The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Newyorkbrad[edit]

Final (225/2/0); Ended 05:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) – Newyorkbrad has been a regular editor since July, 2006. Since then, Brad has contributed in excess of 5000 edits, well spread across the main spaces.

Brad is an active participant in deletion discussions at XfD where his contributions are always based on a solid policy foundation and common sense. ([1], [2]). Additionally, Brad has been involved in a lot of policy debates and discussions regarding the application of policy. (eg: [3] [4], [5])

An attorney in real life, Brad has shown a particular interest in arbitration, where he discusses cases, presents evidence [6], proposes temporary injunctions [7], findings of fact [8], principles [9], remedies [10], and assists with general maintenance of the arbitration pages. [11]. His work assisting at arbitration would clearly be enhanced with admin tools giving him the ability to review deleted articles and edits and assist with enforcement of injunctions and remedies.

Brad is extremely generous with his expertise, writing and expanding legal articles, including Recusal, Jones Law, and Bureau of Insular Affairs; assisting other editors with legal articles [12], [13] and helping answer legal questions on the reference desk. [14] He has been active in the creation of a series of biographies, including those on US Federal Judges (eg: Peter J. Hamilton, William James Wallace, Frederic Dodge, Hugh H. Bownes).

Always calm, kind and fair, Brad has never even pushed the boundaries of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. He takes the time to welcome new editors and looks out for other editors, new [15] and old [16] alike, offering words of encouragement and friendly advice. [17]

He also assists with vandal patrol, where he follows up with the appropriate level warnings from the full range of warning templates (eg: [18], [19], [20], and [21]). When appropriate, Brad reports vandals to WP:AIV ([22], [23]) and also assists administrators with maintenance of AIV.[24]

Brad is an exceptional candidate for adminship. I believe he will make an outstanding administrator and ask the community to support this Request for Adminship. Sarah 01:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I would like to thank Sarah for a wonderfully written and kind nomination statement. I also thank several other editors who have urged me to seek adminship. I accept. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: If my candidacy is successful, I would continue as an administrator much of what I have been doing as an editor over the past six months. I'd continue dealing with vandals whom I spot from the articles on my watchlist as well as from reports at WP:AIV, warning when appropriate and blocking when necessary.
I'd continue participating in discussions on the administrators' noticeboards (WP:AN and ANI), addressing incident reports presented by editors, and raising more complex situations for open discussion and consensus solutions. I would participate in whatever evolves to replace the personal attacks noticeboard (WP:PAIN) and in the somewhat lesser-known forums such as WP:RFI and WP:WQA.
I also anticipate keeping an eye on blocked users' requests for unblocking. My impression is that many, perhaps most, of these requests are frivolous, but occasionally there is a questionable block or one that hasn't been sufficiently explained, and the blocked user is entitled to a prompt review by an uninvolved administrator and should receive one. Conversely, when the block is valid, confirmation of that opinion by another admin can be reassuring to the blocking admin while reinforcing to the blocked user why his or her conduct was unacceptable.
I might get involved in addressing some 3RR reports on WP:AN3, a board whose business has historically been handled by just a few admins (more are pitching in lately). I have some ideas for new mechanisms that might make that board a little bit more user-friendly and less confrontational, which I would certainly discuss with the admins with experience on that page and seek consensus support for before trying out.
I also would help out with WP:AE, the arbitration enforcement board. That can be a very unpleasant place sometimes, and the burden of dealing with some of the project's most intractable situations is being handled right now by a very small number of admins. I'd also feel qualified to work on any backlogs involving bios of living persons and textual copyright issues, which are areas requiring constant administrator attention for the protection both of the project and of third parties whose rights may be involved. Finally, although deletion-closing is not something I presently plan to make a specialty area, I have enough AfD and MfD experience to participate in the admin tasks there is well.
