User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2016/Dec

Looks like...
...7 candidates for 7 positions open on ArbCom, with about a day to go before nominations close. Any thoughts about throwing your hat into the ring? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I do have some thoughts, yes.

I served on ArbCom for six and one-half years (a three-year term and two two-year terms, less a couple of wikibreaks). That's plenty of time. It's not optimal for anyone to serve in that sort of role for life, and in 2012, when I ran for my third term, I vowed it would be my last; and even then there were already people telling me it was too much (unusually direct example). I kept my promise in 2014 not to run for a fourth term and at that time, I had absolutely no plan to run for the Committee ever again.

When I left the Committee at the beginning of 2015, I promised myself I would, at long last, get back to making the mainspace contributions that I am capable of making (and which were a large part of my editing during my first year-and-a-half here). Instead, I had limited edits in mainspace and a reduced activity level overall. That fact is not related to any disaffection with the project, nor with any form of burnout (arbitration-related or otherwise), but results from my having become involved in some other scholarly as well as hobby projects. Some of those, however, are finite in duration, and as far as I can tell at the moment, the Wikipedia mainspace will still be here whenever I am ready to resume adding significantly to it.

Ordinarily a reduced-activity editor would be a poor fit for the ArbCom, and an editor who already served (more than) his share of terms would best stick with his vow to yield to his successors. For these reasons, last year I declined a couple of suggestions that I run again&mdash;including an entry by Bishonen in her voter guide that I may have failed to acknowledge at the time, but which I now acknowledge with thanks as one of the kindest things ever posted about me on-wiki.

It was also, frankly, relaxing, not to have to wade into the details and the diffs of some of the wiki's most contentious disputes (though that was more notable in 2015 than 2016).

At the same time, though, I can't exactly sit here and pretend that I haven't been paying any attention to what's been happening on the arbitration pages for the past two years. I've tried not to look at them, but I haven't succeeded much. A couple of times I've posted statements as an uninvolved observer; once I was named as a party to what quickly became a declined case request; and perhaps most to the point, at least three times I've seen that the Committee was having difficulty drafting something that needed to be drafted quickly, and I posted some proposed language, and the sitting arbitrators wound up using all or most of it. So yes, sometimes this year I have thought "if I'm going to do part of the work anyway, albeit the easiest bits, I might as well be on the actual Committee again." And although the ArbCom is not meant to simulate a legalistic process&mdash;sincerely, it isn't&mdash;it's generally a good thing for at least one or two members to have some legal background, which was something I did contribute when I was there.

No one is indispensable to any role on Wikipedia, including the Arbitration Committee. And frankly, the Arbitration Committee is a heck of a lot less important these days than it used to be. The Committee has heard just five full-fledged cases this year&mdash;a reduction of more than 95% from its peak from back when I started editing. And of those five cases I would have voted to decline at least two of them and possibly three.

To be sure, the Committee has other responsibilities beyond full-fledged cases. These include the clarifications-and-amendments docket, which is increasing (that makes sense, since over time a greater number of disputes will be continuations or revivals of prior disputes rather than brand-new ones); checkuser and oversight appointments; occasional bans or desysoppings involving non-public information; and a few other things&mdash;but fewer than there used to be.

I don't mean to say that ArbCom isn't important and that it doesn't need to be staffed property, but I will say (for example) that if I had the choice between making ArbCom work twice as well or making (say) AN and ANI work twice as well, I'd certainly go for the latter, because 100 times more disputes are resolved there. (Addendum: I would not go quite as far as Risker just did here, but I can understand the sentiment.)

All this has been meandering a bit, but I was asked for my thoughts, and those are what my thoughts are. I don't particularly want or need to be on the Arbitration Committee again, but I can't claim I'd hate it either, and I'm willing to do it if it'll help the project.

And I hate to type those words, because I know perfectly well they come off as fishing for compliments, as if my ego will be fed if a bunch of fellow editors start piling on with "please, please, run again"&mdash;and that's very much not the point either, although I anticipate a thread opening soon on Wikipediocracy figuring it must be.

