User talk:NYScholar/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Blocked

I've blocked you indefinitely (not necessarily forever) for legal threats such as this. John Reaves (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited that; I suggest you read what I said after I looked at the legal page: it was conditional "if": I have, however, no intention of wasting any more of my time editing Wikipedia. I suggest, however, that you remove the block as it is based on an obsolete version of what I wrote. There is no current "legal threat" or "legal action"; clearly, as anyone can see, Notmyrealname has been upsetting me so much that I even logged out at one point and had to log in again to correct my comment. I really do suggest that people need to step back and see the personal havoc that Notmyrealname is creating for me over what is a clearcut editing content dispute. If anyone examines the record of the previous comments in response to him/her, anyone will see that she/he did not get the support for his/her pov in the content dispute and then turned to this personal attack on me. Read the comments posted by others. They support the view that I am not uncivil and that I am respectful in my editing. My original complaint was that Notmyrealname was not being respectful in deleting the hard work of others like me and then he/she turned that into a false claim that I had attacked him/her personally, which I did not do. The record is clear. All of the claims that she/he makes are taken out of context and twisted to serve his/her own perceptions that just simply distort the facts. It is time to face that that is what is happening here. (Identifying an edit by referring to the user name that made it is not a "personal attack".) As far as blocking me for expressing my chagrin with what is going on, here in my own talk page, that happened before, and it was not fair. I hope that it does not happen again. I have a right to stick up for myself, and that is what I am doing, in the face of absolutely false and outrageous claims by Notmyrealname. If one reads the editing history of the editing content dispute, one can see that. --NYScholar 04:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a RFA going on that gives me access to an "evidence" page and a "workspace" etc., which are inaccessible to me if you "block" me from editing "indefinitely"; that enables anyone and his brother or sister to put whatever they want to on those pages with no ability for me to respond to them. The evidence and material that I would put in a "workspace" or "evidence" page are already in my archive pages 4 and 5; my fuller comments are there. As I said, I really do not have time to do any more pertaining to Notmyrealname's personal vendetta against me. It is very upsetting, and I have work to do on my own scholarly projects. Therefore, I do not expect to post anything on the "evidence" page or the "workspace" due to disinclination to do so and lack of time (see my archived comments). But blocking a user from being able to do so is not within Wikipedia policy and guidelines for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. If I hadn't seen the enlisting of Alison by Notmyrealname because it came up in my watchlist inadvertently, I would not have had the occasion to get so upset, because I would not have seen what Notmyrealname was doing "behind the scenes". It is wrong. The user should just let the arbitration work itself out without trying to enlist further personal attacks against me. It only shows even more how out of proportion what he/she is doing is. In my forty years as an academic scholar, I have never encountered such a wrong-headed notion of civility. If that user were really interested in the subjects of the articles, he/she would contribute content to them. Instead he goes around policing and filing complaints about many users. His/her editing record reveals that. I am simply his/her latest victim. It is a pity that such people do not have better uses to put their time to. In contrast, I do. --NYScholar 05:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is provision for blocked editors to correspond in their own Arb cases. You can either use your