Support: Brad will make an excellent arbitrator. He's eminently qualified for the role and has been responsible for shaping many of the committees most recent findings and proposals. The only possible I reason I could give not to have Brad on the committee is that the community will lose an excellent clerk, but given the excellent work I'm sure he'll carry out on the committee, it's a tiny price to pay. Good luck. Nick 00:00, 3 December 2007
Suppport. If you read this, NYB, I'd just like to register a concern that at times the reliance of the clerking on precedent and ticking-box-process seems to limit the creativity the committee dispenses (too many principles/facts/remedies are copy-pastes, for examples). Please have in your mind a vital need to avoid that when on the committee, and to respond with deftness and precision rather than theory and excess consistency. Splash - tk 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have had the chance to observe this user from well before when he became an admin, and in every instance without exception he has shown a maturity, a willingness to negotiate between warring parties and a clear understanding of policy. His work in a number of ArbCom cases assisted their sensible closure and it seems to make a lot of sense to have him in a decision-making role on that body. Orderinchaos 15:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
While I can't vote (too new), I would support Newyorkbrad. He seems like the model arbitrator, and with a year experience as a clerk, this is even better. Thanks for running. Red rocket boy 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not need a New York attorney on our arbitration committee. We have enough litigiousness, politics, and partiality as it is. Several of NewYorkbrad's reverts have served to limit participation, e.g. [1] and [2], reverting edits for no clear reason. Luqman Skye ( talk) 06:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Took less than nine hours. Grand master ka 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I should hope that any potential arbiter is better at very many things than being an arbiter; it is the skills they have that persuade us to vote for them. No matter in the scheme of things, I guess. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)( So, uh, why aren't you voting for him?)
451 support votes. My god, that has got to be a record. Newyorkbrad has less than a .01% oppose rate. Anyone who ever wants to be an Arbom should study Newyorkbrad's rise to the top and commit it to memory. Travb ( talk) 16:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is indeed, as far as I'm aware, a record for the total number of votes and total number of supports for an en-wiki vote or poll on a single person (the WMF board elections are another matter, and not really comparable). I believe the record for total number of votes in any en-wiki poll was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page: "The results are 687 (support) /213 (oppose) /43 (neutral)" That is a total of 943 votes, with 687 supports. Compare with the current total here (discounting the indented votes) of 471 votes, with 462 supports. Also compare the number of net supports (Main Page redesign poll: 474 (finished); Newyorkbrad: 453 (ongoing). So that looks like the next record to go. What should also be considered is the exposure of the vote (I believe the Main Page vote appeared on the watchlist announcement - not sure whether a notice also appeared on the Main Page or the talk page of the Main Page), and the length of time. The ArbCom elections for 2007 are 2 weeks long (14 days) and the Main Page poll ran for 18 days, so that also needs to be taken in considerations when comparing them. You would probably also need to compare the size of the active and voting community at the time, and the suffrage requirements. Wikipedia in December 2007 (at the time of the ArbCom elections) is bigger in almost every sense than the Wikipedia in March 2006 (the time of the Main Page redesign poll), but the relative sizes of the voting community is less easy to ascertain. Indeed, it is votes like this that give an idea of the size of the active voting community. Finally, I had predicted that Brad's vote wouldn't break WP:500, but it looks like that prediction may have been wrong... My new prediction is that his vote won't break the 687 record or the total record of 943. My reasoning is that the rate of new votes will eventually drop drastically to only a few a day over the last few days. Even if the current rate of about 20-25 new votes a day is maintained over the remaining 8-9 days, that won't be enough. I'd be happy to be proved wrong though! :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 11:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I know we shouldn't "plan" things this way, but wouldn't it be cool if User:Jimbo Wales was #500? : ) - jc37 13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The 500 net has become solid. Supports are still filtering in, but opposes have dried up, and it's at +514. I supported Newyorkbrad, and congratulate him. Last time out, none of the candidates generated this level of enthusiasm. However, it is interesting to note that, by percentage, Brad would have trailed two candidates in the previous election, Flcelloguy at 99.21% and Kirill at 97.51%. Jd2718 ( talk) 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I will write something more formal up later, but I would like to thank everyone who voted for me, as well as those who left kind comments on this page, and the entire community for your support and confidence. If appointed, I will try to live up to the expectations that all of you have set for me. My sincere appreciation to each one of you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Support: Brad will make an excellent arbitrator. He's eminently qualified for the role and has been responsible for shaping many of the committees most recent findings and proposals. The only possible I reason I could give not to have Brad on the committee is that the community will lose an excellent clerk, but given the excellent work I'm sure he'll carry out on the committee, it's a tiny price to pay. Good luck. Nick 00:00, 3 December 2007
