User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2016/Jun

Sunday June 5: Women in Jewish History Edit-a-thon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

David A. French
Good call in closing the David A. French AfD. You were right that it wasn't a speedy keep, but that it also needed to be closed via Snowball. --Aranae (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that
Regarding this, I honestly thought it was a cheeky reference to how contestants on The Apprentice always, even after they'd been fired, had to refer to the host as "Mister Trump." So thank you, that's definitely a reference I wouldn't have caught because I can't say I've ever seen that show. And dangit, it's not on Netflix... RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have caught it either if I hadn't happened to have seen the show a couple of times in reruns when I was younger. Glad to have helped. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fathertime767/Sutter middle school vs. folsom middle school
Did you forget to do something? The page wasn't speedied. And on what basis would you speedy it? If there is one, I'd delete all these myself rather than endlessly debate whether five years of inactivity is enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the post here. I must have gotten distracted after I closed the MfD and before I would have hit the delete button. In terms of why I speedied it, I haven't fully followed the imbroglio about when moribund userpages or userspace drafts of articles should be deleted. I speedied this one because it memorialized a (hopefully friendly) rivalry between two middle schools from seven years ago. Those former middle-schoolers are now college seniors or in the job market, and I don't think their teenage teasing needs to be kept online in perpetuity. There were also a couple of references to living people, who may have been students or faculty or who knows who, and that didn't help either. It wasn't the most clear-cut speedy of these MfDs (there are a couple of drafts that have been nominated lately that when I looked at them were blatant BLP violations or harassment and shouldn't have lasted a day to begin with), but I think it qualified. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. MFD is enough heading when you're having a page-long argument over whether the discussion should have been relisted. The problem with patrolling old drafts if you don't actually delete the crap, no one else is interesting in going through the same thousand pages of crap to make sure there isn't a problem. :/ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you see
this edit by User:User000 with the edit summary"Removing YouTube links fags asked me to remove"? You and I have thick skins, but that sort of edit summary can have a chilling effect and is pretty inexcusable. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did see it and am reviewing the editor's history and the whole situation. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now taken a look. The editor we are discussing is . In response to my question as to why his userpage had a long list of external links under the heading "Holocaust Revisionism", his response yesterday was "it is a collection of info, sometimes the sources aren't the best per WP policy so I will not add them anywhere at the (Main) namespace but will keep them on my userpage; is there an issue with that?" He removed the Youtube links in response to your concern about copyright (which is frankly a lesser issue to me but it's the one he responded to), but as you note, he did so with the edit summary "Removing YouTube links fags asked me to remove", which obviously is unacceptable. Even more troubling, the Youtube links included sites such as "Auschwitz - Why the Gas Chambers are a Myth", "Buchenwald a Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil", "Zundel vs. Zionist - Truth vs. Lies", "Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of the Big Lie", and "Understanding the Holocaust as a Legend". He https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:User000name&diff=prev&oldid=72308357 later added the word "REDACTED" to his userpage in lieu of some of these links, and his edit summary in doing so was ":( it was good info too". At present, the "collection of info" on his userpage continues to have a "Holocaust Revisionism" links section including links to "Zyklon-B and the German Delousing Chambers", "The Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax", "Exposing the Holocaust™ Hoax", and "Nazi Gassings" (whose caption is "just another website that denies the Holocaust hoax"). Is there any reason I shouldn't indefblock this person as a Holocaust denial troll? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Without looking yet at the actual editor in question, don't take keeping distasteful stuff in userspace as automatically meaning endorsement of that material. At one point I had a load of stuff about cannibalism in the 18th-century French military in my sandbox; it doesn't mean I support the principle of eating the results of battlefield amputations. &#8209; Iridescent 19:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point, although the example you chose to illustrate it with was, um, distasteful. This is one of the reasons I posted this note instead of just blocking and would welcome input if other admins want to look at the situation. If there is disagreement with a block, I will take this to ANI, but am reluctant to start a thread there unless there is a reason to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As a mere TPW I'd say that the edit summaries quoted above are compelling evidence that it's a matter of personal advocacy and not mere academic interest of the sort described by Iridescent. alanyst 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't pluck "battlefield amputations" out of thin air; read Charles Domery for the context. (The whole point of using an example in this case is to be distasteful, given that I'm discussing keeping distasteful material in userspace.) It's almost certainly not appropriate to keep on a public-facing userpage, though; if he is writing an article on revisionist theories and wants the links where he can reach them, a sandbox would serve just as well. &#8209; Iridescent 19:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If that were his motivation, I would have expected him to mention it when I asked him the question yesterday. (And I remember the article you cite, and was merely punning on "distasteful.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