talk page or use email. We've had cases of this before - Alison ☺ 05:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I never have and never will use email with regard to Wikipedia. I have stated my reasons for not choosing that preference in earlier talk page comments to others asking for my email address. Wikipedia is not a secure enough environment (as this personal vendetta should make clear enough) for giving anyone in it public access to my private email. I suggest that you re-read what I wrote on the page. I am asking for these personal attacks on me to cease. They need to cease. I suggest also that rather than people taking a long time to deal with Notmyrealname's arbitration request that they do so as quickly as possible. It is clear cut that he/she has no leg to stand on regarding any kind of claim that I am not civil. I am always civil. --NYScholar 05:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you can use your talk page. Just for info, you can use a throwaway gmail account for Wiki use - that's what I do. There's on IP address in the header so it can't be traced. Re. the arbitration case, the anon editor, 70.51.232.124 below, gives the best advice. Remain cool and civil here. If the case is vexatious, as you seem to think it is, the ArbCom will see that awfully quickly and act accordingly. If the 'notrealname' guy is harassing you, that will also become clear - Alison ☺ 05:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar should be able to be unblocked if he apologizes for the implied legal threat because the policy states that "If you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." If there is no legal threat outstanding, then there is no reason to continue the block. This does not prevent anyone from pursuing legal avenues in the future, but the WP:LEGAL policy is to prevent Wikipedia dispute resolution attempts running in parallel to legal resolution attempts, and at this point it hasn't gotten to that. We should respect the purpose of the WP:LEGAL policy. --70.51.232.124 05:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I pointed out below, he can just put up an {{unblock}} request and state that he rescinds the legal threats and another admin can review and maybe unblock. Legal threats are pretty serious and threaten the project as a whole - Alison ☺ 05:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|Okay; please know that I actually had not read the Wikipedia legal link yet (that's why I went back and added the word "now" to my comment later) until ''after'' Alison pointed me toward it, and then, ''after'' I read it, I edited my comments to make them conditional. (I am desperately anxious to have these personal attacks on me to stop because they are not only upsetting me personally but also distracting me professionally from other work that I really have to do.) Frankly, after spending the last two days working hard on correcting problems in Wikipedia articles, I was ''so outraged'' by what I saw Notmyrealname doing in Alison's talk page that I saw ''red''. I didn't stop to think that I was being baited. But clearly I have been being baited, as the kind anon. IP user points out to me, as well as ''harrassed'' (as that same user observes, in keeping with my own sense of what is going on), and it is the perception of the outrageous harrassment that led me to use strong words. In addition to that, for many hours, I have been working on legal articles (right before seeing the enlisting of Alison in her talk page by Notmyrealname), and legality was on my mind. So I withdrew any notion of engaging in any legal action (I would have neither the time nor the money to do so), and just will try to remain more calm. But I would like to have editing access due not only to the ongoing arbitration request filed by Notmyrealname but also just in case I see some egregious mistake in a Wikipedia article source in a subject of great interest to me and students and want to correct it (for them). I hope that this suffices to have Alison et al. remove this block. In terms of wordiness: people in my profession tend not to be concise. We like words. --NYScholar 06:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)}}