Suppport. If you read this, NYB, I'd just like to register a concern that at times the reliance of the clerking on precedent and ticking-box-process seems to limit the creativity the committee dispenses (too many principles/facts/remedies are copy-pastes, for examples). Please have in your mind a vital need to avoid that when on the committee, and to respond with deftness and precision rather than theory and excess consistency. Splash - tk 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have had the chance to observe this user from well before when he became an admin, and in every instance without exception he has shown a maturity, a willingness to negotiate between warring parties and a clear understanding of policy. His work in a number of ArbCom cases assisted their sensible closure and it seems to make a lot of sense to have him in a decision-making role on that body. Orderinchaos 15:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
While I can't vote (too new), I would support Newyorkbrad. He seems like the model arbitrator, and with a year experience as a clerk, this is even better. Thanks for running. Red rocket boy 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not need a New York attorney on our arbitration committee. We have enough litigiousness, politics, and partiality as it is. Several of NewYorkbrad's reverts have served to limit participation, e.g. [1] and [2], reverting edits for no clear reason. Luqman Skye ( talk) 06:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Took less than nine hours. Grand master ka 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I should hope that any potential arbiter is better at very many things than being an arbiter; it is the skills they have that persuade us to vote for them. No matter in the scheme of things, I guess. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)( So, uh, why aren't you voting for him?)
451 support votes. My god, that has got to be a record. Newyorkbrad has less than a .01% oppose rate. Anyone who ever wants to be an Arbom should study Newyorkbrad's rise to the top and commit it to memory. Travb ( talk) 16:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is indeed, as far as I'm aware, a record for the total number of votes and total number of supports for an en-wiki vote or poll on a single person (the WMF board elections are another matter, and not really comparable). I believe the record for total number of votes in any en-wiki poll was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page: "The results are 687 (support) /213 (oppose) /43 (neutral)" That is a total of 943 votes, with 687 supports. Compare with the current total here (discounting the indented votes) of 471 votes, with 462 supports. Also compare the number of net supports (Main Page redesign poll: 474 (finished); Newyorkbrad: 453 (ongoing). So that looks like the next record to go. What should also be considered is the exposure of the vote (I believe the Main Page vote appeared on the watchlist announcement - not sure whether a notice also appeared on the Main Page or the talk page of the Main Page), and the length of time. The ArbCom elections for 2007 are 2 weeks long (14 days) and the Main Page poll ran for 18 days, so that also needs to be taken in considerations when comparing them. You would probably also need to compare the size of the active and voting community at the time, and the suffrage requirements. Wikipedia in December 2007 (at the time of the ArbCom elections) is bigger in almost every sense than the Wikipedia in March 2006 (the time of the Main Page redesign poll), but the relative sizes of the voting community is less easy to ascertain. Indeed, it is votes like this that give an idea of the size of the active voting community. Finally, I had predicted that Brad's vote wouldn't break WP:500, but it looks like that prediction may have been wrong... My new prediction is that his vote won't break the 687 record or the total record of 943. My reasoning is that the rate of new votes will eventually drop drastically to only a few a day over the last few days. Even if the current rate of about 20-25 new votes a day is maintained over the remaining 8-9 days, that won't be enough. I'd be happy to be proved wrong though! :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 11:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I know we shouldn't "plan" things this way, but wouldn't it be cool if User:Jimbo Wales was #500? : ) - jc37 13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The 500 net has become solid. Supports are still filtering in, but opposes have dried up, and it's at +514. I supported Newyorkbrad, and congratulate him. Last time out, none of the candidates generated this level of enthusiasm. However, it is interesting to note that, by percentage, Brad would have trailed two candidates in the previous election, Flcelloguy at 99.21% and Kirill at 97.51%. Jd2718 ( talk) 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I will write something more formal up later, but I would like to thank everyone who voted for me, as well as those who left kind comments on this page, and the entire community for your support and confidence. If appointed, I will try to live up to the expectations that all of you have set for me. My sincere appreciation to each one of you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)