Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 210: Line 210:
# [[User:Itub|Itub]] 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# [[User:Itub|Itub]] 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# Excellent judgment. [[User:Shem|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem|(talk)]]</sup> 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# Excellent judgment. [[User:Shem|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem|(talk)]]</sup> 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#Everyone likes NYB, he's quite the gent. I was a little concerned he was always going to be a career wikilawyer, which he probably is, but damn good it, so you have my respect and support Brad. --[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 10:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


== Oppose ==
== Oppose ==

Revision as of 10:12, 3 December 2007

Please Note: Comments longer than two short sentences will be moved to the talk page.

Newyorkbrad

Thank you for considering my candidacy for the Arbitration Committee.

I registered my account in February 2006, began editing actively in July 2006, and became an administrator in January 2007. I have participated extensively in arbitrations for more than one year and have drafted many workshop proposals, several of which have been included in the final decisions.

Someone sought to "draft" me to run for the Arbitration Committee in last year's election, but I believed I was too new a user at that time. Instead, early in 2007 I was named as a Clerk for the committee. Clerk responsibilities including opening and closing cases, monitoring the case pages, providing procedural advice to parties, and preparing implementation notes for decisions. This work has familiarized me with all aspects of the arbitration process and with its strengths and weaknesses.

My off-wiki resume includes 20 years of experience as a litigation attorney in Manhattan. Despite this, I would not bring a legalistic approach to the Wikipedia arbitration process. What I would do is seek in every case to analyze the evidence carefully and to reach a result that is fair to all users involved in the case and will best serve the project as a whole.

It is essential that the Arbitration Committee speed up its process of considering and deciding cases. This year as in the past, there have been delays in deciding many cases. Too often, these delays have caused bitter disputes between editors, which were brought to arbitration to obtain a just and speedy resolution, instead to fester and worsen. Such outcomes defeat the whole purpose of having a high-level body of experienced and respected editors to resolve disputes as fairly and expeditiously as possible.

I respect the difficult role that the arbitrators and the Arbitration Committee play. Dealing with some of Wikipedia's most intractible disputes and most truculent users—to say nothing of the sensitive matters that the arbitrators must sometimes address off-wiki—is inherently a time-consuming, challenging, and sometimes tiring role. If the community chooses me among the editors to play this role, I will do so diligently and to the best of my ability. I look forward to answering questions from members of the community.