Be calm and patient

NYScholar, it is best to be calm and patient. Often a strategy employed on Wikipedia is to engage in harassment in order to get under the skin of individuals such that they act in a way that others can get them banned. Sustained low level harassment often pays dividends if you take the bait. Apologize for violating WP:LEGAL, because you were unaware of it, and continue onward. You will have to be careful in your responses going forward. Also, remember that the arbitrators can often see through a gang of like minded individuals who are piling on you just because of their shared POV. Stick to the facts and say away from any threats of any sort precisely because such responses will be to your detriment. Take a break for a few days or a week if necessary to calm down, just ask for a continuance from the arbitrators to allow for such a break if you need it. --70.51.232.124 05:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support. I am particularly upset because, right before seeing what Notmyrealname was doing (his/her going to people's talk pages and enlisting them in this vendetta), I had spent the entire day working on improving Wikipedia articles. So I am particularly upset about the loss of time and energy and then seeing that. The whole thing makes me quite sick, and I will be taking a break not only to calm down but to do my other work, which remains to be done. I don't know what "a continuance" is; I just want this whole "Wikipedia nightmare" (as I think Fermat called it) to end. --NYScholar 05:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good advice indeed. Unfortunately, he was more than aware of WP:LEGAL as, when I asked him about the legal threat, he was able to confirm his intents while quoting from policy [1]. To NYScholar - if you place an {{unblock}} notice up and promise to retract these legal threats, another admin can review the situation and possibly unblock - Alison ☺ 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following the matter in detail recently, although I am familiar with how this particular ArbCom got started and the preceding events. I said some similar advice quoting from WP:LEGAL above. --70.51.232.124 05:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither have I until an hour or so ago. I encountered this editor through a request to WP:RPP, where I regularly patrol. If you are familiar with this particular ArbCom case, could you possibly get involved as you seem reasonably neutral here? - Alison ☺ 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is already an injunction request in the arbitration to unblock you, but you will need to retract the legal threat first. Just keep a cool head, and focus on the evidence presented. If there is untoward action going on on other pages, you can gather diffs and present them as evidence yourself. FYI, no one has contacted me about this ARB other than User:MONGO, who I asked to give me an opinion on my draft evidence. - Crockspot 05:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Please note that, contrary to what is suggested in the unblock message above, I did not block this user from editing - Alison ☺ 06:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I originally brought up the legal threat issue on WP:ANI as I felt it serious enough. I've now pointed out your unblock request over there so hopefully, someone will be along soon - Alison ☺ 06:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Unblocked. I suggest that you retract your comments on the RfAr page, and, as many above also do, suggest that you keep a cooler head in the future -- Samir 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock, Samir. Unfortunately, the block is still somehow functioning, because I tried to go to the RfAr page to do what you and others have suggested, but I cannot edit it. I still get a message (it's blue now and not red) saying that my IP address has been "automatically" blocked. I think that one needs to unblock both my user name and my IP address. I was planning to try to use the strikeout feature in my edit of the comment, but I've never done that before, so I hope I do it correctly. If I need to correct my edit once I can edit again, please bear with me. It may take a few tries (using preview) for me to revise the comment the way I want to do. --NYScholar 06:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Undid the autoblock. Should be ok now -- Samir 06:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) it's the autoblocker. Should be okay now. May I suggest that rather than deleting the comments, that you strike them through instead, for transparency & so that nobody can accuse you of coverup? - Alison ☺ 06:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what I just did. I do appreciate the unblocking of my user name and IP, and, Alison, I really do think that you misunderstood the timing of my archiving earlier. I certainly had not intended any disrespect at all. It was just the way I archive. The message on this current page has explained my archiving for a long time, and I update the signature every time I archive. (Please re-read our previous discussion in my talk page archive 4 and WP:AGF, which is what I was doing (editing in good faith). Thanks. --NYScholar 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Look - I've no vendetta against you here. I've only had the one hour's worth of dealings with you and I've absolutely no interest in the subject matter in question here. When I'm asked to comment in a Request for XXX case, I feel obliged to respond. And respond I will. Be assured that what I write will be done neutrally and factually as to the best of my ability. I'm certainly not out to get you - Alison ☺ 06:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will appreciate that. --NYScholar 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In a word: What Tsuris!

Quel Tsuris – Tsuris!! --NYScholar 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[I was previewing this when Alison posted her comment, leading to an "editing conflict" message! --NYScholar 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)]

• I just learnt something new today :) - Alison ☺ 07:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation on arbcom strategy

Don't spend too much time on it, and don't respond directly to accusations against you outside of the original topic of the arbcom (such as the Jimmy Carter book, as it isn't clearly relevant to the case at hand yet.) Just talk about the fact that everything you added was sourced, and that others insisted for what appears to be invalid reasons for it to be removed. Also emphasize that you are a valuable and worthy and hardworking Wikipedia editor as ArbCom remedies take into account the projected value of your continued participation in the project. Note the barnstars you have received and the final state of the articles you have written (which are high quality and impartial.) You have a strong case since you are someone who works closely from the sources at hand and who displays impartiality. It's not necessary to attack or undermine the integrity of the other participants, and that type of response can actually make you look combative or undesirable to the project (and besides trying to find all the evidence necessary to undermine another's integrity is time consuming, a real waste of time.) Let others throw mud around, you don't need to. It is best to be above name calling and instead exhibit confidence in your editing ability and confidence in the good judgment displayed in your past actions. After that, ArbCom will either agree with you or them with regards to the removal of the properly sourced material in question. No matter how the case ends, take it in stride, as it is just Wikipedia. --70.51.232.124 07:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'll agree with that. May I add that it's best not to adopt an overly defensive attitude as it can come across as aggression. Note that the arbitrators will not have much in the way of prior evidence so you should support your statements with links to the appropriate diffs to make it easy for them. Keep a cool head and focus on the case - Alison ☺ 07:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I misaddressed a comment to Crockspot (above); it pertains to another user who is commenting on another article, not the Lewis Libby or Temple Rodef Shalom articles. People need to consult the entire editing history of these articles and archived talk pages of these articles for evidence. I do not have any more time to provide anything more than I have already said.