Someone recently called me, albeit a bit sarcastically, "Wikipedia's elder statesman," and I know that for some newer editors, I'm an old-timer who's like part of the furniture around here. When the hell did that happen? Hell, I'm still supposed to be the new kid on the block, showing up with fresh energy and the new broom and going to clean out all the problems. If I do run again and get elected, can we go back to 2008 again, and I'll do it right this time, not screwing up the Mantanmoreland case or getting sucked down D.B.'s and Poetlister's rabbit-holes, and all ... (I'm thinking now of a certain column that Bill James used to write ... but I digress.)

Where does that leave me? Unsure of what the right thing to do is, reassured that it doesn't matter all that much, and thinking things over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, much more than I expected, but in its reasonableness and self-analysis indicative of exactly why you were a good arbitrator, and probably would be one again - but if your heart isn't in it, I can certainly understand passing up the possibility. All I can say is that if the decision of whether you run or not was in my hands, I'd say that you should do it, but that of course isn't the case.  I am certain that your value to the project is greater as an Arbitrator then as a reduced-activity editor, and that's not a judgment regarding your editing, but I respect whatever choice you make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I personally really hope you run again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "If your heart isn't in it"? Bah! Get in there! [Has no intention of respecting whatever choice Brad makes. Bites him shrewdly on the leg to drive her point home. ]  darwin bish  BITE   ☠  16:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC).


 * Tricky. Maybe Risker's right and ArbCom is doomed. I'm not sure how the off-wiki work would be handled. And I agree that it would be fantastic if AN and ANI could be made to work twice as well, that would help a lot more than similar improvements to ArbCom. I'd say you should seriously think about going down one of those two roads. Doug Weller  talk 16:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What said. Arbcom needs the legitimacy and stability that you can help it attain/maintain. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would find it unfortunate, if you felt drafted into a role, you did not really want, especially as I and others may have cause to critique your actions or statements in that role (hopefully constructively). I agree that no one is indispensable, but that does not mean you could not do useful work there, you do have experience, and are electable (I think).  Thanks for your consideration. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just for the benefit of the tape, the person who recently called you, albeit a bit sarcastically, "Wikipedia's elder statesman" wasn't actually a newer editor, but was in fact registered a whole ten days before you. (I actually do agree with Risker here; Arbcom's caseload now is so minimal that a beefed-up RFC process could handle it, and the whole "keeper of the secret register of kiddyfiddlers" aspect should have been handled by Legal in the first place and deprecating Arbcom would force them to take it over.) &#8209; Iridescent 19:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * NYB, your ambivalence about the choice speaks in favor of you running. If the institution has outlived its usefulness, you are the one who may know that best, and you are the who can make it happen. Kablammo (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My view (with 50 mins to go!) is that there are enough suitable candidates at present. Serving on ArbCom is a necessary evil, but it is not something I think anyone should wish to do for longer than they need to (and certainly not if their heart is not in it). Genuine reform is more likely to come from outside than from inside, IMO. And working at improving various lower levels of dispute resolution would have far more impact. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone who provided input on this page. I ultimately decided to stand again, and will respect the community's decision whether I should return to the Committee or whether my prior terms were enough of me. Actually, the WMF office did agree to take over "child protection" issues from the ArbCom a couple of years ago, after a long period of discussion with them. I'd be glad to participate in a discussion aimed at evaluating and improving the overall system of DR processes, whether or not I'm elected ... but would you be willing to set up and start the discussion? Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a shame. And great, of course - you will have the vote of every thinking person! - but there would have been something to the standing on principle thing. Anyway, if you find an article you want to write, but don't have the time due to ArbCom duties, you know where to post to find help. :-). --GRuban (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * And there was much rejoicing. I've been giving a lot of thought lately to improving the lower levels of DR, and specifically to bringing back some deprecated methods in a revamped and more robust fashion. If you have any suggestions, I've started to take a look at what went wrong over at User:The Wordsmith/Dispute Resolution revamp and I would love input from seasoned veterans. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(Placeholder edit to keep this thread on my current talkpage until the election is over, because I reference it on my candidate question page.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't seen Risker's edit. That feels like a pretty seismic shift to me. I wonder how many other former arbitrators feel similarly. An experiment started in 2004 may not make as much sense in 2017.