":( It was good info too" edit summary refers to my edits that were reverted on the Pulp Fiction page. The other edit summary meant I disagreed with removing any links to YouTube. Holocaust revisionism links were there because they are sort of interesting. —User 000 name 22:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've struck one sentence above per your response. However, would you also like to explain why your userpage, in your own words (not in a link), uses the term "Holohoax", and elsewhere on the page you describe President Obama as a "monkey"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Along with useful info POVs were also included from text files that were made from text copied from a textboard titled "/newpol/"; more importantly, what is the issue? I could be making useful edits at this website instead of this. —User 000 name 22:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Brad, you are either the most patient person I've ever encountered, or the most naïve. MastCell Talk 02:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was at an event tonight and will address this situation further in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no apology or even an explanation for the fags remark. If it were just one issue I might say let the editor skate (although maybe a 24 hour block for the fags remark), but two, plus the lack of apology, makes me think this editor isn't someone we want. Doug Weller  talk 04:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"What is the issue?" The issue is that for the last several weeks, the content of your userpage (going well beyond the specific items I've flagged above) has been calculated to convey to any decent person the impression that you are a Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic, racist and altogether despicable piece of filth. If that is not the case, or indeed if it is the case but you don't wish to blatantly advertise the fact, I suggest that you remove those contents immediately and entirely disavow them. Given that I obviously have powerful feelings in this matter, I'll leave the question of sanctions to my administrator colleagues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * After an additional development I have brought this matter to ANI. The thread is here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Brad, my estimation of you has just gone way up. (Not that it wasn't high to begin with.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise. (By the way, I meant my earlier comment to be a good-natured tweak, but reading it back, it came off as straight-up criticism, which wasn't my intent. I really do admire your patience in dealing with these sorts of things; it's something I've aspired to but not achieved). MastCell Talk 20:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of the law...
I understand your days of activism are over and you are now sailing comfortably toward retirement on the calm seas of tax law. Can you perhaps improve Association of Churches a little bit? I couldn't even find a date for that "different denomination" expansion. Anyway, that one sentence took all I had, and if you say "no" I'm going to tell the media that you decided against me because you can't be impartial because you also pay taxes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would help if I could ... but anyone who told you I'm a tax lawyer was badly misinformed, and I've never even heard of an "association of churches." Sorry! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I can't say I'm not disappointed, NYB--I thought you knew most everything. Hey, legal-minded talk page watchers, your help in expanding this concept from tax law is appreciated; please don't be shown up by humanists like and me. Thanks Brad, Drmies (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Will that expansion suffice, Drmies? Brad may not know everything, but....Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, that's just ridiculous. I'm relatively speechless. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (tps) Tax lawyers that work with churches are called "Free Speech lawyers" or "Constitutional Lawyers" - calling them tax lawyers is, well, blasphemy. They may even avoid the Tax Court bar like the plague as such a capitulation is almost conceding defeat :).  --DHeyward (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

June 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Pre-Metro-North info
Okay, what did you find so wrong with my edits for Hudson Line (Metro-North)? 138th Street (NYCRR station) did have the alternate names of "Mott Haven" and "The Bronx" stations, and the remains of Mount Saint Vincent (NYCRR station) can be found at River Road and East 261st Street. -User:DanTD (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies; that was an inadvertent smartphone misclick, and I didn't see I'd done it. I am never checking my watchlist on this phone again. Sorry! Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Try User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/ConfirmRollback. Was recommended to me after one too many cat-on-keyboard incidents... Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

‎Amendment request on arbitration decision against Rodhullandemu
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --George Ho (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Protocol question
Hi, Newyorkbrad. I drafted a closing comment for Josh's AN/I report and when I went to paste it in I noticed that you had closed my portion of the report.

Is it OK if I go ahead and paste it in? It is not gasoline. I want to neutralize some disinformation that arose.

Also, Jytdog made a comment nested in my comment that I should make a comment or suffer a 24 hour block. This seems odd as he is already within my comment. Can you please ask him to withdraw that? He withdrew other comments when asked. I have asked him on his talk page but my name makes him see red because he thinks I started an arbcom case against him, which I did not. I have never started one.

Anyhoo. Ping me back. I think you are the sixth admin to opine in this AN/I. LOL. Cheers! 20:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually meant to close all aspects of the report, not just your section. I seem to have put the archive top template in the wrong place in the thread. Thanks for bringing that to my attention; I've fixed it now.


 * Given that the discussion is closed, that passing comment is of no lasting importance, and I suggest you not worry about it. What will be more useful is for you to continue giving careful consideration to the suggestions made for you in the thread. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * just letting you know I moved your archive tag, you had the entire page set to archive/don't modify. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Maybe I should let someone else close things for awhile.... (Although the idea that I effectively posted "no further posts should be made to ANI" is ironic given what I actually did write there....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * . Hi, Newyorkbrad. There were suggestions to both of us and comments supporting, chastising, and questioning both of us. So we will both have takeaways. Your comment is nonspecific so I will assimilate all that was said and use my own good judgment toward improving the project. I have a good reputation on the project and this unfortunate matter is not going to rock my boat nor break my moral compass.


 * Who is your latest comment directed at and what does it reference? It is time stamped at 21:00 UTC for me. Ping me back. Cheers!  21:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Checkingfax, I can't physically stop you from posting an addendum to the ANI thread, and I won't revert you if you do, but I don't think it will serve a useful purpose and I'd prefer that you not do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Newyorkbrad. You closed it. I will not be posting. It is done.


 * My question was what does this mean and who is it directed at or sparked by: Although the idea that I effectively posted "no further posts should be made to ANI" is ironic given what I actually did write there....


