity to "cool it".

As a literary scholar, I have a great deal of knowledge about copyright and not a "poor" knowledge (or understanding) of it, as has been claimed. (cont.)

I posted User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues originally beginning in about 2006 and 2007 and only created a new linking of the page in 2008; I rarely discuss copyright issues/concerns (due to lack of time) since the discussions on that page. But the blatant problems of the images being added to Harold Pinter drew me back into that topic. I'd rather not deal with it, as a matter of choice, not coercion, however! The comments in the "ban" discussions are highly insulting to me, and I find them highly offensive and really not civil. I wholly dislike the way Wikipedia deals with these kinds of matters, by allowing people to state whatever they wish on these "incident" pages; it is really disagreeable and even often mean spirited, and I truly don't enjoy having anything to do with that aspect of Wikipedia. It tends to drive me away and is a disincentive to doing any work for and in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)]

Wikipedia has very arcane and inconsistent rules about copyright which often lead to a lot of copyright violations going on throughout Wikipedia; as anyone can see who posts any kind of review: it's a huge problem. I don't mind not talking about it in Wikipedia; I originally posted the page on copyright issues in my user space bec. I didn't want to have to deal w/ these issues in talk pages of articles (see above, linked already on one of your talk pages) ;because I did not want to have to talk about it anymore. But the image problem w/ images in Harold Pinter long predates this instance; many editors have tried to post some of the very same kinds of images in the infobox as was recently attempted, and administrators have always removed them. Maybe Pinter's death seems to make a difference in Wikipedia policy, but even after his death admins. removed other editors' uploaded non-free photographs giving claims of fair use as copyright violations. (cont.)

I just want to add that if Wikipedia continues to treat me in this manner (which seems "punitive" rather than "preventive"), I am really not going to feel comfortable contributing anything to it. Especially when it was done w/o first posting any kind of warning here. I really think you should think about withdrawing it. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NYScholar, we've never met and, as far as I know, we've never crossed paths within any of the wiki projects. Anyway, I am proceeding on the assumption that we haven't. As I am reading the proposed community ban (and not a topic ban that was initially proposed), it appears that folk are quite upset over what they see as your problematic behavior. As I read your user talk page, iam thinking that some of your energies might - pending the outcome of that linked discussion - be better spent trying to bring about some of the changes you talk about. Instead of complaining about the outdated referencing that Wikipedia uses, use your experience and skills to help encourage an updating to something better suited for the reader. That's just one example, and I am sure there are dozens of others and other avenues that you can pursue, avoiding the sorts of articles and discussions that are upsetting so many people.

However, that's just my two pence; take it as you will. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments (and that of others along the same lines in the "ban" discussions) very much, Arcayne; unfortunately, as I have already stated, I do not foresee having the time and do not have the interest in trying to "convert" current Wikipedians entrenched in their arcane and outdated Wikipedia citation formats, which I am not expert in using, in changing them. They appear to be a brick wall of resistance to change. I wish it were otherwise, but in my experience with them, it is not. (Can you imagine me, an academic scholar, having any success at all trying to change the minds of those immersed in the "featured article" nominating and review process?!?) I am not as optimistic as you are that my time and energies would be productively spent. I cannot sacrifice my non-Wikipedia work to such an apparently doomed endeavor. --NYScholar (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Update (if interested)

Update

[Clearly people have not read the material via the "hidden"/"show" template that was directly above "Update". I am moving the "hidden end" template up a notch so that the previously written bold request shows up. --NYScholar (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)]

After getting some much-needed rest, I am working on other things (in and outside of Wikipedia) and will not be responding further in the administrative noticeboard's comments area. I think that the "topic bans" proposed and linked above by Steve Smith (formerly sarcasticidealist) and Ssilvers are increasingly being used as a retaliatory means supporting edit warring over citation style that has been going on mainly at Jezhotwells' instigation (extended further in the "peer review", now closed) since December 25, 2008, when that editor first began commenting on the article (the day after Pinter's death).

I have looked at the instructions on the administrative noticeboard page and do not see where it mentions anything about proposals for "topic bans" or even any definition of what a "topic ban" is. I already (more than once) pointed out that I am not going to be involved in making changes in the style format of Harold Pinter relating to any kind of "featured article candidate" nomination or review process. I do not have the time to do that, and I do not want to take the time to do that.

In response to a question and comments made by others in that administrative noticeboard section started by Steve Smith (formerly sarcasticidealist) and added to by Ssilvers and others: As I and many other editors of Wikipedia have already pointed out (many, many times), based on WP:LOP, there is no "Wikipedia standard" citation style.

The WP:MOS, referring to WP:CITE, is a Wikipedia-wide project page that points out that citation styles in Wikipedia are "optional" and the current "style sheet" template in Talk:Harold Pinter (at top) says the same thing about such styles being "optional". The current version of the "style guideline" WP:MOS-linked WP:CITE (a "style guideline" "widely" accepted in Wikipedia) states explicitly that parenthetical referencing citation styles—of which there are many and many of which include content endnotes) are one kind of citation style format acceptable in Wikipedia articles; the mixture appears in many articles in Wikipedia and it is also used in project pages too, sometimes as examples of citation styles. The "Wikipedia standard" does not seem to exist except in the "featured article" review process page and among editors nominating "featured articles" candidates for such reviews and listing them in their user space.