I've long noted that the vast majority of Wikimedia wikis don't have arbitration committees and they get by just fine. The few wikis that do have arbitration committees are outliers. We have OTRS and we have on-wiki processes that are generally sufficient. This isn't to suggest that the on-wiki processes are perfect, but I see reducing the scope and role of this wiki's arbitration committee (with the goal of eventually eliminating it) as part of a larger effort to reduce the total amount of bureaucracy and cruft that has accumulated here. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. This is a case study in lack of systems, processes, and final arbiter to tackle intractable behavior problems on large user generated sites. Sure, the less work the ctte does the better because it means the machine is muddling along but it would be a bad idea to get rid of it, without replacement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Self-noms
Although Kurt popularised it, the "prima facie evidence of power hunger" schtick was never his alone; see Requests for adminship/EvilWendyMan for an example of someone else using it. I still consider "if you can't find anyone to nominate you you're probably jumping the gun" a perfectly reasonable argument; the issue with Kurt wasn't that he used this as the basis for opposition, but that he was seen as mindlessly cut-and-pasting it without bothering to check out the individual circumstances. (The all-time stupidest oppose comment I've ever seen remains "username should be more fear-inspiring".) &#8209; Iridescent 17:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Little Red-Haired Girl inspired fear in the heart of Charlie Brown. Perhaps BrownHairedGirl should have considered dying her hair and changing her name. ;-) Jonathunder (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the sole oppose on your own RfA wasn't a model of cogency, either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This reason for opposition is pretty hard to beat as a candidate for worst ever. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That one is before my time, but I'm actually rather shocked that "!vote" was allowed to stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it was mostly Kurt, although I should have allowed for maybe a couple of copycats. On the substance of the opposition, any candidate who is going to pass RfA would be able to find someone to nominate him or her, but I don't see why the candidate should have to if he or she doesn't want to. More importantly, the community never has expected this either; as I set out in my support comment on Godsy's RfA, there were six successful self-noms last year (out of 21 successful RfAs), and the fact of self-nomination was not an issue raised by anyone in any of them. Although I reciprocate his respect for me, I fear that Beyond My Ken has done significant, and potentially long-lasting, harm to the RfA process by resurrecting this meme and evoking a number of pile-ons to it. It is an unfair basis for opposing, damaging to the project's need to select qualified editors for adminship without irrelevant distractions&mdash;and the bootstrapped opposes suggesting that Godsy failed the first test for adminship by not realizing that self-noms are disdained are doubly unfair, because that simply isn't, or at least before this RfA wasn't, true. (If I hadn't just been scolded on my ArbCom questions page for using too much Latin&mdash;which I don't&mdash;I would describe these as ex post facto opposes.) That said, I agree entirely with your criticism of an uncontrovertibly silly oppose, and there are a significant number of other questionable oppose rationales (some but not all of which I've flagged on the RfA itself or its talkpage). Overall, this is the one of the least satisfactory RfA discussions that I have seen in a long time, and I plan to ask the bureaucrats to give its outcome an especially careful evaluation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't have much interest in pursuing this discussion, but I did want to acknowledge Brad's ping. Needless to say, I disagree that I have "done significant, and potentially long-lasting, harm to the RfA process by resurrecting this meme". I believe that the reasoning I gave in the RfA was clear about why I opposed, except that I neglected to say something on the order of "Other factors aside" - that is, if I was familiar with the nom and had no concerns about them, then the self-nom issue would not have entered into my decision at all.  It just so happened that was not the case here.As for the ex post facto add-ons which my vote probably provoked, this happens all the time, with both supports and opposes, and is somewhat of the nature of beast, as many people who are not really used to thinking deeply about things (for whatever reason) still want to participate. I will say that my experience is that a large number of "Support" votes in every legitimate RfA appear to me to be pro forma, coming from people who are inclined to vote "Support" as a first impulse.  I try to make my votes -- both "Support" and "Oppose" -- the result of actual thinking about the candidate, my experiences with them (if any), their record, and how the people I respect and admire voted. This instance came out as it did because that's how it came out, not because of any intent to damage the RfA process.  (And, Brad, as you well know, the death of Wikipedia has been often forecast and has yet to come about.  That doesn't mean it won't, but it hasn't happened yet, and whatever "damage" I may have done to it - none, in my opinion -- will not bring it about now.  However, Wikipedia does evolve, and it wouldn't bother me one little bit if the RfA criteria were to evolve away from allowing self-nomination.  In fact, I think the project would be stronger for it, for reasons that I think are obvious from my explanation of my vote.) Best to all, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand you don't want to spend much more time on this, but I have to say: An oppose stating "based on a review of the candidate's record I'm not convinced he is qualified, and unfortunately there is no nomination statement from someone I trust to help persuade me," would be perfectly sensible. That is something entirely different from "[a]s a matter of personal policy, I oppose all self-nominations," which is what you wrote and what I find problematic. (In fact, you've just said on this page that you don't oppose all self-nominations.) As for the ex post facto based !votes, if you don't perceive that they are unfair and irrational then all I can say is that I hope the bureaucrats will. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I take your point that my original statement was more dogmatic than it should have been. As for the "copycat" votes (and I think RfA is one place here where they're not "!votes" but actually votes), I perceive the hope that the bureaucrats will throw them out as something of a slippery slope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern about "ex post facto" self-nom opposes is distinct from, or additional to, my concern about "copycat" opposes. The former are the opposes (and talkpage comments) along the lines of "the candidate should have known that much of the community has historically opposed self-nominations." As I think I've shown, as of the time the RfA was posted that was a factually untrue statement and hence is not a reasonable basis for opposing, particularly given that the instructions for RfA candidates reference the possibility of self-nomination all over the place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that nuance, and you are correct that there has historically been no community opposition to self-noms, just that coming from individuals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I agree with the "if you can't find someone to nominate you you're not ready" argument, I'm saying it's a legitimate opinion, and not remotely in the ballpark of "oppose, hasn't uploaded any non-free images". The issue with Kurt was that there was a general feeling that he was cut-and-pasting without looking at the individual merits of the editors in question (although there were some occasions where he supported a self-nominated RFA). I see BMK as perfectly within his rights to oppose on these grounds provided he's willing to explain why he's opposing and to discuss rationally whether his oppose is justified, both of which appear to be the case; he's nothing like Kurt or the "oppose, too many admins already" guy a few years ago. (Incidentally, if you've not already seen it, you and I are both on the personal hit-list of yet another crank. For some reason, I'm on there twice; I feel suitably special.) &#8209; Iridescent 01:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay; I can agree with that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose, too many admins already That was, wasn't it? Though I think he opposed bureaucrats on that ground, not administrators. His block log is a real trip down memory lane. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I got three hits searching for the phrase at RfA: two of them, on unsuccessful RfAs from 2006 & 2009, continued with restrictions (too many admins already do X) but the most recent was “Oppose Too many admins already. Self-nominations are prima facie evidence of hunger for power.”— at SarekOfVulcan 2, on 3 May 2011.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can have been looking very hard, if you only found three instances. There have been quite a few people who've used the formulation, but it was who popularised it—he used it so frequently he had a custom-made template to save him typing the phrase out on every RFA. &#8209; Iridescent 20:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn’t do anything arduous like skimming pages one by one; by “searching” I merely meant using the local Search tool like this. If there are better ways to find such things I‘d love to know about them.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The easiest way is generally to be part of Wikipedia's institutional memory; you kind of pick up these things by osmosis. (Doug was by no means the worst offender, although he started it; ask someone to explain Kumioko sometime.) Failing that, the search function is clod-hoppingly literal when compared to mainstream search engines, and the slightest changes in wording or punctuation will throw it; you'll get much better results if you just search on "too many admins" and discount the inevitable false positives. &#8209; Iridescent 20:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Question for TPWs
Is my suggestion here that "someone just write a script or edit filter that would automatically prevent unprotected Commons images from being added to the main page, and thereby prevent that aspect of [a long-term] problem from recurring" technically feasible? If so, what is the best venue where I could pursue the suggestion? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bot requests would be one place, although there seems to be a bit of a backlog there. If there is one individual in the Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff who specifically deals with technical matters, they might do something. here referred to contacting WMF Labs, and I think a direct message there might be best, but I personally don't know exactly who to contact for that. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * One complication: it's not enough just to check if it's protected on Commons, because another thing that sometimes happens is the image is uploaded locally to en.wiki. If that happens, it's cascade-protected and we don't need the Commons image protected. Rarely done this way these days, almost always on Commons AFAIK, but it is an edge case.
 * if file exists on en.wiki then allow addition (it will become cascade protected when it hits the main page)
 * if not, then if file protected on commons then allow addition
 * if neither, then do not allow addition
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue with an edit filter or script is that it's not just the main page that needs to be checked. It's all the transcluded pages.  Sure, page protection cascades.  But as far as an edit filter or bot is concerned, one page is distinct from another despite transclusion.  If you need a bot written that, perhaps, adds a messaged to the main page errors page then we'd first need a list of all pages that get transcluded onto the main page.  It's not impossible, though.  I'm not sure where Labs comes into the picture except to host such a bot - but they can be done on tools lab.--v/r - TP 23:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There should be an API query that returns all images shown on a page, no? I don't think edit filters can access the protection status of another page, though. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No kidding? That API continues to impress me.--v/r - TP 23:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for those responses. As I had predicted, I'm sure you're communicating meaningfully to each other, but a lot of it is G(r)eek to me. Bottom line question, is this worth pursuing, and if so who (someone other than me who can speak the techspeak) would like to pursue it? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding AE
Hello. Having not had any experience in Arbitration Enforcement I have a question I hoped you could provide guidance regarding. If an editor who has an active civility sanction against them is blocked by an adminstrator for a perceived violation, and that block is then overturned following discussions at WP:AE / WP:AN, and then the editor then commits a much more severe violation while commenting on the aftermath of the block / unblock, should that editor be blocked for the later comment, or would that be deemed wheel warring because of the relation to the earlier block? Thanks for your attention. –Grondemar 00:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I appreciate your thinking of me, but I know what specific situation is obviously inspiring your question, and because of prior disagreements I'm not participating in that situation, so I'm afraid you'll need to follow up somewhere else. Sorry. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem; I didn't realize that there was previous history regarding that specific situation. –Grondemar 16:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Why?
I'd be interested to know what this was about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Inadvertent misclick, immediately reverted. Sorry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