 * My main comment was that I do not have any great takeaway from this AN/I. It was mostly a bunch of bickering. I stayed out of that. Any nuggets that can be gleaned are directed at Josh and me.


 * The closure mainly references a flawed AN/I system. I have no dog in that fight yet. You have more boots on the ground with that than I do. I would be happy to assist you in improving the process. One protocol might be if somebody makes a closing statement that the defending party is also allowed to make a closing statement. I think I could have been able to reduce Josh's vexxing if I had been summoned to make a close. I do not have any huge issues with Josh. As an aside, I feel that admins are held to a higher standard of conduct and knowing the guidelines and policies. Even their consideration of using words like: jackass, liar, false, incompetent, silly, ridiculous, disruptive (this one has an official description in the guidelines), etc. Admins should know better than making personal or belittling comments in edit summaries too. Having multiple admins pile onto one AN/I seems like an unwise use of their precious time. I do appreciate all the words from the admins but it seemed like too many admins in one place at one time. I was shocked by the lopsidedness of admin The Ed17. He was very selective in only making unsupported comments that disparaged me and my workflow.


 * I hope I have not said too much to discourage you from answering my sincere question above (about what you said in green highlight). I do not intend to prolong this AN/I now that is closed but I do look forward to your efforts to improve the process and I do look forward to helping to making that happen. Ping me back. Cheers!  17:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that observation was just an offhand reference to the comment I made in closing the ANI thread. There, I picked up on the expressed dissatisfaction with the functioning of the noticeboard and suggested we might want to have a community conversation about how the workings of ANI could be improved. It was ironic that immediately after I wrote that, I inadvertently mislocated the archive marker so that until someone fixed it, it applied the "no further posts should be made" header to the entire ANI page, instead of just the one thread as I'd intended. A cynic might indeed say that "no more posts should be made to ANI" is the best possible change that could be made, but it is not what I had in mind in terms of improvements. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Newyorkbrad. Roger that. There must have been some serious pant peeing while that Hatnote was up Cheers!   05:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wednesday June 29: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Arb Enforcement
Hi, if we have finished with my case, on which you have already commented, could we close it out? Thanks, Quis separabit?  22:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that another admin has closed it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Someday
Your comment at the Curiel article reminds me that someday I should probably put together another request for removal of the topic-ban at abortion. I don't expect that it will be granted after these many many years, because I don't think the topic-ban had much to do with the stated reasons, but rather was based on content.

I won't give you any links right now, but will merely do some stream-of-consciousness with your indulgence. Those who sought the topic ban didn't want any visual image at that main article depicting what is typically aborted, whether the image is bloody and scary (which I never supported) or not. So I wound up with Arbcom trampling its own procedures that would have protected me, mainly the word limits on accusations. Contrary to what you may imagine, I explicitly said to Arbcom that the word limits were being exceeded and that I wasn't obliged to answer the excess, and so I didn't, and then after you unanimously voted for the topic-ban I did answer the accusations. That's pretty much the definition of a Kangaroo Court, I think.

There were two substantive charges. First, I was accused of deliberately quoting an outdated definition from Black's Law Dictionary. Actually, I had no idea that the definition had been changed in the newer edition, and I had no objection at all to using the newer definition once I learned of it. What I had put in was accurate according to the dictionary I had. Dictionary revisions are usually for adding new words, adding additional definitions, and the like, and I'm very sorry that I didn't go get the newest edition to confirm that this particular definition was still included, but it's a garden variety error like people make all the time at Wikipedia; the editor who corrected me even made an error of his own which I corrected and for which he thanked me. You can ban anybody if your standard is perfection. Moreover, to the extent that Black's old definition had been used and relied upon for decades, the old definition remains perfectly legitimate for understanding how the word was used prior to the revision, and that's why dictionary editors usually don't make wholesale changes to definitions, as opposed to adding new senses. Whatever you may imagine, you voted to topic-ban me for this, as well as the second item...

The second bogus ground for accusing me of manipulating Wikipedia was that I suggested an addition to the policy on Consensus. I did suggest a change, and I said when I made it that it was based on experience at the abortion article, because another Arbcom member had previously scolded me in an unrelated matter to only suggest policy changes based on problems that have actually been experienced, rather than based on theoretical ideas. So I suggested the policy change, and over the course of weeks it was revised by other editors, without being deleted. The policy change was simply this: changes to an article are not justified by agreement that something should be changed, unless there is agreement about how to change it. I had no idea that the policy change would remain relevant to the abortion article weeks later, and I certainly did not realize that I was forbidden for life to ever cite the policy change at any articles about human reproduction. Eventually I mentioned the revised policy at the abortion talk page. My bad. I've already promised sincerely to be more careful regarding these matters, notwithstanding that these charges were largely trumped-up to affect content, and notwithstanding that you broke your own rules to accomplish it.