[It is the whole page at WP:CITE that states: "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The "generally accepted standard" lists many different citation styles, including parenthetical referencing. If some editors do not like "parenthetical referencing", their dislike is not embodied in either WP:CITE or WP:MOS, which links to it, or in WP:LOP, listing all the editing policies and guidelines in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)]

[I have never been involved in a "featured article" candidate nomination or review process. I perceived from Willow's comments about the process in October 2007 that it could be contentious and time-consuming, and I have decided since October 2007 that I do not have the interest or the time or the energy to become involved in it (for any article in Wikipedia, not just for Harold Pinter. (added.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done years of work on Harold Pinter, as well as on other articles, and I am not going to spend any more time engaging in or with Jezhotwells et al.'s battles over citation styles, which WP:MOS clearly states must follow WP:MOS#Consistency, and which the current format of the article does.

[All along, I myself have been guided by: WP:MOS#General principles, including WP:MOS#Consistency, and WP:MOS#Stability of articles. When in doubt about what other editors are stating in talk pages and editing summaries, I consult it. --NYScholar (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)]

While I am an expert in bibliography and documentation formats (in the everyday and academic world of writing outside of Wikipedia: literary and dramatic scholarship and criticism; theater [theatre] studies, etc.), I am not expert in using the kinds of arcane Wikipedia citation templates that others appear to want to use in this article or in the "featured article" review process. That is not my interest in editing Wikipedia. I have used common Wikipedia citation templates in other articles, usually following their prevailing citation style format. They are not my own style preference for articles about literature. Changing already consistent style formats to citation templates or other citation forms that are arcane and used only in Wikipedia by only some editors is not something that I enjoy doing. I just don't want to spend my time doing what I do not enjoy doing.

I've provided the content and the sources and the citation style in Harold Pinter in good faith (WP:AGF). I do not want to waste any more of my time dealing with any contentious editors who are at times both personally disrespectful and downright uncivil. That is my prerogative as a human being.

Would any of you want to volunteer your time further on editing an article in Wikipedia if you had to deal directly with editors who have instituted a "topic ban" against your being able to edit it at all and also spoke pejoratively about you on other editors' talk pages (behind your back)? In my view, these are not editors who observe WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette, and I do not feel comfortable working with them.

I took some additional time today to create 2 new articles The Dreaming Child (a published but unfilmed adaptation of the short story "The Dreaming Child" by Karen Blixen) and "The Tragedy of King Lear" (still both unpublished and unfilmed). Through multiple reversions, Ssilvers was removing those links. These are formerly red-linked works in the Pinter template, which are now blue links.

Ssilvers' statement in an editing summary done recently claiming that Simon Gray's red-linked works are "lesser-known" is misleading; their notability is relative to who is reading and editing the article. They may be "lesser-known" to the editor(s) who removed them, but they are extremely well known to both Pinter scholars and critics and to Gray scholars and critics, and, in general, to experts in the fields of British drama and theater (theatre) studies. These are notable works that just do not have articles on them yet in Wikipedia. They could use articles. They are red-linked also in Simon Gray, because they are notable enough for articles in Wikipedia. If they get future articles in Wikipedia and one leaves off the links in Harold Pinter, they will not become internally linked in the latter article too. One adds links to subjects notable enough for articles in Wikipedia so as to encourage the writing of such articles by other editors.

I am not placing these comments on the talk page of the article because I know that, if I were to do that, I would be further attacked. Nevertheless, these comments relate to my edits done earlier today and my noticing reversions of links to some of Pinter's and some of Gray's works in Harold Pinter.

[I have also made a few other minor but significant corrections and restored an image which another editor keeps (in my view and that of the image file page licensing and fair use rationales) erroneously removing. In the latter case, I left a comment about that restoration on the talk page of the article.]

As I state on my talk page and earlier, I must get back to doing my own work outside of Wikipedia. I have press deadlines to meet. Unless I log onto Wikipedia, look at that article, and see an egregious error of fact, I do not expect to be be working on Harold Pinter until I feel that I have more time and something substantial to add to it. I have done enough work on it (since 2005), and the work is just not appreciated (by some) as much as I believe it should be.

I also believe that, 6 months after the death of the subject, it is still way too premature to try to make this article a "featured article"; it is not stable enough due to posthumous events, tributes, memorials, and other often still-frequently changing current events. It may need a "current" template on it.

[Contrary to one of Ssilvers' many false assertions about me, and Ssilvers' repeated linking to out of context comments on article and other talk pages, and the violations of WP:Canvassing currently going on, I have never been "banned" from Wikipedia. A "block" is not a "ban". Many Wikipedia editors experience blocks, some of which are initiated as the result of misinterpretations and misunderstandings which reversals of the blocks attempt to straighten out, though they do not expunge erroneous blocks from one's record. When Jezhotwells attempts to draw attention to a contributor instead of focusing on content, by adding "userlinks" in referring to another user by name, that is clearly out of line in an article talk page. WP:NPA and WP:TPG make that clear and the policy permits removing such attempts to focus on contributors instead of on content of contributions. It amazes me that Jezhotwells is still getting away with these tactics, but there is nothing I can do about these breaches of WP:Etiquette other than to point them out, since Ssilvers reverted my attempt to take my userlinks out of Talk:Harold Pinter. In my view, these editors are not operating in a civil manner, with the interests of Wikipedia in mind. They appear to be operating purely with their own interests in mind. I have no objection to others working on any articles in Wikipedia, but I do object to these kinds of incivilities.]

Please do not reply to this comment here on my talk page. Please do not take my comments here or anywhere else out of context (see "N.B." above), as many have been doing despite the unfairness of doing that.