December 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (plus Wikipedia Day on Jan 15!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Eutaw riot
Hi Newyorkbrad--I can do with some legal assistance. I'm at a point in this article (the prosecution) where stuff goes over my head, and apparently that which goes over my head is important. The most recent source I added strikes me as really important in general, and that so many of these "incidences" aren't yet written up is kind of a disgrace--we got Pizzagate (or we did), and we got every Pokemon in the world (what is a Pokemon?), but we don't have all these political and racial murders? Anyway. I was prompted to look into this by some conversations about race and civil rights on Facebook, and it turns out that my more militant friends were right: underrepresented. So I need your help, and that of others, to at least fill in the gaps in these historical records--help me cover the legal angles (I know Congress recorded testimony in 1872 and looked into the matter) and flesh this out more, so we can get it on the front page. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PS My neighbor is in court right now--eviscerating, I hope, the state of Alabama for its treatment of its inmates. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can try to help out with this, although it may take me a little time to get my hands on the sources. Why don't you try writing the material up as best you can (on a sandbox page if you prefer), and then I can expand on the legal aspects. As for the congressional testimony, I don't know whether a hearing of that vintage would have been transcribed, but I can check the published hearings lists and the Serial Set if you can give me any further particulars. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I added what I could (what I understood) in the legal section, and left a quote/comment on the talk page. There's a lot more in the source I cited in that section and I'll return to it. But please go ahead and do what you can: and there's a long list of riots (or acts of terrorism) still to be done, though I see that the 1874 Eufala riot was written up already, at Election Riot of 1874. Thanks NYB! Drmies (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done some editing and will try to do more. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Drmies; hi User:Newyorkbrad. Congratulations on your win, I followed at least some of trypto's advice. :) You know, Drmies, to improve articles like Free Alabama Movement and Kinetik Justice, Wikipedia would really have to stretch its RS rules wouldn't it?  I'm seeing Democracy Now!, RT, Shadowproof and all sorts of non-mainstream sources.  Do you have good local references and an interest in helping your neighbor improve Wikipedia?  For the Reconstruction era, what's needed is more WEB DuBois. New Orleans Riot doesn't even have a date.  (There were also riots in 1900) :) — SashiRolls (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi SashiRolls--thanks for pointing my attention that way. Yes, there is so much race violence, so much oppression that has gone unnoticed, and isn't taught--especially in the South, under the auspices of the Lost Cause. Fortunately people like Bryan Stevenson are helping to bring about change. You'd be surprised to learn how many people think that the systematic killing of blacks in the South was meaningless "because white horse thieves were lynched in the West" or nonsense arguments like that. Anyway, I wasn't aware that there was an organization behind those huge and important uprisings--I'm sure you know there's a lawsuit going on right now which may have far-reaching consequences for a system that--allegedly!--grossly underfunds its medical divisions and thus mistreats esp. those with mental disorders. Allegedly. So there's a bit of material for that FAM--here and here, but I will be happy to look more closely into the matter, and I appreciate your suggestions. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Signpost mail
 Go  Phightins  !  00:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not yet received (although I did get the notification). I checked my spam folder and it's not there either. Please re-send? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's strange; I sent it through the WP mail server, which typically works for me w/o a problem. Could you try emailing so we can reply to you that way? The questions we have are basically what your first goal is as an arb and what impact you hope to have on the community/committee during your term. If the WP server didn't work the first time, I'm guessing it might not again. Thanks!  Go   Phightins  !  05:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll just answer here if that's all right. At this stage in the life of the project, the Arbitration Committee has a fairly limited role. My goal for myself and for the Committee is simply that we resolve the disputes and issues that are brought before us, which have not been resolved in other ways, fairly, expeditiously, and in the best interests of the encyclopedia and of the community that creates and sustains it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brad.  Go  Phightins  !  07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, your e-mail eventually did show up in my inbox, but I'm glad I didn't wait to respond to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks. We'll be publishing hopefully Wednesday morning (some slight delays due to a new story). Thanks.  Go  Phightins  !  04:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Just curious