I guess TLDR may apply here, or perhaps you have too many other items on your docket. But if not, any response would be carefully considered. I still feel that this topic-ban is unjustified to the same degree that I felt on the day you imposed it on me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of me, but for a couple of different reasons, I'm going to decline to be drawn back into discussing your, or anyone's, dealings with abortion-related articles. I do expect we may be conversing further on the Judge Curiel article's talkpage, however. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. And I expect Arbcom to continue to have the same attitude about it too, forever.  Have a nice day, Brad.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have mentioned, in case you don't realize, that I haven't been on the ArbCom since 2014. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought that might give you some added perspective, and time. I don't think it's appropriate for me to make user talk page comments like these to current members, YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, if I can think of anything useful to suggest to you, I will. (And you'd be surprised what sorts of things are addressed to the current members....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brad.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well, per Brad's hint above, would User:Drmies like to please take a crack at answering this? Mainly, I suppose it would be helpful to know if this is essentially a lifetime ban given that I'm not going to change the sentiments expressed above. Why go through the motions of requesting the topic ban be lifted if it's never going to be? The second issue is whether the continuation of the ban will prevent me from completely disappearing from Wikipedia. As I recall, it's impossible to completely disappear while a ban remains in place.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will need to read your missive again, but in the meantime I can tell you that I am not quite sure that Courtesy vanishing would mean you couldn't "disappeared" (and contrary to popular belief ArbCom can't really disappear editors). It allows vanishing for a "user in good standing"; as far as I'm concerned, having a topic ban doesn't make you a user in "bad standing"--but that's just my opinion. And your sentiments (but again, I need to read it more carefully) are not really anyone's concern, as long as the editing isn't unduly influenced by it. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Drmies, and if you have more to say that would be appreciated. I have assumed that I'm not in good standing and haven't been for many years, which prevents me from disappearing.  According to a former arbitrator, people in good standing did not include "editors who were under sanctions".  But if that's no longer true then fine with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, that's my opinion. 's is from 8 years ago; I don't know if she stands by it or not, and I may well be totally wrong or in a minority. If you like I can email the ArbCom colleagues, and this is certainly something that NYB will know, and maybe can comment on. Let me know if you want me to ask the rest of the cabal about that standing. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure that I would disappear even if allowed to, so my main question is whether this will remain a lifetime ban given that I still insist it was bullshit. 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't appeal it, it will certainly stay, yes. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what I mean. I've already requested several times that it be removed.  If I continue to insist that it was a wrong sanction, will all further requests be futile?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems likely, yes, unless some really strong evidence is presented. I suppose WP:ARCA is the place. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if I can't even get an administrator like Brad to discuss whether the sanction was wrong, then to my mind it's clearly futile. Arbcom has got me sanctioned for life, without any right to vanish, based on nothing but a content dispute.  Thanks anyway for the direct responses, Drmies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Returning to the conversation at least for the moment, frankly I don't remember the sanctions discussion or decision in detail; it was several years ago. I'm not even certain whether I was on the Committee at the time or whether it pre-dates me. A full set of links (or repeats of the links) wouldn't hurt if you really think that I'm the best person to look at this.
 * I can only speak for how I thought about things when I was an arbitrator (and how I think of things now if I participate in a sanctions discussion on ANI) ... I wouldn't necessarily require agreement that the initial sanction was proper, before I would consider voting to lift it; what I would be looking for is evidence that the problems identified at the time, to the extent there were any, would not recur. For example, if an editor sought to have lifted his topic-ban from Topic A, persuasive evidence might be a record of productive, non-confrontational editing on Topics B and C. Of course, if an outright error in the original decision was shown, that would be relevant as well, but that's a tough case to make in most instances.
 * I wouldn't perceive the existence of a topic-ban precluding a "vanishing", although I am not saying you should want to. What it might preclude is setting up a new "clean start" account, because that could be perceived as avoiding scrutiny to ensure compliance with the topic-ban. In any case, though, I'm not sure what your "vanishing" would actually accomplish, other than symbolically, given that your username is anonymous in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * People have managed to identify me based on edits, in the past, and email me directly without using the "email this user" feature. It's tough to do, but apparently do-able. As for a full set of links, when I get a chance I'll re-post my initial comment in this section with links.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, to the extent people can do that, "vanishing" won't change it. It would change the username, but there's no way to redact all the edits. As for the links, if you do post them, please do so in a new section for readability. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean that I should start a new section, sure, no problem. As for vanishing, I would want to be able to request "that a wide range of user pages" be deleted on departure, that user pages be deleted, and pages related to my conduct be deleted (as I understand, deletion removes the current version and all previous versions from public view).  To the extent that other stuff (logs, signatures, user-page templates, templates related to blocks or bans) are sometimes deleted, I'd want that too.  This is all part of a right to vanish, and is something that I would like to be eligible for, regardless of whether I actually do it.  Anyway, later....Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, "pages in userspace" (userpages, sandboxes, subpages, but excluding user talkpages) can generally be deleted on the user's request whether the user has left the project or not. Arbitration pages are generally not deleted, but can sometimes be courtesy blanked, making it extremely unlikely they would be located by anyone not already aware of the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if you're saying that the right to vanish is just as complete for editors in bad standing as good standing, then I'd encourage a change to the guideline WP:Courtesy vanishing to remove the "good standing" requirement. Of course, I won't mention it myself even at the talk page there, much less by editing the guideline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Since I have been summoned here -, I've paid zero attention to what you've been doing all these years since that topic ban, so I have no notion about whether or not a case could be made for allowing you to return to that topic area. Frankly, your behaviour in that topic area all those years ago was egregious, particularly in light of the fact that it was very different from your behaviour elsewhere. If you genuinely can make the case that you'd not edit the same way in that topic area as you did back in the day...well, go for it, as far as I am concerned. You've demonstrated repeatedly before and after that you're capable of editing differently. As to the right to vanish, it doesn't exist for anyone, and it never really did. The theoretical "right to vanish" is actually an essay on Meatballwiki, has never been embraced by most user-contribution sites, and is completely illogical in an era where every single page on this project (including many that are supposed to be protected from mirroring) exists in dozens if not hundreds of mirror sites on the web. While it was supposedly about users in good faith being allowed to erase [much of] their footprints on the project in exchange for faithfully promising never to return, the reality was that users who wanted to leave...left. Users who didn't want to leave or were not firm in their conviction to leave or were acting on the spur of the moment kept coming back even despite taking these big steps; we'll never know the exact percentage, but to my own experience almost every single editor I knew who used "RTV" came back at least once in one guise or another. The main use of "RTV" was actually to quasi-disappear people who wanted to change identity, often for relatively good reasons like harassment; there was no intention for them to actually disappear and they were known to create new identities.  Of course, the problem was that they had this habit of returning to the same topic areas, being recognized, and then being pilloried even worse including by people who believed in the great RTV theory without understanding its pointlessness.  So...you want your topic ban lifted, ARCA is thataway. But you're not a good candidate for RTV even if you have a completely clean slate. You've not been able to separate yourself from this project despite numerous attempts. When you're ready to go, you'll just stop editing and lose the urge to return. That last tidbit comes from people I know who have successfully disengaged for 3 or more years.  Hope this helps.  Risker (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't summon you here User:Risker, but feel free to respond to the editor who did. I already linked above to Courtesy vanishing, which declares itself to be a "guideline", so I'm not sure why you say that it's "actually an essay".  And I already explained above that my identity has been compromised at Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you've decided to overlook that as well.  If I was such a horrible editor in the topic area at issue, then the editors determined to get rid of me should have been able to come up with a better way to do it than to blatantly violate ArbCom's procedural rules, and then falsely accuse me of deliberately "manipulating" Wikipedia when I merely quoted accurately from a dictionary definition that had been revised unbeknownst to me, and then gladly accepted the revised version after correcting an error in it (plus the policy-editing issue described above).  How can I ever in good conscience say that what I was banned for was egregious when I honestly believe the egregiousness was in the ban itself?  My editing was considered egregious largely because of content; you know as well as I do that many Wikipedia editors in that subject area wanted very much to depict that procedure as involving nothing more than a tonsillectomy.  Anyway, when I get a chance, I will provide the links per Brad's comment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I will contest Anythingyouwant's self-serving and dishonest revisionist history of the ArbCom case in detail should he choose to seek a formal removal of his topic ban. (I debated whether to comment at all here; arguably I shouldn't have, but I do feel that there should be some limit to the leeway he's given to relitigate his case endlessly and, in doing so, to groundlessly impugn the people who stood in the way of his tendentious editing in the abortion topic area, many of whom are no longer active to speak for themselves). I will say only that I think that ArbCom should solicit victim-impact statements from the people who had to deal with Anythingyouwant in this topic area, before considering a removal of his topic ban. I know of two outstanding editors who left Wikipedia specifically to avoid having to deal with his behavior; both are huge, and unreplaced, losses to the topic area. They are the tip of the iceberg. To the extent that I'm less diplomatic than Brad or Risker, it's because I've observed first-hand the harm that his behavior has done to the project, and specifically to our ability to cover abortion-related topics sensibly, accurately, and neutrally. MastCell Talk 01:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I intend to provide the links requested, and hopefully get some feedback. If you want to participate here, MastCell, then that's at Brad's discretion, but I'd prefer that you do as I asked you to do here.  I am confident that you will ultimately have your way, if you show a little bit of your usual characteristics.  I deny your accusations, especially and emphatically regarding dishonesty.  Save your attacks for later, and you may find them completely unnecessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Missive with links
Brad, you mentioned above that "A full set of links (or repeats of the links) wouldn't hurt if you really think that I'm the best person to look at this." Thanks for your willingness to look at this, and maybe discuss it with me. It's become clear to me recently that I am headed toward growing old and dying while still in "bad standing" at Wikipedia, and I think it's unfair, and would like some advice about how to prevent that from happening, if indeed you agree it's unfair.