In a couple of days I will be archiving this page. My archive bot code apparently still does not work. But I will be away from Wikipedia and I do not want to have to check this talk page while I am away. So I will archive it as the bot would do if it were functioning correctly. (In 2 days I will be archiving this section.) (updated prior to logging out.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Shooting yourself in the foot.

NYScholar, you have run into a common problem with experts on Wikipedia. Many of the top experts in their fields have been banned from Wikipedia, because of the problem. Wikipedia is a community operating by a rather arcane structure that grew like Topsy, and it hasn't developed a method of properly treating experts as experts. Most experts are not accustomed to having to convince "ordinary folk," with less knowledge about the subject than they, and developing the people skills to do this can be difficult.

There really is a similar classic problem with expert writers and editors in traditional publishing. Easily, cats and dogs. A really good editor will develop rapport with the writer, and will moderate and mediate between the writer and the readership, ensuring that the writer is satisfied as to accuracy and meaning, and that the material is accessible to the readership, and that, in addition, it satisfies all policies of the publisher.

Your defenses of yourself are the kind that I've seen raised by many experts, with poor results. It's a political problem, and you are not, in this, a skilled politician. You need a good editor. Wikipedia calls it a "mentor," but it doesn't carry the connotations of superiority that the word mentor carries. You apparently lost your last mentor, and finding another should have been your top priority. You'll need one who is available and who can understand you, and who can and will mediate between you and other editors. This must be someone you actively choose and can respect, because you may have to be willing to take and follow the mentor's advice even where you disagree.

(I concluded long ago that if I found the ultimate wise guide, I'd disagree with him or her on some issues!)

I, for one, would be saddened if your participation in Wikipedia comes to a bad end, in spite of all your hard work. You are welcome to email me on this. --Abd (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

. . . very diplomatically put. Wingspeed (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd: I appreciate your perspective. I have come to the same conclusions as you state above. See template added at top. (I am afraid that I cannot email you because I do not use email in or relating to Wikipedia due to privacy concerns. I've explained that in earlier talk pages and administrative discussions now archived.) But thanks for the offer, anyway. --NYScholar (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to recommend that you get a gmail or similar account that you can use for this purpose. I'm open and public, and I use my real name(s), but I understand that this can create problems for many editors. Email allows private consultation, which can be much more appropriate, sometimes. Between consenting adults! Seriously, rapport is crucial, and more direct communication can be necessary to facilitate it. --Abd (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Abd, which has already been made and which I've already responded to in archived discussions, where I explain why taking it is not something that I can do. (cont.)

Further information (if desired)

(To repeat:) I will only correspond via e-mail [in my multiple kinds of accounts] with people whom I know personally and/or whom I can vouch for personally when at all possible. I am aware that the nature of e-mail is that it can be copied and forwarded. I do not know any Wikipedians personally, and 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. I protect myself against unwanted abuse online and in e-mail, spam, phishing expeditions, and potential identity theft, as well as against the content of my and others' e-mail messages being copied and made public against my expressed wishes. All of my e-mail messages feature notices against that, but there is no way to guarantee that a recipient will heed a warning and that the message will not be intentionally or inadvertently sent to others (e.g., via online address books due to hitting a wrong sender name, etc.). The nature of Wikipedia and Wikis is that they are open to the entire world via the internet, and I have seen evidence in sanction discussions of private e-mail correspondence being routinely leaked in Wikipedia by its users, including anonymous IP users. (After-the-fact punitive measures against such leakers do not do the victim any good once the personal damage has been done.) I value my own privacy, my academic reputation, and my personal identity too much to risk sending e-mail to and receiving e-mail from Wikipedia and Wikipedians. I use a screenname in Wikipedia because I do not want my real identity compromised, and no e-mail facility can guarantee that level of protection. I have explained this to both my past mentors (one of whom, Ecoleetage, is now permanently banned I just noticed today, partially as a result of e-mail correspondence among Wikipedians). (Our discussions are now archived, so if you need more information, it is in the archived talk pages.) Thank you again for your suggestion, but I am sorry that I am not able to take it up. (Please do not take any of this personally; I do not know you personally and it has been my position all along, since June 2005.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Further information (if desired)

One of the reasons why my talk page is lengthy is because I do not use email as a means of communication with other Wikipedia editors. All of my communications relating to Wikipedia are public knowledge, and it is important for me to protect my privacy otherwise. (cont.)

I just saw some of people's comments re: a "community ban": There are no "diffs." substantiating some of the claims about "apologizing" (not to me anyway) being made by Jezhotwells (who has made this claim before without posting any diffs. in several places). I would like to see where Jezhotwells ever apologized to me for being uncivil and abusive. (cont.)