Although I've described a number of different areas in which I look forward to being involved if my candidacy is successful, I should also add that I plan to pace myself. Within the past couple of weeks, I've seen several highly-regarded admins either resign their sysop privileges or suggest they were thinking of doing so. Stress and burnout for administrators and other contributors is a major problem for the encyclopedia and the community. I plan to avoid that fate and to be here for the long haul, and I hope to work as an administrator to help maintain an environment where others feel the same way.
Finally, no matter what administrator functions I perform, I intend always to remain a content editor as well and to continue writing, editing, and updating articles.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Like virtually all editors, I came to Wikipedia originally to write articles. Coming to the project in 2006, I found myself envying those who were here a few years earlier and had the blank pages to work on. I would have loved to write the articles about the 60 Sherlock Holmes stories, or the 79 original Star Trek episodes, or the 14 operettas of Gilbert and Sullivan, but those niches were already taken. So instead, I drew on some real-world expertise and, as Sarah notes, decided to write some biographical pieces on U.S. federal judges. Some of these are still stubbish and pretty basic, but others contain more interesting nuggets of U.S. legal history well-worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia: see for example Martin Manton and Richard J. Daronco, or Peter J. Hamilton and Samuel Mandelbaum. (None of these is, or will be, a featured article, but some could have had DYK mentions if I'd thought to nominate them at the time.) I've also written a few other law-related articles, some of which Sarah has mentioned, and contributed to a variety of miscellaneous topics ranging from the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories to Arthur Yager to Nero Wolfe, the last of which I hope to help make an FA someday. My contributions list and watchlist, like my list of interests in general, can be described as somewhat eclectic.
As the months have passed, I've found myself spending more time in project space, though I've tried to do that in addition to, rather than instead of, my article-writing and editing. Relatively early in my Wiki-career, I did my best to assist in resolving a particularly contentious and difficult situation that was dividing the community, although unfortunately I don't see a lot of evidence at the moment that I succeeded. I hope that I've made positive contributions by participating in problem-solving on the noticeboards, and by workshopping a number of ArbCom cases, and by commenting on some RfCs. My focus has been on trying to resolve issues and find a positive way forward for everyone where that is reasonably possible.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: My mainspace editing has not involved me in any serious controversies that I can recall. I've had some of my edits to various articles reverted (ever since my first edit as an anon, which was reverted within 2 minutes of my posting it, but stuck when I posted again with more detail in the edit and the edit summary). One particular reversion of a copyedit I did, a reversion accompanied by an edit summary along the lines of "these changes aren't very good," still rankles a little, but I reread my edit again a few minutes ago and my critic was probably right. Candidly, some of my articles probably haven't had any readership at all yet, much less drawn readers interested enough in the contents to edit-war over them.
I've been involved in more controversy in Wikipedia space. Commenting on contentious discussions on the noticeboards, or on proposed and pending arbitration cases, by definition puts one into the middle of a dispute, although I've generally tried to be a problem-solver rather than a disputant. (As a particularly silly recent example, I think I may have kept the "Santa Claus Wheel War" out of arbitration. Don't even ask....)
I've certainly been called a few choice names, sometimes by soon-to-be-banned trolls or problem users, but a couple of times by experienced Wikipedians I respect. I won't pretend that doesn't sting, especially in a project where I felt at home from the outset of my involvement largely because of its ethos of civility and addressing the merits of issues without personal attacks. But given that in "real life" I'm a corporate litigation attorney in Manhattan, I have to say that I've been called worse.