Starting below in the next paragraph is an edited version of my initial comment above, also including the requested links. I’ll preface it now by briefly mentioning a few things. I used to edit under the name "Ferrylodge". In November 2007 ArbCom first addressed my editing at pregnancy and abortion-related articles when it allowed me to be banned from such articles if I would thereafter "disrupt by inappropriate editing". In the four years that followed, I was not blocked in that topic area once, and several editors (including User:MastCell) filed arbitration enforcement requests that were rejected, and rejected correctly in my view. See, e.g., ,,,. Then came the December 2011 case where I was topic-banned (incidentally, it seems appalling, and contrary to an appearance of impartiality, that fact-finding by ArbCom would exclude facts that reflect well on the person being sanctioned, such as my obvious lack of blocks in the topic area during the previous four years, plus the obvious failure of multiple arbitration enforcement requests during the previous four years, et cetera). I have already apologized for being an imperfect editor and promised to do better (e.g. in September 2015) but I cannot say that the 2011 ArbCom decision was fair or justified, and without my saying so it will probably be a lifetime ban, leaving me in bad standing at Wikipedia forever. So, I am interested to know, given the following information about that 2011 case, whether you think I was dishonest or egregious then, or now (obviously I am inclined to think not), and in either case what I might do to get back in good standing. If there’s any more information that might be useful, please ask. Here’s my initial comment above, edited a little bit, and with links….