[After stating that s/he had "apologized", s/he continued to refer to me in pejorative terms in his/her own talk page and article talk pages and continues to refer to me (inaccurately and sarcastically) as the "owner" of Harold PinterDiffs., [misrepresenting my responses in the "peer review" by Tim riley, whom I thanked for having done it]: see Jezhotwells for user links [I can't remember how one links "userlinks" of the kind that Jezhotwells added to my username in a comment in Talk:Harold Pinter recently. One can find the "contributions" via the username link though.] I do not "own" any article in Wikipedia any more or less than Jezhotwells or any other editor does (i.e. we "own" them not at all). In my experience with Jezhotwells, s/he would like to "own" the article and lays claim to it as being more his/her territory than, say, mine. Yet, s/he has contributed relatively little work to it since December 25, 2008, despite all the huffing and puffing. --NYScholar (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)]

Such discrepancies between Jezhotwells' statements in mediation pages and talk pages and my firsthand knowledge relate to my impression that my previous mentor Shell had not read or reread previous discussions (firsthand); she accepted Jezhotwells' presentation without checking its accuracy. There was a notice at the top of her talk page at the time in question that I had not seen for a while, which I mention in my last discussions with her (now in my talk page archive 25). She did not read what I wrote, saying that it was too long to read in some cases, and that is what I was referring to. She says that I will "blank" this page, as if I have done that before, but she knows that I archive what is on my talk page/ I do not "blank" it. That is one reason why my archive is so long. I only delete things according to what I state in "N.B." above. (cont.)

No "arbitration" about recent matters has occurred. There was a "mediation" instigated by Jezhotwells prior to the "peer review" (now closed), which followed a RfC posted by Jezhotwells that did not result in the outcome that s/he wanted. The opener never came back to "close" the mediation. The links to it are in Talk:Harold Pinter and/or its archive. (cont.)

There are inaccuracies being stated in the current "ban" discussion, with no "diffs." to substantiate them, which are required in any "arbitration" procedure.

That has happened in earlier ones too that they link to and paraphrase. People would make statements and claims but not post "diffs." to back them up, and then quote the statements and claims subsequently as matters of fact, as they are again doing in this "ban" discussion.

If interested in understanding the contexts of those firsthand, one needs to read the original discussions. The way this matter is being conducted is not in keeping with arbitration procedures.

As I have already stated, knowing my own future schedule, I know that I do not have time to work further with these particular other editors in Harold Pinter. I do not have either the time or the desire to become involved in further administrative arbitration procedures in Wikipedia, and I will not be participating in them, in part because of lack of time and desire, and in part because of my experiences with past arbitration procedures (which I have already discussed in them and refer to below). (cont.)

I've explained my time limitations above, in the "peer review" page, and in the comments on the "topic ban" page. [In general, please see and respect "N.B." at top of this page.] (cont.)

By matter of policy, Wikipedia does not require and coerce volunteer editors to do work that they themselves do not feel that they have the time or interest in doing. To do so is a violation of WP:Etiquette. (cont.)

My interest in editing Harold Pinter in Wikipedia has limits: I do not want to be subjected to further abuse by editors who do not treat me with respect, courtesy, and civility. I do not feel that I can work with Jezhotwells, Ssilvers, Steve Smith (previously known as Sarcasticidealist due to the attitudes against me that they have expressed on talk pages (article and user space) in the past and currently. [There are others whom I avoid interacting with as well; if I feel that interacting with them is not productive, I avoid articles that they edit.] WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette recommend not interacting with editors with whom one feels one cannot work productively. I have tried to communicate civilly with these editors but have been rebuffed and subjected to their calls for sanctions against me. That is not the basis for a productive collaborative relationship in Wikipedia or in any other collaborative editorial project. Calling for a "topic ban" or a "community ban" when one does not like the results of informal discussions or an RfC that does not support one is no way to build trust. (cont.)

My own professional non-Wikipedia work involves, in part, an academic collaborative editorial project begun over 20 years ago that is still ongoing, and I have press deadlines to meet relating to it every year, which I begin to work toward meeting every summer and fall. Despite the claims in the community ban discussion that I am unable to work collaboratively, I have done so successfully now my own "real life" outside Wikipedia since the beginning of my academic career in the late 1960s and written about it in academic peer-reviewed publications. It appears to me that Wikipedia's concept of editorial "collaboration" is severely limited and extremely marred by its own inconsistent application of its own administrative procedures: WP:ANOT details some of these ongoing problems. (cont.)

The idea that WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not have to be observed stringently in administrative discussions that go on in the "Administrative incident noticeboard" is inconsistent with WP:LOP (aside from "break all rules") and highly problematic for any Wikipedia editor who is not an administrator and who meets up against that immovable wall of cohorts banding together against one in support of one another. It is a very unpleasant experience that I do not want to have to endure again. (cont.)

I have a private identity that I do not want compromised by these administrative procedures in Wikipedia. What is going on in these online public discussions is not only embarrassing and humiliating but also potentially harmful to me (an academic scholar) and to other living persons related to the subject of the article Harold Pinter. (cont.)

In comments in my own user space and in Talk:Harold Pinter, I have tried to protect Wikipedia from possible negative repercussions. But these other editors are not heeding my warnings or advice. If Wikipedia would like to have the cooperation of other scholars with expert knowledge and to develop a working relationship with his agent and his estate in the future so that it is able to have legitimate access to potentially useable images and other information for its articles on and relating to him (and that is a great number of articles), it would be wise for Wikipedians not to subject editors like me to such adverse treatment and public humiliation. That kind of behavior is not going to encourage his agent on behalf of his estate to cooperate with the editing of this article about him, if their assistance is needed at some time in the future. (cont.)

I think that Wikipedia needs to take a much longer-range view of the way it treats academic expert editors. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia (or I hope that we all do; sometimes one wonders whether some Wikipedians do have lives outside of Wikipedia). As a feature of these lives, we have limited time to volunteer our services as editors of Wikipedia, and those limitations should be respected and not questioned or maligned. (cont.)