Re: other articles that I have edited as well as those two articles pertaining to Libby; I am perhaps one of the most civil editors in Wikipedia. I believe that my editing record and editing history summaries throughout articles that I work on bears that out. I am also one of the most thorough and conscientious about accuracy of bibliographical documentation (citing reliable and verifiable sources; and annotating possibly-problematic sources discussed by reliable and verifiable sources) and adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The barnstars that other Wikipedians have placed on my talk page are evidence of the work that I have done.

Professional editors like me are the opposite of amateur editors; academic scholars like me have advanced degrees in their fields (in my case a Ph.D.), and we do know what we are doing through decades of academic scholarship, major publications, and teaching of undergraduate and graduate students in our disciplines. Often in Wikipedia, I encounter students and others who are not professional editors and others who are not well trained in editing, who just do not recognize the value of advanced training in editorial work of this kind, resulting in peer-reviewed publications (scholarly books and articles). That does not diminish my editorial accomplishments; it just means that they are not well understood by people with non-scholarly backgrounds. I suggest that people look at the work that I have produced (content) and try to focus on it rather than on personal squabbles introduced by those who focus on contributors instead of on content. I did not initiate the arbitration request; I do not have time to deal any further with it. Thank you. --NYScholar 09:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Hi, I was reading through your bullet points above, and noting the policies you mentioned. After the WP:LEGAL kerfluffle last night, I am thinking that maybe you never had the chance to review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons either, or review it carefully, which might explain how you found yourself in an arbitration, and your bewilderment as to why. WP:BLP draws from all the policies you mention, but adds much stricter enforcement when dealing with subjects who are living people. If you are going to edit articles about living people, WP:BLP should be one of your bedrock policies. I may be way off base, but I thought it couldn't hurt mentioning it. - Crockspot 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have referred to all of WP:BLP, including WP:BLP#Public figures in my comments in Talk:Lewis Libby and in the arbitration statement several times. Not only is Libby a "living person," he is also a "public figure" and special policies pertaining to WP:BLP#Public figures apply to him. In turn, I myself have wondered if you have followed that part of my discussions. I did not find myself "in an arbitration" because I have violated any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, including all of WP:BLP; my other edits throughout Wikipedia indicate how scrupulous I have been and am about following them. The arbitration appears clearly to be a matter of a personal vendetta being taken to extremes by another user who has a history of filing complaints about other users; that is clear enough to many people. Re: the lack of substance in her/his claim that I have been in any way "uncivil"; the others' statements clearly refute that false claim.

• • In this case, Libby is the subject of more than a simple "biographical" article; he is an involved subject of the Plame affair, has been a public figure since he has been in public service as a government official, and he is the subject of many reliable third-party published sources which I have cited. WP:BLP (which is linked to in the top of the talk pages--often I am the one who has posted the headers linking to it on these talk pages) has clearly been what I have been following throughout; see all of it, including the parts that I have quoted both from WP:BLP#Use of categories and WP:BLP#Public figures. I have read all of your comments posted in the talk pages of Lewis Libby and in what you have posted in relation to Notmyrealname's arbitration request, and I do not agree with your particular interpretations of WP:BLP, as do not others who have disagreed with those interpretations that you have made. They appear to me to neglect the fact that Libby is a public figure. See my statements both on the arbitration page and in my archived talk page 4 (They refer repeatedly to the relevant parts of WP:BLP; the talk page header on talk pages refers to WP:BLP, and I often refer others to it, in keeping with WP:BLP. (Notmyrealname's, jayjg's, and humus sapiens' references to WP:BLP and "malicious" in their editing history summaries, their use of pejorative terms like "malicious" to describe good-faith editors' references to reliable published third-party sources have no support in actuality, as many including I have pointed out.) I have already replied to your comments to me about Olympia Dukakis [meant to type Olympia Snowe here], etc. in talk pages. I see no need to do so again. I simply reject your examples as any kind of "model" for how to judge such matters relating to a public figure. I have stated that I simply do not agree with your interpretation of these matters. And I have explained clearly why I do not. See my statement in the request page and in my talk page archive 4 (as linked in it). The references that I make to WP:BLP are clear (in my view).