I should probably put together another request for removal of the topic-ban at abortion. I don't expect that it will be granted after these many many years, because I don't think the topic-ban had much to do with the stated reasons, but rather was based mostly on content. See, e.g., this 2014 comment by User:MastCell asking ArbCom to maintain the topic ban lest I support putting a fetal image into the article about abortion.

Those who sought the topic ban didn't want any visual image at that main article depicting what is typically aborted, whether the image is bloody and scary (which I never supported) or not bloody and scary (such as which I did support through the consensus process). Is it proper for admins to urge that ArbCom ban and grievously insult editors so as to affect and control decisions about article content? Per WP:AP, "The Committee does not rule on content...." Even putting aside article content, MastCell has made very clear at your talk page that he will do everything he can to make sure I always remain in bad standing because (he says) I'm harmful, dishonest, inaccurate, non-neutral, et cetera. (I won't even begin to describe my unhappy interactions with MastCell outside the topic area, or my opinion of his editing.)

In the 2011 case, I wound up with Arbcom trampling its own procedures that would have protected me in 2011, mainly the word limits on accusations by User:MastCell. I explicitly said to MastCell and to ArbCom that the word limits were being "flagrantly" exceeded, and that I wasn't obliged to answer the excess, and so I didn't. Answering the excess charges would have put me over the limit just like MastCell. The rules at the time stated: "Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely." Then, after 11 of 12 arbitrators voted by November 20, 2011 for the topic-ban requested via excess evidence, I did hurriedly give an outline of an answer to the excess accusations, at one of the case's talk pages. That's pretty much the definition of a Kangaroo Court, I think.

The two substantive charges were weak as well. First, I was accused of deliberately quoting an outdated definition from Black's Law Dictionary. NYB, you have already said that you didn't endorse that misrepresentation finding, so am I just supposed to accept being in bad standing for the rest of my life because of it? I had no idea that the 1979 definition had been changed in the newer (2009) edition, and I had no objection at all to using the newer definition once I learned of it. What I had put in was accurate according to the dictionary I had and that I cited. I'm sorry that I didn't go get the newest edition to confirm that this particular definition was still included, but it's a garden variety error like people make all the time at Wikipedia. When the new definition was brought to my attention, I explicitly said that including it instead would be fine, though I objected to attributing a quotation (from Rollin M. Perkins) to Black's itself, and the editor who I corrected immediately thanked me for the correction. Instead of realizing what happened, ArbCom explicitly relied in its 2011 decision upon an extremely misleading and erroneous summary by MastCell which omitted my obvious agreement with including the 2009 definition, and instead claimed that my comment correcting the 2009 definition was actually opposing inclusion of the 2009 definition (that claim by MastCell was obviously contradicted by the thanks I received for the correction). What MastCell did there is one of the many actions by him, against me, that have richly deserved a boomerang. I cannot believe it was an accident that his summary was perfectly tailored to present a distortion of what actually happened.

You can ban anybody if your standard is perfection, and my editing there was not perfect, but I tried in good faith to make it so. Incidentally, to the extent that Black's old definition had been used and relied upon for decades, the old definition remains perfectly legitimate for understanding how the word was used prior to the revision, and that's why dictionary editors usually don't make wholesale changes to definitions, as opposed to adding new senses.

The second of ArbCom's two grounds in 2011 for accusing me of manipulating Wikipedia was that I edited the policy on Consensus. I did make an edit there and modified it, and said when I first made it that it was based on experience at the abortion article (i.e. "an article I edited today"), because another Arbcom member had previously told me not to "modify policies based on hypotheticals" (User:Risker and I were discussing an unrelated policy). So I edited the policy in July 2011, and over the course of several weeks it was revised by other editors, without being deleted. The policy edit was essentially this: changes to an article are not justified by agreement that something should be changed, unless there is agreement about how to change it. The purpose of the policy edit was to improve Wikipedia based on my experience, by making something explicit that I thought was already implicit, as I said later that month. Indeed, I agree with another editor who said this in 2015: "Consensus that the article needs to be changed is only half the process towards changing it and the process is not complete until the how is worked out."  Anyway, twenty days after editing the policy, I was at the abortion talk page, saw that this was still relevant, and I mentioned this policy. I did not realize that I was forbidden for life to ever cite the policy edit, especially after it was reviewed and adopted by other editors at the policy page (after me explicitly saying that it was inspired by an article I had edited that day) and several weeks had passed; moreover, I wanted to change the material in question at the abortion article, not prevent it from being changed. In any event, after I realized ArbCom had voted on my case without any intention of following its rules on evidence limits, I promised in 2011 "to never cite or mention a policy edit that I myself have made to any policy, except at that policy page and associated talk page. I am not aware that such a requirement is written anywhere in Wikipedia policy, but I would be more than happy to impose it on myself, or have it imposed by ArbCom."  It also seems relevant that I was not trying to advance my position in a content dispute; my position in the content dispute was that the lead sentence ought to be changed, not that it ought to remain the same: as I said in July 2011, "I support changing [the longstanding word] 'death' to a less loaded word (e.g. sources use words like 'terminate')."  I've promised to be way more careful about stuff like this, and I have been way more careful, but I think there were lots of mitigating factors here, as I've just tried to explain. The policy edit was an innocuous clarification that most objective people would acknowledge exists already in the policy as it stands today, I was very forthright about why I made the edit, I tried to follow arbitrator guidance in making an edit based on experience rather than hypotheticals, other editors edited it and accepted it, lots of time went by, and it did not really advance my position that the word "death" should be changed in the abortion article.