Wikipedia needs to keep that in mind when rushing to "community bans" of editors who have such time limitations due to their knowledge of their own schedules. [The kind of insinuations being made by Shell and others recently are breaches of WP:AGF; if I say that I have other things to do, I do have other things to do. I have been unduly distracted from doing these other things, by having to deal with the continual misstatements and false assumptions being made about me and about Pinter by people who have no knowledge of me and my schedule and who (prior to my work on this article) lack or have relatively little knowledge about Pinter and his life and work and reliable sources about it. (cont.)

The importance of my own and others' voluntary contributions to improving the content and format of articles in Wikipedia far outweigh the most often petty disputes raised by what appear to me to be time-wasteful procedures that do not result in improving Wikipedia. Improving the quality of Wikipedia is supposed to be the goal of those procedures. As general readers and uninvolved editors read what goes on in Wikipedia administrative incident boards, however, they are discouraged from participating in the "project" at all, because it has such a potential for harm and abuse. Wikipedia thus drives away the people with the greatest knowledge and ability to improve the quality of its content. (cont.)

Only masochists enjoy abuse. The rest of us protect our peace of mind so that we can continue to be productive members of society. As a scholar who has studied, written about, worked on, and consulted with Pinter for decades, I am especially sensitive to the kinds of breaches of social justice and human rights which he and I and others have opposed our entire lifetimes. He would not approve this treatment of me resulting from my attempts to keep the article about him up to date and accurate. No one should be treated as I am being treated by many of those participating in the "topic ban" and "community ban" discussions. (See "N.B." above regarding the need for compassion. My sense is that many editors of Wikipedia lack it.) (cont.)

Most unfortunately, Harold Pinter is no longer available to speak for himself. As I've said in Talk:Harold Pinter, if one wants assistance with finding images to use for his article legitimately, one needs, through proper channels, to contact his agent, who will bring the requests to the attention of the executor(s) of his estate. That is the proper professional procedure. I also explained that, in my judgment, now is not a convenient time to contact his agent about images in Wikipedia because of her and her associates' preoccupation with matters pertaining to his estate. Six months after the death of the subject is not the optimum time to bring this article through a "featured article" review process. One should wait until a year or more after the death of such a famous subject, to even consider nominating an article about the subject as a candidate for "featured article" review.

That gives many editors who may have an interest in this subject plenty of time to work on the article. The article is currently unstable due to the need to shorten it (it is over twice as long as it was before his death) via splitting off some parts and summarizing others, following the recommendations developed during its "good article" review, on which I worked for several weeks in 2007 (culminating in its successfully becoming a "good article" in Oct. 2007).

Since then, I have continued to provide high quality content and reliable sources (material) for other editors to work with.

Due to the requirements of WP:NOR, I have provided full citations (MLA style) for the content that I have added. Any editor capable of improving this article is welcome to work on it to do so. Consensus over time will determine whether or not the changes made result in "improvements". (cont.)

I have not and am not in any way "interfering" with the editing of this article. That is a claim being made without provision of "diffs." Making minor corrections, corrections of errors of fact, or other small improvements of syntax and diction, and restoring an image with a fair use rationale that has been unopposed by long-standing consensus (see image page) is hardly "interference". Every claim against me being made in the "topic ban" and the "community ban" is not supported by "diffs." Those statements need to be investigated properly before they are accepted as if they were facts. They are opinions. The basis for the opinions needs to be investigated as any "arbitration" in Wikipedia requires. "Diffs." need to be provided by those making the charges. (cont.)

Re: length of my comments in my own user space: It appears to be customary in Wikipedia for administrators to read long diatribes against editors with no "diffs." without labeling them "too long to read" (tltr?), while not reading these editors' own civilly worded and reasonable explanations that administrators and ban-filers routinely label "tltr". That is not even-handed treatment. It is not fair treatment. The propensity for such lack of even-handedness and equity is not a way to "improve" Wikipedia. (cont.)

Such "gang mentality" (resulting from breaches of Wikipedia's own administrative policies such as WP:Canvassing) does not enhance its reputation in the world of online publishing or attract the most educated and most highly-trained potential contributors to helping to improve its content. (Please see my talk header for links to reliable sources discussing these problems and related issues in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues#Issues and concerns relating to usage of Wikipedia as a source. (supplied the direct link for convenience of readers [if there are any!] ;) .) --NYScholar (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise on certain subjects and your nature causes to you to comment extensively. You are probably right about much, but being right in the real world is no protection against being dead, and being right on Wikipedia is no protection against being banned. My particular expertise, such as it is, is in process. Canvassing was probably not the source of what looks to you like "gang mentality." The problem is deeper than that. Wikipedia, indeed, has major problems, and they are probably beyond your capacity to resolve, certainly alone, though you could, possibly, help blaze some trails; it would require you becoming more detached without becoming uncaring. Tricky balance, eh?

To give an idea, the former Sarcasticidealist is one of the "good guys." That certainly doesn't mean he's right, but he's been, in the past, slow to recommend bans and fast to negotiate with editors being banned. That is no comment on his involvement here, but, politically, it means that criticizing him as you have is probably not going to win you friends. I titled this section "Shooting yourself in the foot." In other words, your own behavior is harming your cause. You may not care, in which case, you'll be better off banned, even if it means a loss for Wikipedia. Editors burn out, and administrators burn out, and start to act erratically and often defiantly. It's a big problem, please realize that it does not only affect you, and don't take it personally. All of this can be dealt with, but it takes time. I'm under an article ban right now, and decided that, since large numbers of editors were involved, and even though I know that there was prior bias, and even though I'd done nothing worthy of a ban, it was disruptive to challenge it short of ArbComm, and I asked those who would support me not to intervene. I'd have done this even if fully blocked. So, until ArbComm hears the case, if they take it, I'm banned from one article. In the long view, it's trivial.