• • Everyone is unique; there is no "boilerplate" in Wikipedia for what constitutes "public self-acknowledgment" of one's religious "beliefs" and/or "sexual preferences." [No one is "outing" Libby as being "Jewish"; his being "Jewish" (publicly; as a public figure) is published in many reliable third-party sources. Please read the sources cited in the discussion of Libby's participation in meetings with Israeli government officials and members of the Jewish community re: the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for more information so that you will know what I am referring to; the sources are there for reference.] There are various ways to acknowledge publicly that one holds a religious belief (such as membership in a religious faith-based organization like a church or a temple and attendance at such public services) and attendance at government functions celebrating religious holidays and so on. Libby has publicly acknowledged that he is Jewish since he was eleven years old according to a friend of [over 40] years (who disagrees with him about the war but still remained friends with him at least until his conviction in the criminal trial United States v. Libby. (You misrepresent that person's point of view in your "evidence" comments. I do not agree at all with your characterization of him. He is very sympathetic toward Libby, considering how different his own political views are from Libby's. He goes out of his way to be fair, given the convictions. He wishes Libby the best, [apparently], but is very upset about the betrayal of truth by Libby and other members of the Bush administration, as are most people in the US at this point.) It is not clear whether or not they remain friends. You assume that they are no longer friends; he seems ambivalent at the end of the article about Libby [which appears reasonable to me).] The publication in the journal of Phi Beta Kappa, The American Scholar (see my archive talk pages 5 and 6 for such sources, as well as Talk:Lewis Libby) is a reliable published third-party source. It agrees with Ron Kampeas (as I have cited) and many other Jewish publications reprinting Kampeas and several other news publications referring to the fact that Libby is Jewish and that he is the member of Temple Rodef Shalom (e.g., Tulsa Jewish Review--which seems to get its information from Kampeas' Jewish Telegraphic Agency article[s]). So there are plenty of sources documenting that and none of them says that he does not identify himself publicly as being Jewish. There is simply no support for that claim, which I have challenged in my talk page responses to your, and others', making it. The public figure status of the subject has special attention in WP:BLP#Public figures. It qualifies other aspects of WP:BLP. There is nothing "malicious" or in any way pejorative about referring to a reliably-sourced fact of someone's religious belief or religious identity. (He is not a "convert" to Judaism either, as Notmyrealname at times has claimed; his roommate at boarding school who knows him since they were eleven years old describes him as being Jewish at age eleven: see the quotation they were, he says, concerned about being outsiders in that environment due to their backgrounds; that itself is an interesting biographical detail relating to his childhood school experience that one might want to cite in developing a biography; it is published in a reliable third-party source (The American Scholar). Libby's so-called "Jewishness" (Kampeas) is simply a reliably-sourced statement of fact being documented in a Wikipedia article about a public figure at the center of a very public scandal (Plame affair, also called the CIA leak scandal (2003), etc.

I have no further time to reply. Thanks, however, for your comment, Crockspot. I just do not agree with you about the way you are trying to apply WP:BLP to Libby. --NYScholar 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken then. As I have said, my actual involvement has been minimal, and your writings are voluminous, and I haven't taken the time to read everything. I'd rather be doing other things as well. I won't distract you any more, except to offer you well-meant advice: be as concise as you can. People's eyes glaze over after a certain point. Good luck. - Crockspot 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Crockspot. I do appreciate the spirit of your comments. I have simply just run out of time to deal with this matter any further. [I will be archiving our exchange in archive page 7 later tonight/early a.m., and leaving my bulleted comments preceding and following it.] --NYScholar 02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10