General comments
  1. Strong Support One of the project's best and long overdue for the mop. If we had more admins like him, there would be a lot less wiki-drama on the project. 205.157.110.11 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support in lieu of co-nomination. I love this user. He will be the kind of thoughtful, mature, friendly, helpful sysop we need. I enjoy reading his opinions all over this project, and absolutely trust his judgment. Ms. Ewart covered the subject perfectly. I couldn't support more strongly. - crz crztalk 05:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cyde Weys 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Not fair voting before it opens, you cheaters. -Amarkov blahedits 05:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. That was a surprise, I thought you were one a long time ago! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. G.He 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, absolutely. I've never experienced so many edit conflicts because of people rushing to support an RfA. It bodes well. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support alphachimp 05:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. About time — Lost(talk) 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support need I say any more? James086Talk | Contribs 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support. No problems, excellent answers to questions. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, excellent editor. Seraphimblade 05:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Super-strong Support - unbelievable level of involvement. --BigDT 05:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes Naconkantari 06:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. About time Jaranda wat's sup 06:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Automated Support. Dragons flight is on vacation, but he thinks Brad is a great guy who deserves the mop. Of course, Brad is also an idiot who didn't realize he was already a better candidate than most three months ago. Not only that, but he has the nerve to run only after his would be nominator goes on vacation. Those evident errors in judgment aside, Brad has already been a calm, rational and articulate contributor to important discussions at ANI and many other places, and if he is going to act that much like a sensible admin, it is about time we make him one. DFBot 06:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I thought you already were an admin. -- Gogo Dodo 06:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. It's-about-time support Opabinia regalis 06:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Durin 06:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support My encounter with him, in which he presented impeccable evidence (as mentioned by Sarah [25]) and helped me with his feeback was entirely positive. — Sebastian 06:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Best candidate in a long time.--MONGO 06:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support absolutely -- Samir धर्म 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support (as nominator). Sarah 06:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Foregone conclusion support per nominator, Brad is the best-qualified admin candidate I have seen at RfA since I arrived :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support, he deserves it. --tjstrf talk 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Sure. Kusma (討論) 07:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support. I first noticed Newyorkbrad in the Konstable arbcom case, and I was most impressed with his comments there. If I have any criticism of him, it's that he failed to give me the opportunity to vote for him in last month's Arbcom election.-gadfium 07:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. "$RFA_CLICHE_1" --Slowking Man 07:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, long-expected nomination. MaxSem 08:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support If he's not promoted after this RFA, that would be a crime. Scobell302 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Had this on my watchlist. :) -- Renesis (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - RFA cliché number 1. Moreschi Deletion! 08:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Positively. Per everyone above. Grandmasterka 09:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support as per all above Bwithh 09:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Of course. One of our best. Gzkn 09:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong, strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,storon Support as someone who got refused earlier as a nominator. JorcogaYell! 09:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support -- thought he was one already! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support on a long anticipated nomination. Agent 86 10:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support – has very good judgment. ×Meegs 10:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support of course.... --Majorly 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Definitely yes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - excellent editor, will make excellent admin. The Rambling Man 11:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support not already? Agathoclea 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, wasn't he one? Terence Ong 12:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, unconditional. Never seen this guy make a bad move. Bubba hotep 12:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, not before time, has shown himself to be a true asset to Wikipedia. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Absodamnlutely. -- Kicking222 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. About bloody time. -- Steel 13:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Rettetast