The biggest problem I see with Wikipedia is massive inefficiency, causing, when there is controversy, productive editing to have to be repeated over and over. There are possible solutions and, again, Wikipedia has become highly conservative and resistant to change, as could be expected with the organizational style. Even members of ArbComm can see the need for change, and are unable to effect it. Even trying to consider change can result in massive disruption. So how to address this? One step at a time. But it does help to have some overall vision. The guidelines and policies are excellent, but the reality is often quite different from what they say; in addition, the point of view that the reality is better than the guidelines, which some experienced editors hold, is itself only partly true. There are ways in which actual practice breaks down and the ideals of the guidelines are forsaken as well, and great damage can be done, mostly to editors, personally, but content also suffers.

One more comment. I've been involved with on-line discussion since the mid-1980s and the WELL. I noticed something then. Even though all discussion history was present and could be read by anyone, when there was conflict, hardly anyone, rather obviously, would actually look at the history. Rather, they would line up by some kind of affiliation. Further, if someone was complaining, they were readily identified as the problem, especially if they tried to explain in detail. Detail is seen, easily, as obsessive, people don't trust it. Only in careful, deliberative environments does detail start to function, and even there, too much detail still turns people off. These are human traits, they did not arise with Wikipedia, but, obviously, they have great effect here. Detailed discussion is only possible between people who have developed rapport, and, then, the detail is often not so necessary! In person, one glance can sometimes convey a book. To do that with writing, though, takes the gift or skill of poetry, it's not common. --Abd (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I read all of the above and understand what you are saying. I have not attacked sarcasticidealist/Steve Smith. I simply said (at top) that I received no prior warning from him enabling any response or discussion before he went ahead and filed first a "topic ban" and now a "community ban" poll etc. against me. Given that situation, I do not feel that he and I can build a trusting collaborative relationship. Of course, I understand that he may be a "good guy" otherwise; but, under the present circumstances, of his first saying he was taking no position on Ssilvers' topic ban re: Harold Pinter and then his sending out notices resulting in many editors I never heard of (whom he apparently knows otherwise) joining in to "vote" for his and Ssilvers' propositions, the result is the same as if they had been canvassing. Their total disregard for "diffs." to back up what these previous participants in earlier controversies are claiming calls into question the results that they are getting, which does not seem to concern them at all. WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette depend on practice of the "Golden Rule"; it seems to have been lost in their proceedings. As far as "shooting myself in the foot"; I did not take the first shot, and I am defending myself, whether or not people are willing to understand that. They have a pre-conceived outcome in mind, that they are willing to overlook unfair practices to achieve. That does not endear them to me if the community ban does not occur and I need to deal with them in the future. My so-called offenses pale in comparison to the kinds of offenses that generally result in community bans in Wikipedia. ("talking too much" is not really a ban-able offense; people are always free not to read commentary that they wish to ignore. I have read their commentary (which taken all together far exceeds mine in length. The lack of reciprocity is chilling. --NYScholar (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not comment anymore here on these matters at all. Doing so is inevitably going to lengthen the comments, and whatever I say is going to be used as evidence that I have not "learned my lesson" urged by Shell. Despite the fact that many of these admins. and eds. also write lengthy replies, mine are the ones being scrutinized and objected to. The whole concept of "free speech" is under great attack in Wikipedia given these conditions. I stand by my earlier comments. But this is the end of this exchange. Being a human being I have to rest and eat; I'm tired and hungry and logging out. If I do not reply to any further comments, please do not take offense. Thank you for your previous comments. --NYScholar (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary

There are numerous serious misstatements of fact throughout this ongoing "ban" discussion going on elsewhere; e.g., the mentorship with Ecoleetage (who is himself currently now permanently banned) did not "fail"; Ecoleetage ended it when he said that he thought I didn't need mentorship anymore, and then he was attacked for doing that, which ultimately led to the demise of his own editorship when his RfA failed due to multiple misstatements and misinterpretations of all kinds of things by OrderinChaos, who raised the whole thing against first me and then Ecoleetage.[1] The "politics" is not only outrageous but it is verging on the obscene. See the quotation of Ecoleetage's position on the earlier attempt to "sanction" me; he totally opposed it. Shell got fed up, but her getting fed up occurred at a time when she had posted a message on her talk page saying that she had to be away due to personal circumstances that needed her attention; not seeing that notice until too late, and not realizing why I had not been able to contact her, I simply was unable to get responses to my requests for assistance w/ the Jezhotwells situation early on (late Dec./Jan./Feb. 2009). I have never "blamed" Shell for that; it just happened. Nevertheless, she misinterpreted and continues to misinterpret my saying that I could not get a response as "blame"; it is just a statement of fact, not "blame". Even though tone is ambiguous at best in such online communications as these (which is partly why mine are long and repetitious as I try to make myself clear), Shell assumes that she knows my tone (my attitude); I have been appalled by her misinterpretations of my actual attitude toward her mentorship; I do not blame her past mentorship, but I am not happy about the continuing posting of the ongoing misinterpretations of me and my personal character. [Please see my userboxes and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 21#Question, for an accurate account of my academic training, background, interests, and "expertise". Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)]

