Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Newyorkbrad

Comments moved from voting page

 * Moved per Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote by uninvolved user (in turn derived from consensus on election talk pages): "Users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should made at each candidate's vote talk page".

Nick
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

Splash
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)
 * This is exactly two sentences (pah, I'll put a comma after support if you try that), and I have moved it back. Please do not be so officious about this. Splash - tk 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Two short sentences. It's not being so officious about it when the comments start taking from 3 or 4 lines (depending on screen resolution) long. KTC 15:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My vote does not stand without its comment. Period. I have removed my vote. I hope you are satisfied with that resolution. Splash - tk 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Splash I agree with your comment, but if you want NYB to read it, then post on his talk page. If you just want a soapbox, this isn't the right place. the wub "?!"  16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not soapboxing, I am giving quite succinctly the context in which my vote is valid. If the overly-officious clerking of this election will not permit me to contextualise my vote, I will not allow my vote to stand shorn of its meaning. Splash - tk 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* . All people is asking for is not to have 3 / 4 lines of comment attaching to each vote on a vote page with what can be 500 votes. A link from the vote page to the talk page with the comment still give the context you are seeking. It's not like people is completely removing the comment to take it out of context. Not that it actually matter, but as to this particular vote/context, you starts off with "If you read this", that's not contexting when your vote is valid. KTC 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not split hairs over my grammar - you'd have said the same if I deleted the first 5 words, and still be clerkishly destroying my context. Something which, I might add, there is no authority for you to do in that meandering discussion on the elections' talk page. Removing my comment and labelling it in some arbitrary manner does destroy my context, because I did not cast a support vote and tag along some commentary. I cast a support vote with very specific, and succinctly expressed, concerns attached to which I had hoped would be evaluated by someone with enough subtlety to understand my meaning. As it is, you have demoted those comments and altered the meaning of my vote. I will not countenance such over-preponderance of superiority. Splash - tk 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying a comment associated with a vote is available at the talk page, with a link to it does not destroy its context. That is a point that I guess if you disagree, we will just have to disagree on. I do not undervalue the concern you expressed, and as I just said, linking to it instead do not alter the meaning of your vote. I am disappointed you feel I / anyone else is trying to display a "over-preponderance of superiority" when we are in good faith trying to keep thing manageable and for the better. In my case, I was following what I perceive as consensus build up over the last month (which I should note I did not personally comment in), which is something you have indicated you disagree with. KTC 17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three lines makes no difference to you, and it does to me. As it is, you have your nice clean page, and I have no vote. This does not sound like a well-functioning election to me. Splash - tk 17:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos
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)

Redrocketboy
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)