  51. Support, an outstanding candidate. --Muchness 13:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. —S.D. ¿п? 13:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Suport, most definitely.--Isotope23 13:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Absolutely, very strong support, this user is perfect adminship candidate. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. SuportGreat editor.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, well goodness yes, he is a far more than capable candidate! -- Natalya 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Clearly. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support. Great candidate.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support how is it possible you are not an admin already? I'd just assumed you were. Its hard to imagine a better candidate. Gwernol 15:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support without doubt. Trebor 15:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Aye. – Chacor 15:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. What do you mean you're not already an admin? --InShaneee 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support. I smell a new top candidate for WP:100#Requests for adminship:. :) --Conti|✉ 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He followed the route to get to an all time record that I mentioned here. NoSeptember 16:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Terrific candidate. Squeezeweasel 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support Hell yes! --Húsönd 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Happy to support this application - an excellent editor! (aeropagitica) 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support It's such an over used cliche, so I'm sorry. I thought he was one. He should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.bradbury (talk • contribs)
    Comment sorry - I apologise for not signing. I had a bad day.--Anthony.bradbury 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong Support Already helps out with everything admin-ly, could definately help further and is a great and trusted editor. Cbrown1023 16:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support. Is already an admin in all but the tools. Should have had an RfA months ago. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support. I have been waiting for this, and I am sure many others have been as well. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. I have always thought of Newyorkbrad as an admin :). Seriously the answers to the questions are excellent and as an admin he will do us proud! Arjun 17:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Fantastic answers, great contribs, loads of experience...it's hard to believe he didn't already have a mop. Ganfon 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Mackensen (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. A voice of reason and moderation in many heated debates and conflicts, especially on AN/I and RFAR. You'll make a fine admin. WP:PERF aside, please don't give everybody who supports you a thankyou note - you might crash a server or something. Picaroon 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Pile-on support. A welcome source of insights and clear thinking, as so many people have mentioned above. FreplySpang 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. So much support that I had this page on my watchlist before it was created. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. As much as I hate to pile-on, I'm gunna go ahead and support this as well. Friday (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support I know i've seen him around. Dejavu should count for something. Just H 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support A great choice! -- Avi 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose for not going through RfA earlier Strong pile-on support per everyone else. --210physicq (c) 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Let's just say that, for obvious reasons, this isn't really one of my hardest choices ever on Wikipedia. Sandstein 19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong Support Definitely one of the best candidates we've seen in a while. Great catch Sarah! Impressive answers. ← ANAS Talk? 19:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Per the many reasons above. SuperMachine 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. A voice of reason with plenty of relevant experience--ragesoss 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I thought Newyorkbrad was an admin already! When I get to that stage, I know they should be "promoted". Yuser31415 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Good user whom I trust with adminship.--Jersey Devil 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Good user; I've seen him do fine work in arbitration cases, and I trust his judgment. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong Support Already thought he was an admin. He definately deserves it. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 21:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Great editor who's likely to be an even better admin. AuburnPilottalk 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support All right NYB! Get on it! Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support An admin needs to be a person you can disagree with and still be productive, NYB qualifies in that regard. Experience is enough, would be a benefit. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Aww...I wanted to co-nom. =( Nishkid64 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Singopo 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Khoikhoi 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Huzzah. Snoutwood 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Choess 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. –Llama mansign here 01:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, of course. A great editor -- Selmo (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support I could not believe it when I saw NYBrad's name at the top of RfA at last. Prodego talk 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Based on nom alone I support, though it is not the only reason why. To be honest I've very little interaction with Newyorkbrad, if any at all, mostly just from reading discussions around the Wiki. NYB always seems to comment with common sense, and with that applied to the extra tools, I think he'll make a fantastic admin. KOS | talk 02:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - I've encountered this candidate many times over the past few months, and found his contributions to discussions to be excellent. He would use the tools well in my opinion, and can be trusted with them. He also showed admirable restraint under pressure to accept earlier offers of nominations. Carcharoth 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Michael Snow 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Excellent candidate; glad to add to the landslide in this case, as the candidate deserves overwhelming support! :) Xoloz 03:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. I've seen him all over Wikipedia doing good work. Thought he already was one? Dragomiloff 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. Michael 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Holy Shit. I just have to say, that's A LOT of support so quickly!!! Imageboy1 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Duh. - Merzbow 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. A voice of moderation and reason. Responsible handling of the tools more than likely. Happy to support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Pile it on Another 100 Wikipedians support vote... --Dweller 09:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 10:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support, absolutely. Deizio talk 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support a truly excellent candidate. What took so long?