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.
"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. —
Random83200:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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 |
contribs07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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 |
Natter10:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Brad will pass and will be selected. Brad must never compromise to be a chum to existing folks nor old friends nor fashion nor "need": this is the sole concern.
Geogre10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Though not eligible to vote, I support this candidate. From the looks of it, currently, he is a sure bet. I look forward to him adding a level of decorum to the Committee.
HydroMagi14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
There is no even a slightest need to elaborate on the vote for this truly exceptional candidate. Would make a jewel addition to the ArbCom. --
Irpen19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Level-headed, intelligent and tactful. Despite lots of experience as an admin and ArbCom clerk, he hasn't been captured by the bureaucracy. He tends to have a sound and sensible perspective on most issues, often reconciling opposed views, and I think his skills are ideal for an arbitrator.
WaltonOne14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - leaving us in the lurch without a de facto head clerk. Sensible reason: constant voice of reason, sensitive, well thought-out opinions, etc.David Mestel(
Talk)18:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Have 470 Wikipedians ever support something? Well, if we add a phenomenal user to an ArbCom position, the answer is yes. No, seriously, I can't think of a better example of an outstanding editor or a perfect ArbCom candidate. Good luck! NF24(
radio me!)03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support My interactions with Newyorkbrad, observations of him and feedback from others (including the support votes he has received) convince me that he has all the traits of a great arbitrator: incorruptibility, experience with dispute resolution and an ability to stay cool when the editing gets hot. --
J.L.W.S. The Special One (
talk)
09:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose His background as a New York litigation attorney would make it difficult for him to combat litigiousness and to keep Wikipedia open. He has supported blocking several serious contributors for foolish comments, e.g.
[1], and I, for one, would not want to see more support for limits on participation.
Luqman Skye (
talk) 12:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
further comments are on talk page (
talk)
06:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose with a message. Per Neil. Bradley is the best Clerk in ArbCom history! It would be a shame for him to fall victim to the
Peter Principle. Of course this objection, along with all the others, are meaningless. So congrads Brad! But please note-It is ok to be a politician and lawyer, as long as you don't become a partisan and advocate. The writers create the 'Pedia; not the janitors, crats, wikilawyers or policy wonks. Popularity is fleeting, doing the right thing is forever. Best of luck (you'll need it)--
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (
talk)
22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
"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. —
Random83200:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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 |
contribs07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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 |
Natter10:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Brad will pass and will be selected. Brad must never compromise to be a chum to existing folks nor old friends nor fashion nor "need": this is the sole concern.
Geogre10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Though not eligible to vote, I support this candidate. From the looks of it, currently, he is a sure bet. I look forward to him adding a level of decorum to the Committee.
HydroMagi14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
There is no even a slightest need to elaborate on the vote for this truly exceptional candidate. Would make a jewel addition to the ArbCom. --
Irpen19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Level-headed, intelligent and tactful. Despite lots of experience as an admin and ArbCom clerk, he hasn't been captured by the bureaucracy. He tends to have a sound and sensible perspective on most issues, often reconciling opposed views, and I think his skills are ideal for an arbitrator.
WaltonOne14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - leaving us in the lurch without a de facto head clerk. Sensible reason: constant voice of reason, sensitive, well thought-out opinions, etc.David Mestel(
Talk)18:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Have 470 Wikipedians ever support something? Well, if we add a phenomenal user to an ArbCom position, the answer is yes. No, seriously, I can't think of a better example of an outstanding editor or a perfect ArbCom candidate. Good luck! NF24(
radio me!)03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support My interactions with Newyorkbrad, observations of him and feedback from others (including the support votes he has received) convince me that he has all the traits of a great arbitrator: incorruptibility, experience with dispute resolution and an ability to stay cool when the editing gets hot. --
J.L.W.S. The Special One (
talk)
09:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose His background as a New York litigation attorney would make it difficult for him to combat litigiousness and to keep Wikipedia open. He has supported blocking several serious contributors for foolish comments, e.g.
[1], and I, for one, would not want to see more support for limits on participation.
Luqman Skye (
talk) 12:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
further comments are on talk page (
talk)
06:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose with a message. Per Neil. Bradley is the best Clerk in ArbCom history! It would be a shame for him to fall victim to the
Peter Principle. Of course this objection, along with all the others, are meaningless. So congrads Brad! But please note-It is ok to be a politician and lawyer, as long as you don't become a partisan and advocate. The writers create the 'Pedia; not the janitors, crats, wikilawyers or policy wonks. Popularity is fleeting, doing the right thing is forever. Best of luck (you'll need it)--
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (
talk)
22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)reply