Luqman Skye
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. and, reverting edits for no clear reason. Luqman Skye (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you say that? Both Yitzhak Rabin and Anwar El Sadat were assassinated. He did the right thing. And, what about his other contributions? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Luqman Skye rather amused to see you're against; litigiousness, politics, and partiality yet you've voted for Giano who is the embodiment of all three here on wikipedia. - Gallo glass  11:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that NYB does not engage in "litigiousness, politics, and partiality", but please let's not start a discussion on Giano on this talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "No clear reason"?!? How about the fact that both men were, in fact, assassinated? Should we change the Lincoln Assassination article to the Lincoln Death article? A bit of common sense is in order, don't you think? Mr Which??? 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reverts were not necessarily wrong, but hasty reverts, without discussion, limit participation, especially the participation of new users. Note that John Lennon's assassination is described in a section titled "Death." Titling subsections "Death" instead of "Assassination" is not completely without merit and at least deserves discussion. There is no good reason to hastily revert, without discussion, reasonable and minor edits, especially when they are contributed by new users. This is only one point of disapproval. In general I am supporting candidates who have good histories of open and honest give-and-take collaboration, people who have demonstrated soft-heartedness and openness to a wide variety of viewpoints, people who are willing to make mistakes and admit it, people who hold grudges openly or not at all. NewYorkbrad's edits seem overly political, as if he were planning to run for the arbitration committee early on; and this should at least be a cause for some questioning of motives. I would rather see an arbitration committee of Wikipedians who show their real personalities, whose histories make clear their motives of enjoying the process of writing a free encyclopedia. Wikipedia of late is moving in the direction of being overly litigious, with various rules designed to limit participation by new users and concentrate power in the hands of administrators (e.g. the horrible three-revert rule which is often abused by admins to get around the original principle of consensus and change it to some kind of democracy). I hope some people voting here understand that Wikipedia is supposed to be a pleasant and open process. It is inspiring to see that some candidates, e.g. Manning Bartlett would like Wikipedia to be open and fun again. Luqman Skye (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:200
Took less than nine hours. Grand master  ka  08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could this end up drawing 1000+ votes? Scob e ll302 10:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlikely. Things have slowed down and will slow further. Carcharoth 15:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I could see this easily passing WP:300, though. GlassCobra 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Easily. The real question is whether 400 and (*shudder*) 500 will be reached.  Bravo, Brad. ·  jersyko   talk  20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 300. sh  &curren;  y  02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:400 here he comes !!! ..-- Cometstyles 16:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 500 more like. :eek: Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard rumours that breaking WP:500 gets you struck down for overweening hubris, courtesy of a bolt of lightning from the god-king... On a more serious note, I thought the 687 of the Main Page redesign poll (see WP:200) was out of reach, but I'm no longer so sure now. Still many days left. It just depends on how long Wikipedia's long tail of voters is. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Four hundreds reached. I think we can end up with a 500 or so.  Snowolf How can I help? 15:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not encourage it. A natural 500 is better than a cheer-leading 500. Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He will get 500 votes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now he has. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Is better as a clerk"
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?)


 * "The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment"? We're here to examine the candidates, not to examine the subjective "goodness" of ArbCom.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In defense of that guy, it's looking like NYB could well end up with 666 supports. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

