Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Barkeep49
|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
Terrific candidate[edit]
Barkeep49 is one of the Wikipedians that I admire most on this project. He is responsible, thoughtful, and careful. He handles difficult situations with aplomb and willingly does the right thing over the easy thing every time. He hears out folks who disagree with him, and when he realizes he's wrong he changes his mind immediately. He is a skilled mediator; when you talk with him he makes you feel heard. He never speaks before thinking and that's why I trust him implicitly. I have nothing but good things to say about him, and I hope everyone joins me in voting for him. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment. I hope too that others will join me in voting for Barkeep49. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Last year, I was one of the people who persuaded Barkeep49 to run; I thought they were a very good candidate then, and after a year of further admin experience, I am even more convinced of it. Risker (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Same! I was watching the candidate page hoping for Barkeep to show up again and I was very happy to see his name finally on the table of contents. He is an excellent admin who lives up to everything I said about him at his RfA, and I know he'll be a dedicated, level-headed arb. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I put a Costco Bear in barkeep49's sandbox and he deleted the sandbox! That's the only reason I can think of for someone not supporting his candidacy. He would be an excellent arbitrator. Natureium (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Very much agree with the above. Barkeep has been involved with plenty of all of the better things on-wiki, including last year's GAN backlog drive. Someone I have no issues with going to over difficult topics, I have no worries that they would be great at ArbCom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Last year I didn't vote for Barkeep49 simply because of recent uptake of sysop mop; and too many new things at once could be overload in my possibly incorrect view. That said Barkeep49 has certainly had his sleeves rolled up and got through some stuff this year. While I've been quite a pain to Barkeep49 at times in 2020 will be very pleased to support Barkeep49 at ARBCOM this year. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Natureium, please note that this unfortunate decision has since been remedied (it's not a Costco bear, but still!) Perryprog (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
As above, Barkeep is an absolute joy to have around. Every time he participates in a discussion, it's guaranteed to be a thoughtful, considered, and valuable contribution. Never an overharsh word, he's got a perfect temperament for ArbCom. He's rapidly benefited every area he's worked in, and embarrasses amazes me with how quick he learns. He's just as quick to recognize, apologize, and learn from a mistake. Ideal Committee member. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt I can convince anyone not convinced by the above, but while I knew and support Barkeep49 last time, I've actively worked with BK49 this year and think they would be an excellent candidate. They can cut through to the core of an issue, offset some of the "hanging judge" issues we sometimes see with arbcom, and are firmly against both poorly behaving admins and trying to increase the size of the mop corps - as such, I think they should be acceptable to both those concerned by inactive and overactive ACs. Their general achivements are already well covered so I won't re-cover them, but to say they also have an excellent sense of humour that is needed in these trying times. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Question from Gerda[edit]
- Congrats to you for not having wasted time before 2019 ;) - Kubrick had nothing to do with the 2013 case which was (or should have been) about the implementation of {{infobox opera}} vs. a side navbox (against admittedly massive opposition then - look for "17.000 words"). The case was not successful (imho), but common sense was, look. I wonder what feelings have to do with the topic. The socalled idiotbox is meant to provide easy access to idiots also (and vision-impaired, and readers not so good in English), - why not do that? Some argue as if it should replace the lead. When Voce made the comment (to one from the massive opposition, btw) Cassianto was away (June 2018 to January 2019). He always returned, and I miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
An easy choice[edit]
Having gotten to know Barkeep49 fairly well, it's completely obvious to me that he is going to be an outstanding addition to the arbitration team. Over the past couple of years, we've all watched him become one of the most trusted and respected voices on the project. He is a skilled mediator, a brilliant evaluator of consensus, and a natural leader. I don't know that I know of anyone who cares about the project more than he does, and I'm thrilled that he's decided to run for the committee. This is an easy choice for me. CThomas3 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- +1 +1 +1 Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 02:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Well deserve[edit]
I have nothing much to express toward this user, but he will surely do good as far as what I have seen with him is concern. An@ss_koko(speak up) 10:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Endorse[edit]
I left Barkeep a good luck message on their talkpage: [1], and they have asked me to comment here. I feel that Barkeep49 would be an asset to the Committee if elected, as they have demonstrated a thoughtful and balanced approach in their dealings around the project. SilkTork (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)