I guess TLDR may apply here, or perhaps you have too many other items on your docket. But if not, any response would be carefully considered. I still feel that this topic-ban is unjustified to the same degree that I felt on the day you imposed it on me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. The fact that you still seem to think that the photo of a surgical specimen is appropriate for the article is enough for me to say that I don't see any reason to lift your topic ban. I won't fight it if you go to ARCA (mostly because I can't see a point in investing time there), but it's not a neutral image, it's a surgical specimen, and such images are very rare "above the fold" or in infoboxes on this project. Risker (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How is that consistent with WP:AP: "The Committee does not rule on content...."?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The committee does rule on POV-pushing and recognizes it on a regular basis. The file name is the first POV push (the specimen is not from a therapeutic abortion, but from a hysterectomy where coincidentally a fetus was present in the uterus), and using an image of a surgical specimen in the manner proposed is well outside of norms for any medical article, which also makes it a POV-push. I recognize that you don't understand why this is a problem. It reminds me of the guy who was told he'd just made a sexist comment and responded "Whatever you say, gorgeous!"  You're good at other things, it's okay to not edit in topic areas where you have a blind spot (as this obviously is for you).  It does not make you less of a wikipedian or a wikimedian.   Risker (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I name the file? Did I ever object to re-naming it?  Are you actually defending that I was dragged through hell here on false pretenses, attacked here in the worst possible way, given that this "POV-pushing" was never mentioned as grounds for this 2011 case during the case?  Do you dispute that the image clearly falls under the first sentence of the abortion article: "Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus."?  The image was in the article for over a year, and I'm not even the one who put it there.  You're saying that even a unanimous RFC at the article talk page could never justify use of this image?  Images of Muhammed and auto-fellatio are fine at Wikipedia, but this isn't?  You're entitled to your POV that abortion is essentially no different in a medical or moral sense from a tonsillectomy, but a billion reliable sources attest that yours is not the only major POV on that question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage here, but I feel pretty confident in saying that posting a missive is really not going to help your case. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What ever could help my case? Anyway, this is the first time in the entire five years of the case that any admin has allowed me to present my rebuttal to the charges, with the links for review.  So this will be archived forever, even if I remain in bad standing forever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The term or concept of "bad standing" does not exist on Wikipedia. I understand that you do not agree you deserved to be topic-banned five years ago and that you feel the topic-ban's existence casts a shadow over your wiki-career. But you are magnifying it into a lifelong stigma and badge of shame in a way that I don't think is helpful for you or anyone else. There are worse things to be accused of than having strong and unconcealed feelings about an issue as significant as abortion.
 * Beyond that, I am considering the best way of responding to your long comments above. Having reread the proposed decision page in the case and our subsequent dialog in 2014, my memory is refreshed that (1) I agreed with you at the time of the decision that the Black's Law Dictionary diff was insignificant, and (2) I read everything that you presented during the case, regardless of any issues about word limits. To the extent you want me express my feelings about those two issues, I've already done it.
 * I will figure out what, if anything, there might be that is useful for me to do here. I am not going to review the entire 2011 case as it relates to you de novo. It might take me hours of work to produce a mere advisory opinion on reconsideration by a no-longer-arbitrator. And frankly, I was typically considered (sometimes correctly, sometimes overstatedly), the most lenient arbitrator, and even if I'd opposed topic-banning you during the case itself, I would simply have been outvoted.
 * I cannot speak for the current arbitrators on how they would react to a request by you to vacate the topic-ban. What I can say is that when I was in their shoes and received a request to set aside or modify a sanction, I was usually more interested in how the requested modification would affect the wiki going forward, than revisiting the sins (or lack of sins) of the past. Are you seeking to have the topic-ban set aside to achieve a symbolic return to "good standing," without any actual plans to resume editing about abortion? Or do you actually want to resume editing about abortion? If the latter, what, if anything, do you plan to do differently now from what you did in the past? Fine, you wouldn't inadvertently use an old dictionary and you wouldn't tweak policy pages and then cite them. What would you do? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Brad, thanks for commenting, I know it was a lot to dump in your lap. You're right that the concept of "bad standing" does not explicitly exist at Wikipedia, but the concept of "good standing" does, and I'd like to be in the latter, for reasons that I think are non-trivial.  Anyway, putting aside for a moment the 2011 case and its correctness or incorrectness, you previously asked me the question about how I would edit in the subject area going forward, and my answer from 2014 still stands.  Part of that answer was that I would continue to support using an image that depicts what is aborted during an abortion, and I do not understand how that constitutes POV-pushing, as User:Risker and I discussed above.  Do you think it would necessarily be POV-pushing even if supported by consensus of editors at the article?  I deny Risker's suggestion that I'm a sexist, by the way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't edit in the abortion topic-area and have no interest in getting into a discussion of images for those articles. Sorry. I think I've probably provided as much input to you here as I'm going to be able to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Bye.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