New record
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)
 * The principles (be kind and thoughtful, speak reasonably and calmly in difficult situations, don't lose your temper), are not hard to commit to memory. It's putting them into practice that's the trick. Certainly agree we could all learn a few things from NYBrad though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heck - There goes my Arbcom prospects! (Sarah777 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Less than 1% vote rate, unless he works for Verizon. Jd2718 (talk) 00:10, 8 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)
 * For the record, the number of votes per day so far (useful for tracking the overall course of the election, since this is the vote getting the most votes), from the 3rd through to the 16th (whole election): 295, 84, 43, 22, 25, 8, 20, 14, 9, 8, 3, 3, 14, 21 (someone might want to compare this to the last election). Looking at a different candidate, hovering around 50%, with 200+ votes (Moreschi), we see the following trend in numbers of votes per day: 139, 39, 21, 14, 13, 6, 8, 4, 8, 5, 4, 3, 13, 16 (includes some late switches from support to oppose). Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Last updated: 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite the stats geek! Thanks. That tapering off to almost nothing suggests, to me anyway, that the election runs for too long. (there is a similar tapering in the current Steward election as well) ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, they are very amateurish stats, but thanks anyway! I wouldn't be so sure about the tapering - NYB's votes have picked up again, jumping from 8 on the 8th to 20 on the 9th! Overall, I'm not entirely sure that two weeks isn't about right. One week isn't enough time for some people (they may be away that one week), and I'm personally still undecided about some candidates - well, if it was a week then I'd have been forced to decide by now! :-) An advantage of two weeks is that there is enough time for proper scrutiny. Given that RfAs run for a week, you really want ArbCom elections to be longer. Either that, or make them a single day only! how long were the WMF board elections? Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, a pick-up in the last week is to be expected: "OMG, do it now." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was definitely an uptick at the end in the last two days. Unfortunately, I seem to have made a bad choice in picking Moreschi as my "middle of the road" sample, as his stance in the Doran incident caused a late flurry of switches from support to oppose. That is not technically new voting, but is showing up as such. Can't be bothered to correct for this, but this explains why the totals in the daily tallies don't match up with the overall total... Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, congrats Brad! I wonder if he makes it over 500 supports whether Jimbo will let him borrow the title "God-king"? :p AgneCheese/Wine 12:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * God-Prince, anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I really hope that Brad will get over 500 votes. I agree with Seraphimblade. We can all learn a few things from Newyorkbrad. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he'll make at least 500. I mean, seriously, they're crawling out of the woodwork. I'm seeing names on here I haven't seen in ages : ) - jc37 01:35, 10 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)
 * I know you know this, but Jimbo doesn't, as far as I'm aware, vote in these elections. After all, he's the one that makes the real selection. The community is just guiding him. And despite being interested in records and whatnot, I'm not going to get too involved in any celebrations over WP:500 - that would be a bit unseemly in my opinion. Also, a voter without suffrage could be struck out later, dropping the 500th vote to 499th! I'm more interested in whether Giano will make WP:300! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know... But it was just fun to think about : ) - jc37 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:500. Acalamari 21:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently back to 498 : ) - jc37 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now 497! Goodness. If enough get indented, the support level could drop back to less than 100 and Brad would still be elected! Yes, that's right, remove about 400 votes or so and nothing would change. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And here I thought it was a nice coincidence that "my" number happened to be 377 : ) - jc37 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn, it went down! Well, there's still time for it to return to WP:500. :) Acalamari 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Plenty of time, actually. He'll get there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't make WP:500, I'll curse heaven, hell, and the Democratic Party. :-P —Animum (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He has made it. 500 votes! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hasn't got a net support of 500 yet... Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well...he may get it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I say 500 supports is 500 supports! And he's got that.  Personal opinion: I know users do not have to leave comments when voting here, but looking through the oppose section, I only see one actual reason (legitimate reason).  Obviously it would be nice for the opposition to leave comments so that NYB knows specifically what areas people think he should improve in.  I guess that just isn't going to happen though.  Again, Congrats Newyorkbrad!! - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw three votes giving a reason. I disagree with every one of those reasons, but still think they are legitimate. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about 1, 7, & 8. 1 is the only explanation I actually considered legitimate.  7 placed the same reason on nearly every page.  Given that we feel there is a need for the ArbCom, I don't think that was a legitimate explanation of opposition.  And I'm just confused by 8. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 500 net support is right around the corner. -Dureo (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's got it as of this moment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:38, 13 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)
 * ...which says a lot about how frivolously people are voting. --Deskana (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather describe the community as 'cautious,' not 'frivolous,' especially coming on the heels of the sleuthing drama and the arbitrary-looking desysop. These are the same voters, more or less, as a year ago. (totals have barely gone up). If hard-working volunteers are concerned, we all should be. And, this makes the massive show of support for Brad all the more impressive. Jd2718 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the show of support for Brad was good, yes. But the fact remains that we have two candidates over 80% and five over 70%, whereas last year we had seven over 80%, and nine over 70%. I don't think the candidates this year are less impressive compared to the ones last year. Infact, they had the same amount of candidates with 85% support or more as we have with 70% support or more (five). I just think some people (not everyone, perhaps not even a majority) have been overly frivolous and opposed people for silly reasons, causing substantially less support. --Deskana (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been some odd voting patterns this year compared to last. While I'm not sure whether to chalk it up to caution or frivolousness, I am concern about the talk of "strategic opposes" that have popped up some of these Arbcom pages. It looks like this years election is going to set some new precedents and come down to some judgment calls by Jimbo. AgneCheese/Wine 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been some strategic opposes, and there were fewer last year, but the number is still relatively small, and cannot explain why we had 8 candidates with fewer than 50 opposes last year, and only 2 this year. I do think that both the mood is more critical, and the field is weaker. And I just don't see substantial numbers of frivolous votes. Jd2718 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
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)