What happens if two members of Arbcom hate, or perhaps are even interaction banned, with each other? Banedon (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We make sure they are not seated next to each other at the annual Functionaries' Ball. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol, I take that to mean it's not happened before and the plan if it does happen is to "wing it". Thanks for answer! Banedon (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They go to dispute resolution. Kablammo (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, who's hosting the BBQ/Chili Cook-off this year? --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome (back) to the Arbitration Committee
Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2017 Arbitration Committee. Please email arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org indicating which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term. Please also tell us what email address you would like to have subscribed to the Arbitration Committee mailing lists.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalize registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My condolences, Brad. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Best thing to happen in 2016. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the year we had, any small ray of sunshine is welcome. Jonathunder (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all. GW, I've sent the e-mail. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL at Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. I'd hate to think what GW thinks a large number of emails looks like. &#8209; Iridescent 17:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Brad, I would just like to say how genuinely  pleased I am to see you  back  on the committee. Thank you  for having  decided to run again for office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Only 83% support? You're losing your touch old boy. Glad to see you back in the seat. –xenotalk 23:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation
About this ArbCom case, do discretionary sanctions apply to any "naming conventions" subpage, like WP:NCCAPS? --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that page is included in Naming conventions, I can’t see how it could be seen as falling outside the scope of “[…] article titles policy, broadly construed.” Even though it’s only a guideline, it’s clearly an appendage of the titling policy.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  00:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Here We Come A-wassailing
Merry Christmas! Better not open the box! The Bishonen Conglomerate talk 11:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC).

Menachem Mendel Schneerson
It is impossible to add well-sourced prominent material linking Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a Chabad article, to the Crown Height riots due to biased editors. You were involved in the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. It is evident to me that the behavior that led to that arbitration request continues. Can we reopen the arbitration?Rococo1700 (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That arbitration was seven years ago, and frankly I don't remember much about it. Reading through the decision, it seems the arbitrators didn't find it necessary to take any concrete actions at that time. As such, I'm not sure that the prior decision will be very helpful in resolving any current disputes, although than perhaps showing that the topic has a history of controversy (if anyone were to try to dispute that). Please use the regular methods of dispute resolution to try to address any current issues, with arbitration, as always, being the last step in the process.
 * Please note that I haven't reviewed the current dispute. I see that several editors claim you are the one editing against consensus, although I haven't evaluated the claim. If there is substance to it, or if you want to help to defuse tensions, you might want to focus on some of your other editing interests for awhile. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)