All of this is certainly not focusing on the content of contributions and focusing on the contributor, which is the problem, as I see it, that Jezhotwells instigated all along and continued to do long after the warning from Shell; it continues in the posts on others' talk pages and on Talk:Harold Pinter. (Read the comments addressed to me by Jezhotwells throughout Talk:Harold Pinter and other talk pages of articles we were working on at the same approximate time. Sometimes the focus on the contributor instead of on the content is subtle, but it is unmistakably there if one is the contributor being focused on; it does not escape my notice, even if it escapes the notice of others. I was accused of "calling" him/her names, when I never did that, and so on. I was and am accused of being "condescending" and so on, just because I am an expert in the subject about which I am writing and point out that I have knowledge to contribute about it, or knowledge of MLA style, which was the prevailing style of the article from long before October 2007 to Dec. 25, 2008, when Jezhotwells came to the article. All of the points that J. made about "inconsistencies" were simply untrue and based on what I said was "ignorance of" or "lack of knowledge" of MLA style citations. That is not "calling" names; Jezhotwells chose to take it as such, but that was hardly my intention. Read the talk page. Logging out.... --NYScholar (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"when his RfA failed due to multiple misstatements and misinterpretations of all kinds of things by OrderinChaos" <-- As can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 2, I didn't comment or vote there, my concerns were not referenced by others, and it failed for entirely other reasons. I believe my first contribution on the subject post-dated its closure (I raised the AN/I you reference two days after the RfA's failure). I also had nothing to do with his block and was as surprised as anyone else to find him engaging in that sort of behaviour. Orderinchaos 09:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OrderinChaos: You have misquoted my sentence, leaving out the subject: I wrote:

Ecoleetage ended it when he said that he thought I didn't need mentorship anymore, and then he was attacked for doing that, which ultimately led to the demise of his own editorship when his RfA failed due to multiple misstatements and misinterpretations of all kinds of things by OrderinChaos, who raised the whole thing against first me and then Ecoleetage.[1]

[An orange bar showed up as I was about to turn off my computer and the above post and the one from the Australian showed up.]

Again, you are misinterpreting. My sentence is stating that your attack on Ecoleetage "ultimately led to the demise of his own editorship [at the time] when his RfA failed due to multiple misstatements and misinterpretations [that you made]...." I'm talking about how his whole editorship died/was destroyed as a result of the issues that you raised, charging collusion etc. (I'm not saying that the RfA failed as a result of the issues that you raised....]. Yes, his RfA failed first, and then your totally unfounded charges of collusion suggesting that somehow he has canvassed me into posting a comment on the RfA and your totally unfounded charges that we were editing articles in collusion (which we were not) led to (I believe) the ultimate demise of Ecoleetage's editorship. I gave the link to the full archived discussion. Both I and Ecoleetage explain in it that your charges were unfounded and based on your misintepretations of the facts of the actual situation. It is ridiculous to state otherwise. You tried to make it seem that my mentor and I had pre-arranged the end of his mentoring me, which was not the case. As both he and I informed you, I did not learn that he was ending the mentorship until he left me a message on my talk page telling me that, and I thought, at the time, that he had already informed John Carter (the closing administrator) of that. Neither Ecoleetage nor I knew that his mentorship of me was supposed to be indefinite, as Ecoleetage said he had not discussed any time frame with John Carter, and neither had I. It was my first experience being mentored, and I had no idea what the parameters were supposed to be. Each of us knew only what John Carter and we arranged, which was a mentorship. You gave people the impression that we were doing something nefarious in cahoots with each other, which was not at all true. You invented a situation that did not exist and made charges with no evidence other than your own imagination.

I don't believe you ever recognized the harm that what you did caused both Ecoleetage and me. Ecoleetage is now banned (I only found out yesterday), and I am in the process of being banned, and you still are not recognizing that there was and is no validity to what you claimed in the past, linking to your charges as if they were true when they were indisputably proved false in the past "incident report" that you made. --NYScholar (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You do know that Ecoleetage was banned for offline stalking of an entirely unrelated editor, a matter I had nothing to do with either before, during or after? I didn't even know about it until after it was announced and I was actually quite surprised as I thought the editor to be more careless than malevolent and of course was unaware of the stalking allegations (they were raised by the editor himself and handled by a senior Wikipedian, I forget which one(s)). I'm genuinely surprised at your attempts to link me to that incident. My accusations solely related to his failure to exercise appropriate judgment in his mentoring role, and I didn't raise any other complaint about his editing or activities here. Orderinchaos 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please desist. I just found out about Ecoleetage's ban yesterday or so; I have no knowledge of the circumstances or of the accuracy of the allegations against him. I was referring to your previous false allegations, from which I do not believe Ecoleetage ever recovered. I had virtually no contact with him after he decided his mentorship of me was no longer necessary (see previously linked full discussion) other than courtesy posts on my talk page from time to time; all of his comments to me are still present in my archived talk pages. No one alerted me that he was being banned and it came as a total surprise to me. My only contact with him is via my talk pages and his talk pages; mine are archived. If anyone wants to examine the previous "incident" reported by Orderinchaos, I've already repeated the link to the archived AN/I in the top post in #Summary about this.[2] Please consult that. I will not respond further to Orderinchaos here. (cont.)