About Laura Branigan and its contributors
Hi Newyorkbrad....I live in Sweden, so you don't know me but we something in common. You wrote to Devilmanozzy why he is deleting reliable sources in Laura Branigan's wiki. He answered the sources were debunked. And that is just so strange. The problem is that he is deleting sources from old digitized papers from the 60's and 70's. He says I am a liar and fabricated all pictures and papers in photoshop. I have asked him to give me an example of fabrication, but he can't. And how do I photoshop a link from internet? And I don't know how to use or have PS in my computer. He is also a person who are mixing information. Laura Branigan was born July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco. In his world she was born 1957 in Brewster. Just like the wrong press release I have revealed as not true. I will shortly mention my research of Laura Branigan. Spring 2014 I began reading, searching and collecting everything I found at the web. It all resulted in my published research about her December 2014. I invite you to watch, read and draw your own conclusions about the reliability of what you see. Is it fabricated, or does it seems to be accurate and reliable research. https://se.pinterest.com/born53/boards/ Laura Branigan 1952-2004 --Born53 swe (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I know this is not the most encyclopedically correct reply, but frankly I don't think this issue is of enormous importance either way. There is a long tradition of entertainers playing games with their ages. Unearthing correct information is always fun, especially when there is no living person who might be adversely affected, but frankly I wonder if you are becoming a bit more devoted to this issue than is sensible. Personally, I would leave it to the William Poundstones of the world to worry about such things.
 * I did try to cut to the heart of this issue by searching for Laura Branigan in the Social Security Death Index. Strangely, I found no entry for her at all. I am not sure why this is so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, is obsessed about this factoid.  That being said,  I read their research a few months ago, and either this editor is correct that Branigan was born in 1952, (which I believe) or they are a highly skilled forger and manipulator of the internet (which I do not believe), dedicated to portraying a long dead singer as older than she really was. In the end,  encyclopedia editors should strive for accuracy,  and when sources disagree, look deeper and engage in critical analysis of conflicting sources. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  04:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I must believe in something, so I'll make myself believe it.... I haven't got the will to try and fight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hahahhaa Oh God, this was funny to read!!--Born53 swe (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Colleen Ballinger Evans
Hello, NewYorkBrad. Would you kindly move Colleen Ballinger Evans back to Colleen Ballinger? Ballinger married Joshua Evans in 2015 and briefly used Evans professionally, but she has returned to using "Colleen Ballinger" as her professional name, as reported today in Variety. She also changed her social media accounts back to Ballinger. See this (at the top), this and this. I also checked personally and received a confirmation that she intends to continue to use Ballinger professionally. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you posted to the article talkpage about this, which I was going to suggest anyway. Assuming no one objects to the change in a couple of days, I'll go ahead and move the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Entertainment Weekly's article today also identifies her as Colleen Ballinger. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As another editor endorsed your suggestion and no one disagreed, I've made the pagemove. Could you check if there are any incoming links or redirects that need to be changed? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your ping here. I don't know if they got alerted now, though, but it's displaying properly. Amaury (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * unfortunately there’s no way to fix a ping after the fact, except for the appearance. The template only works when it’s saved at the same time as a user’s four-tilde signature. (Otherwise it would send alerts every time someone copy-pasted part of a discussion, or archived a Talk page.) All you can do is add a new, signed comment with a correct ping in it—but I would only do so for a post of my own. I‘m sure NYB will appreciate your consideration anyway, and especially that you‘re notifying him so he can re-ping if he wants.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  04:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Judge Lacombe
I made the edit because, when I was researching In re Ny Look, I saw that he Lacombe issued this as a U.S. Judge for the Circuit Court, so I assumed that he had not been reassigned from the Circuit to the Appeals Court. I didn't know the additional detail that you provided, which clarifies how he could be issuing judgments as both an Appeals and a Circuit Court judge. I made the change to mention that he had been reassigned but took out the date. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to add a section to the 1891 Judiciary Act/Evarts Act entry mentioning that some judges remained in their positions on circuit courts concurrent with their assignment to the appeals court. That would be helpful to future editors or readers who may wonder what is going on! And to add this on Lacombe's page as well. Thanks for the additional information. [Not sure if I should respond here on your talk page or follow up on my own.] Gordonap (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Responding either here or on your talkpage is fine. (I have set my preferences so that whenever I edit a page it's added to my watchlist, but not everyone has done that.)
 * When I have a few minutes I'll edit the articles to clarify the point we are discussing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

YGM
Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)