Support

  1. Daniel 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: Extended comments moved to talk page. Nick 00:00, 3 December 2007
  4. Support—trey(wiki) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongest Support I've Ever Given -Duh. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Easiest choice all day Kwsn (Ni!) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Absolutely! Wizardman 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kurykh 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Sam Blacketer 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mr.Z-man 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Qst 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. PrestonH 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Patient, thoughtful, knowledgeable. Plus he will write. fuller vote explanations -- Jd2718 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ragesoss 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. BLACKKITE 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Woodym555 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. — Coren (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 100% This is a Secret account 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. AniMate 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ec*5 It's about time —Animum § 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes. Keilana 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Anthøny 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Cbrown1023 talk 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. (ec*2) Jonathan (T•@•C) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. – Gurch (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Snowolf How can I help? 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Prolog 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Chaz Beckett 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Bakaman 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Ya, this will be a squeaker. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Will (aka Wimt) 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. spryde | talk 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Easiest vote I'll make this year... --W.marsh 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. — TKD::Talk 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. GracenotesT § 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Based on his/her bravery in the recent Durova case. Travb (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  45. Good luck to you. This was easy. Monsieurdl 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Nufy8 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Maturity, experience, judgement. Excellent candidate. Antandrus (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Pile-on Support. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  49. Definitely. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 00:32, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
  50. Good experience and our only interaction has been nice. Icestorm815 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong SupportBobTheTomato 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Like me, except without the violent moodswings. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. "You mean you weren't already" is often seen on RFA. I think it fits here - not in that I actually did not know you were not on the committee, but rather that it is surprising that you were not. —Random832 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. ABSOLUTELY! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Extremely excellent editing gets an Extreme Support Mbisanz 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. --Duk 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Definitely. • Lawrence Cohen 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. - auburnpilot talk 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. -MBK004 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Rjd0060 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --Stephen 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Sympathy vote --Docg 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Support –priyanath talk 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Perfect. Prodego talk 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. - Jehochman Talk 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Sluzzelin talk 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. --Agüeybaná 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. An outstanding candidate -- Manning 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. R. Baley 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. An outstanding candidate ,impartial and firm on principles.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Captain panda 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. This is the second obvious vote for me so far. Carcharoth 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. JavaTenor 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Excellent candidate. -- Avi 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Sean William @ 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. We are so lucky to have this guy. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Continually has proven himself to be a (sometimes THE) voice of reason and sanity at ArbCom. sh¤y 01:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Very dedicated and qualified - Fedayee 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. (and i'm not a copycat, I created the image :P ) -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the copycat. I saw you use it on another user's voting page :D. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Casey Abell 01:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. About the only one I can support without doubt or self questioning. GRBerry 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. maclean 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Fred Bauder 01:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Seems to have the right mindset, experience, and lack of blood on his hands, a rarity in these ArbCom elections. :-/ Grandmasterka 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. CIreland 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. krimpet⟲ 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Brad, I'm so terribly sorry. I support you in this, and may God have mercy on your soul. DS 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - calm in about every situation I've witnessed. He also has some arbitration experience from clerking, so I think he is an excellent candidate for ArbCom. And the fact I got edit conflicted on adding a support should speak for itself. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Absolutely SQLQuery me! 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Yes. Sane and fair. Miranda 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Carnildo 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Yes. --Alecmconroy 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Absolute support. -gadfium 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Tyrenius 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Coredesat 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Risker 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. ➪HiDrNick! 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104.  — master sonT - C 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. the best possible person. DGG (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Just be light on the "lawyering" :D -- Tawker 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) does good work here on the project. Cirt 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  109. Support- Dureo 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Absolutely. Kuru talk 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Yes. Smokizzy (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Alexfusco5 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. bibliomaniac15 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. WODUP 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. B 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Too new, but gloriously overqualified. Zocky | picture popups 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Well, duh. Thatcher131 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. If he's not promoted, that would be a crime! Scobell302 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Duh. Rebecca 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Has he ever been involved in a conflict where he wasn't the voice of reason? ATren 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Much as I hate to jump on bandwagons. —Cryptic 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. How many times can I vote? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. I strongly support this nomination: Newyorkbrad is clearly one of our best users, and he will make a brilliant arbitrator. Acalamari 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. John254 03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. · AndonicO Talk 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. futurebird 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Absolutely. GlassCobra 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Happy support. --InkSplotch 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. --MPerel 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Should have run last year. Picaroon (t) 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Of special note: Asset. Mercury 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Absolutely. --Cactus.man ✍ 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Too crowded here. No wonder. Húsönd 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Bob Mellish 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Definitely support.Hal peridol 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Without reservation. Rockpocket 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Aboutmovies 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. piling on Johnbod
  144. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. — madman bum and angel 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Aksi_great (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. If I could choose only one candidate from the entire list, I would choose Newyorkbrad. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. JayHenry 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Ealdgyth | Talk 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Strong Support -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. ViridaeTalk 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Most definitely. A very dedicated, wise, and hardworking contributor. The best fit for the position. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Strong Support. Would have supported him last year and has continued to demonstrate the qualities of an excellent arbitor. Eluchil404 04:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. Everyking 04:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. Fair, levelheaded, calm and prone to being reasonable when provoked - Peripitus (Talk) 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157.  GHe (Talk) 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. — xaosflux Talk 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. --Elonka 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. hbdragon88 04:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. The Evil Spartan 05:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. utcursch | talk 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:31, December 3, 2007
  165. —Mira 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Athaenara ✉ 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Of course... highly trustworthy, highly qualified, superb job as Arbcom clerk, and understands what he's getting into, regarding workload and all. --Aude (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. This is the easy one.--Kubigula (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Yes please. Spebi 05:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. Well-rounded, tough, patient, with a unique mix of integrity, intelligence and level-headed compassion in the back pocket. Ideal. Pia (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Isarig 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Hmm, this is beginning to look like his RfA. In all seriousness, there are few better suited to the task. James086Talk | Email 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. 6SJ7 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Of course. Dragons flight 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Yea - Jeeny (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Of course — Jack Merridew 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Wutgout reservation, and extremely willingly (I am currently on camp, using afreind's PC, and into the camp's internet - can't get more willing than that! ;)) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  183. WAS 4.250 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Foregone conclusion, but will be an excellent Arbitrator. MastCell Talk 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  185. hard-working, decent guy. does his homework when investigating, certainly competent--Certified.Gangsta 07:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support. I'd like to oppose just to be the first contrarian, but that's impossible as NYBrad is one of the most fair, level-headed users I've come across. Full support.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support V-train 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. --Hut 8.5 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  190. - Crockspot 07:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Of course. Davewild 07:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. SchmuckyTheCat
  193. No explanations needed. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Boring. But boring is good. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Lara❤Love 08:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  196. What? No opposes!? :-( — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  197. I've found that "what Brad says" and "what's right for Wikipedia" often coincide. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  198. DrKiernan 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  199. 200?? ~Eliz81(C) 08:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Normally, I would be amazed to see no opposes. Here, I would be amazed if anyone did find a reason to oppose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Jmlk17 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Obvious, really. --Folantin 09:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  203. skip (t / c) 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. John Vandenberg 09:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Itub 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Excellent judgment. Shem(talk) 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Everyone likes NYB, he's quite the gent. I was a little concerned he was always going to be a career wikilawyer, which he probably is, but damn good it, so you have my respect and support Brad. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Newyorkbrad&oldid=175452731"