--Kchase T 11:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. A strong 1 - Absolutely deserved. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 12:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. semper fi — Moe 13:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Awwww, I wanted to be the #100... >Radiant< 14:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Good contributions, proud to support this great candidate. Hello32020 15:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support of course. This is one of the easiest calls I've made in recent times. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - because of what I could understand in their response to question one, was really high quality. But in all seriousness, what this person has done is incredible. --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 15:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Go rogue and I track you down, though. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support absolutely excellent contributor.-- danntm T C 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Strong Support per nom, crz, etc. Eluchil404 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support as he will (undoubtedly) use his legal expertise and experience in executing his responsibilities as admin. − Twas Now 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Strong support. the wub "?!" 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. SupportAminz 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Strongest ever support - quite possibly the best mediator on Wikipedia and a phenomenal editor as well. —Mets501 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support It will change you. --Docg 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Weak support. I'm never crazy abotu more user talk edits then mainspace, but I'd also be crazy to oppose.--Wizardman 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Appears rational and fair. -Will Beback · † · 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Strong Support. To quote someone else from another Request for Adminship (dunno which one), why the heck isn't he an admin already? Also, can we invoke the WP:SNOW clause here? Look at the vote majority for my reasoning. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. hmm. opposite of WP:SNOW here? I mean, nearly 40kb support, let's end this before we get WP:200 or something. --tennisman sign here! 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. In my time here I've seen this user pop up all over the project. Newyorkbrad is a very involved editor who consistently exercises good judgment and sound reasoning. My pleasure to support. – Lantoka (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. I've liked what I've seen so far. Musical Linguist 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Wow. Amazing. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Perfunctory support, because although I'm impressed by this editor, he's got quite a lot of support already. DS 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support per all above. --Aude (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Carpet9 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Patstuarttalk|edits 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support I thought I thaw a puddy-cat... I think I'm drunk. Rama's arrow 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support DVD+ R/W 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Better mainspace record than I had (or have). Thatcher131 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Joe I 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support -- as has been said elsewhere, provides a much needed "voice of reason", and is level headed. - Longhair\talk 08:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support -- I don't usually vote in RFA's when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. However, I'm making an exception in this case because I want to add my support because I have seen NewYorkBrad's level-headed "voice of reason" in action in the Carnildo RFA and Giano II RFARB. He'll be a great admin and should be a bureaucrat too. --Richard 08:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Not that much needs to be said that hasn't, but NewYorkBrad's balanced edits are welcome, and I really think NewYorkBrad has a good handle on what to do with admin powers. --Matthew 08:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Strong Support --thunderboltz(Deepu) 09:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Absolutely. Seen nothing but levelheadedness and reason out of this user. — TKD::Talk 10:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Unnecessary Support. Will make a good editor. yandman 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Strong Support. Oh, yes, yes. Oh, yes, yes. Thincat 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 12:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. A valuable and dedicated Wikipedian both online and IRL. Kafziel Talk 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. While I normally resist "pile on", this seems a worthy exception. Duja► 14:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support missed getting in on this early... I don't always agree with him but he will add immense value. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. Wikipedia, unlike the rest of the world, needs more lawyers. Proto::► 15:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Strong support - Just adding a little snow to the snowball.:)NinaOdell | Talk 16:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support A highly familiar name around Wikipedia. A very good candidate, AFAIK the first one I've ever voted for (I thought he was an admin already). --Folantin 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. Looks like a good candidate. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support; another one I trust; adding to the pile-on. Nice work so far and please keep it up as an admin. Antandrus (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support, as someone who offered to nominate Brad months ago. I've been consistently impressed with his level of discourse, and to learn that he's a lawyer does not surprise me in the slightest. Would definitely be an asset to the project with more tools at his disposal. To paraphrase what he told me back in November, No one racks up a 1XX-X !vote count who doesn't thoroughly deserve it. -- nae'blis 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support as he'll no doubt use the tools to further the goals of the Brad-prefix cabal for awesome. --Brad Beattie (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support. Top quality editor who will be a top quality admin. -- Satori Son 18:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Strong Support Great editor, I have continued to be impressed by Brad in his work here, and I'm sure he'll make a fantastic admin. Best of luck :) Thε Halo Θ 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Redundant Hell yeah support. --Spartaz 19:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support, he has been the "voice of reason" in several policy discussions that I have been involved in. I thought he was an admin already! 6SJ7 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. SupportI honestly thought this had been done already.--CJ King 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support It's a pleasure to support you! You'll make a fine admin! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support obviously. Bucketsofg 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support Yes Sir! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support - not likely to misuse tools. Badbilltucker 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Bradsupport 2 ~ trialsanderrors 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support for great justice. Yanksox 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support All your mops belong to us. Georgewilliamherbert 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support I've come across him a few times, and he seems reasonable and level headed. ATren 02:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Dedicated and level-headed. --Srikeit 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Strong support, a very worthwhile candidate. ViridaeTalk 11:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Strong support - Aksi_great (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support Impressive contributions. We could always use more lawyers with mops :) Fvasconcellos 12:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support of course. A voice of reason on WP:AN and WP:AN/I for the last few months. Fram 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support. The only time I have ever questioned Brad's judgment was when he refused to run for ArbComm.  ;-) He's so effective as a non-admin that I have a slight concern that he should spend more time doing what he is already doing and not too much time mopping, but I am absolutely sure he will mop well. TheronJ 15:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support Have seen a number of positive contributions from this user, and no negative ones. IronDuke 16:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support -- obviously a trusted user. Jkelly 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support - with Newyorkbrad's well-rounded experience and thoughtfulness, he will make an outstanding admin and presently deserves a good run at WP:200. -- Jreferee 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support, very good editor. --Carioca 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support. SynergeticMaggot 22:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support. Hbdragon88 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Useful and thoughtful contributions at deletion review. GRBerry 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support level headed user, would make a great admin.--KonstableSock 03:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support, less mainstream contributions than my standards but what the heck, he is a good guy. Lets see another 200s Alex Bakharev 06:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support. Kind of pointless piling on, but can't let this go by without registering a !vote. The tools were made for this guy. Rockpocket 09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support In under 200 with the "Thought he was one." Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support. Brad brings polite well reasoned opinions to all debates he participates in. Occasionally a bit too bogged down in policy/process, though in the best possible way - if _all_ admins were like Brad, WP might be overly legalistic, but to get _more_ admins like Brad is a good thing. Martinp 12:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support per excellent work at AFD and DRV. Every reason to believe Brad would make an excellent admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  196. SupportWill be a great admin. •CHILLDOUBT• 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  197. I generally don't voice an opinion on an Rfa unless my !vote will be of some effect; however I am breaking that practice now: of course I strongly support Newyorkbrad for adminship, or I would not be supporting - but the reason I'm adding my name to this Rfa is quite frankly the shallow reason that it looks like a possible candidate for breaking 200 supports, and I cannot think of anyone better deserving of having that little feather in his cap. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Hiding Talk 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Strong Support. I agree with the comments made in the nomination. Newyorkbrad is an excellent editor and will be an asset as an administrator. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support Pile-on time! I like what I've seen of his work. -- Donald Albury 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Strong support I waited this whole freakin' time to offer WP:200 support just to get edged out by Dalbury?? It's probably time to ban him in order that we might strike out his vote... Joe 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Strong support I'm shocked that he wasn't already an admin. I've always found him an excellent editor with a cool head and strong dispute resolution skills. The only problem I foresee is that he's gonna have a tough time thanking all these support voters! I support this RfA without hesitation. Enjoy the mop. --TheOtherBob 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Wait-wait-I-can't-believe-I'm-so-late-to-this-RfA-support. Extraordinarily helpful, knowledgeable, and coolheaded. —bbatsell ¿? 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. El_C 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Thought he already was one. 1ne 04:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. I thought he was, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support for being an intelligent, mature lawyer-man who is actually paid (in the real world) to deal with people; he should do fine here. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support. One of those you just assumed was already an admin. --StuffOfInterest 12:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Wanted to be a co-nom/Why didn't anyone tell me Support. I asked him way back in October [26] - but I guess that was lost in the crowd. Ah, I guess that's how you find out who your real friends are! :-) Where he really belongs is the arbcom, frankly, but this is an important step there. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support -- DS1953 talk 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  212. [Insert expletive here] yeah! support --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support per nom. --A. B. (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Pro forma support. This editor obviously doesn't need an additional support !vote, but I would be utterly remiss if I didn't weigh in here. Well done! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support I think we could use more help with mopping, I'll give my support. Gryffindor 12:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support per nom. Modernist 13:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Pile-on support. A worthy addition to the cadre of admins. Coemgenus 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Wikibreak support. —Doug Bell talk 18:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support always a level head, open to debate and a thoughtful force. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support Petr K 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support - closing day support because I like a big number next to my name ;). NoSeptember 00:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  222. Support. Ridiculous pileon, I know, but I really like what I have seen of this user's work. --Danaman5 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support - PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support because Aranda made me do it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Wholly unnecessary, I know, but I cannot believe I hadn't seen this before. I cannot just stand by without supporting an excellent, calm, reasonable user with an admirable, almost enviable, knowledge of policy. Strong support. Titoxd(?!?) 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Despite this user being a voice of reason in many backroom debates, having more wikipedia namespace edits than mainspace edits seems lopsided to me. Catchpole 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting. It's not particularly lopsided (1375 mainspace against 1727, plus 1466 edits to User talk); to me it suggests balance. Mackensen (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Percentage-wise, out of the total sum of those three numbers above, the article namespace vs project namespace vs user talk appear as 30%, 38%, 32%. That's almost as balanced as one can get I'd say, unless you try to balance things on purpose.
    Besides, this discussion is not about one's editorial contributions, but rather about whether the given candidate can be trusted with the janitorial tools, so a slight bias towards the Wikipedia namespace would actually be a good sign I would think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incredible to oppose with such a balanced scorecard, worth another look? The Rambling Man 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know your all a little miffed at this !vote but replying to individuals opposing only creates bad feeling on any RfA and the last thing we want is pile on opposes relating to the conduct of supporters here. Adminship is no big deal, so let's stop with making !voters feel it is in the way we respond to Supports and Opposes when they go against our thoughts. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A less extreme version of my editcount, which is is in turn a less extreme version of Essjay's. ;-) Prodego talk 01:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, I believe that admin's post counts skew projectward as a part of the nature of their work, after they get the mop and bucket. If you're speaking of your edit count at the time you were adminned, I apologize for the confusion. -- nae'blis 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose A contributor since July 2006, doesn't seem like enough time for me to evaluate someone getting the tools. People change with seasons and I think more time is needed. Alan.ca 08:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You honestly think that six months isn't long enough? Geez. How long are you looking for? --Cyde Weys 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Four seasons, I assume? (Which around here could be about 20 minutes.) Alai 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a reasonably valid reason if this were a teenager we were talking about, but adults rarely have major personality shifts. --tjstrf talk 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see a year of service as a minimum. Adults do vary with the seasons, in fact, there is a mental illness known as seasonal affective disorder. I'm not suggesting this candidate suffers from a mental illness, but that I would feel more comfortable if he had been involved here for at least one year. Alan.ca 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alan, a minimum of one year is a rather curious arbitrary requirement given that less than a month ago you nominated a candidate who had only been editing regularly for about three months. Consistency perhaps? Also, I think it is inappropriate to be alluding to mental health issues in the middle of someone's RfA. Sarah 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the previous RFA I had found the editor helpful and their review seemed to be well handled. However, during the RFA for Seraphimblade, I came to realize that it was too soon and he withdrew his RFA. The mental health point was made to illustrate that it takes time to get to know a person. Alan.ca 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, although I voted "support", I just want to let you know that I respect your decision to do the inconvenient thing to vote your conscience. I particularly like your reply to Sarah's question which shows that you, too, give some thought to self-improvement. — Sebastian 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral for now. I'm actually not crazy about the balanse between main, wiki, and user talk. The fact that the user talk edits are higher thanthe mainspace actually keeps me from supporting. I'll look at your RfA more closely to see if I can change my mind.--Wizardman 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC) And I did change my vote even though that's not the best kind of edit count imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardman (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category