As I stated previously, I am taking a break from editing of articles in Wikipedia. I have made some necessary typographical corrections to my sandbox version of Harold Pinter (a version from June 27), in case that might aid those currently working on editing it. I found some errors via my print out, which I will be correcting to my saved version offline. Removed quotation marks will need restoration to avoid plagiarism; the original quotations may be found in my sandbox version; Tim riley also copied a version to his sandbox, and that gave me the idea a couple of days ago or yesterday (can't remember when) to do that too. That way the original quotations and sources are accessible for reference in case concerns arise over lost quotations or lost source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ban discussion concerns

[Found more misstatements by others in the ban discussion:]

1. I did not go from [editing] "Heath Ledger" article to "Harold Pinter"; I've been working on Harold Pinter consistently since around 2006 (I may have said 2005 earlier by mistake; but June 2005 is when I started editing here as NYScholar).19:11 30 June 2006 [I helped to bring it to "good article" status in Oct. 2007 after weeks of work w/ the good article reviewer.] As I've explained elsewhere, I started editing the article on Pinter after he won the Nobel Prize and I became terribly concerned that the weak article on him was misinforming a huge number of people who would be looking for information about him due to that Prize. Up until then, as someone who spends most of my time working on Pinter professionally, I had not wanted to waste my time editing the Wikipedia article on him. My work on him is published in academic peer-reviewed articles and books, and I did not feel that the venue was worth my time. (Sorry but I'm just being honest.) I only began editing his article when I realized its errors and gaps were potentially harmful. I "donated" (volunteered) my time and expertise, but I can't give up my privacy in editing in Wikipedia.
2. My editing of Heath Ledger initially started after he died [22 Jan. 2008] [w/ my edit of 19:23 1 February 2008 (Ed. Added link.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC).] I really liked his work as an actor and felt that he deserved an accurate article in Wikipedia and opposed the vandalism of that article, which seemed to be occurring after his death. Although I encountered a lot of resistance from mostly Australian editors it seemed, I tried to contribute to that article [and to The Dark Knight]. I stopped editing [The Dark Knight] when my concern about incivility (personal attacks on me) got turned around into an arbitration against me, resulting in blocking me instead of the editor whom I complained about. Even that editor volunteered to be sanctioned himself (out of a sense of fairness), but administrators did not do that, and I was asked to get a mentor, who turned out, in that case, to be my first mentor Ecoleetage.
3. The second mentor, Shell, was the result of Ecoleetage's apparently premature ending of our mentorship when he said that he thought I no longer needed mentorship after Keeper had responded very positively (see my user page). That ended up with Orderinchaos (through an unbelievable number of false assumptions) reopening an inquiry into me called NYScholar revisited or something like that. I was shocked. None of his claims about his perceived "collusion" between Ecoleetage and me were true; they had no basis in fact, yet, nevertheless, the bringing back the whole cast of characters from the The Dark Knight [Ed. corr.] "incident" resulted in the same kind of thing that is happening now; a kind of double jeopardy.
4. The experience drove me away from editing The Dark Knight [ed. corrected] entirely, and back to my work on Harold Pinter (and other articles). The Heath Ledger and The Dark Knight work had just really been a break from my Pinter work (outside of Wikipedia).
5. [(Addendum added later:) I've just checked and realize that the last time I edited Heath Ledger was on 24 December 2008, the day of Pinter's death; I learned of his death on the morning of 25 December 2008 and then became occupied with trying to protect Harold Pinter from vandalism by anonymous IP users and to keep it accurate and up to date as time went on. I have edited Harold Pinter consistently from 30 June 2006 until the past few days, except when I was too busy to do so and away from my home computer; as I was working in The Harold Pinter Archive in the British Library from the first week of June 2009 until last week, when I returned to the U.S. from London, I occasionally updated or corrected it using a borrowed laptop, generally late at night or early in the morning. There was a Tube strike while I was there, so it was particularly difficult to take that kind of time to do anything on the article, and I deferred some of the corrections of items that Jezhotwells was complaining about until I could check my print sources in my library at home; I did that work over the past week, until halted by this "ban" activity. [Updated.] --NYScholar (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)]
6. Some administrators whom I have encountered just do not forgive and forget any past disputes (even if they have been long resolved and were resolved in my favor ultimately).
7. The more time passes, the bigger their grudge becomes that I did not get "banned" back then, and the more detailed (and less connected to diffs.) their comments seem to become; the actual contexts of the conflict are lost, as the details become embellished by human (fallible) memory into longer and longer stories of what is remembered to have happened, instead of concise references with actual diffs. posted. (Then others join in, saying, oh, if that's what happened then, the same is still happening now, we must ban this person....)
8. I don't see the how this continual highly stressful dredging up of past and ongoing grudges improves the quality of the environment for editors in Wikipedia, and it seems to me actually to violate WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Etiquette. It raises the level of tension and wastes a lot of people's time. I find that incivilities I experience in the past from some of these same people become even greater in the retelling of the old story as they reemerge (not new faces but the same old faces) to use the old situation to justify sanctions in the new one.

If one looks at the "offense" it is minor compared to the horrendous vandalism occurring throughout Wikipedia by anon. IP users and registered sock puppets etc. who have no intention of actually working on contributing anything of value to Wikipedia. Those vandals and sock puppets are the users who all of these administrators need to turn their attention to: not to good-faith contributors of valuable content like me.

I see that this position is in the minority; perhaps therein lies one of the key problems in Wikipedia. One has the cart before the horse and one's priorities need to be realigned.

Looking at what Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticidealist) spent his time trying to reconstruct and put together a case against me, I feel really bad that he has wasted so much of his time. It could have been better spent working on improving articles in Wikipedia.

(Cont.) --NYScholar (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC) [(Updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)