Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barkeep49

Barkeep49

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (49/0/1); Scheduled to end 12:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) – I am very pleased to nominate Barkeep49 for the admin corps. I approached him about this some time ago and he now feels ready. I first noticed him because of his good collaboration with others and his insightful comments in discussions. So I checked him out and found he meets all of my qualifications for RFA. He has 14,000+ edits and has created several hundred article pages, including multiple Good Articles (19 20 of them last time I looked). He also reviews GA nominations, where he is a strong collaborator and is currently organizing a GA backlog drive. He does important work at New Page Patrol and even hosts a “school” to mentor and teach others about NPP. He is an OTRS volunteer. He understands deletion (390 well-argued !votes at AfD with 87% accuracy) and has a good familiarity with Wikipedia policies generally. I trust his judgment and believe he will be an asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I am honored to co-nominate Barkeep49 for adminship. Melanie has covered his achievements pretty comprehensively in her statement, so I want to focus on his character. I first encountered Barkeep49 last year when he created Ecclesia Athletic Association, an article which had been on my to-create list for some time. He was kind enough to ask if I minded before he went ahead with it, which tells you a lot about his willingness to go the extra mile to work collaboratively with others. In further discussions about the article and its content, I found him polite, patient, and always willing to talk things out. This is a theme that runs through all of Barkeep49's interactions, on-wiki and elsewhere. He is a frequent participant at AfD, where his comments are always positive, even when people disagree with him. He takes constructive criticism well and is willing to discuss his reasoning for doing things, both of which are extremely important attributes for an administrator to have. His work teaching and guiding newer users at his NPP school clearly indicates a willingness to support the project not just by creating content, but by patiently building relationships and passing on important skills. In short, Barkeep49 is exactly the kind of person who should be trusted to have the admin tools. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. I also certify I have never edited for pay and have no alternative accounts. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I try to only request tools which I think I can use and have a need for, which is why I've never bothered to request rollback. I am requesting this because I think I can make use of it to benefit the encyclopedia and our readers. However, it won’t necessarily be in huge ways, instead my plan is to do administrative work here and there as I come across it naturally doing my Wiki work.

For instance, I might close a RfC or other discussion that I wouldn’t have otherwise. There are some OTRS tickets where the toolset would be useful, though I have no immediate plans to handle UTRS requests. The most frequent way I anticipate using the toolset is around New Page Patrol (NPP) related activities. This includes being able to view deleted content as I do NPP which will help me to patrol some articles now which I cannot otherwise. Being able to view deleted content might also let me participate in some DRV discussions I wouldn’t otherwise. I plan to respond to some new page reviewer requests, which during some periods can sit there for a few days, and also requests for autopatrol. I will use Mass Message to send newsletters - something I’ve had to request on a few occasions. I hope in these ways that I can be a net positive to the community as an administrator.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: At heart I like to think of myself as a content creator. The two articles I am most proud of working on are The Hate U Give and Ecclesia Athletic Association. I am proud of them because I think I did some of my best research and writing with those two. It’s also probably not a coincidence that they’re articles I had the chance to work collaboratively with another editor in crafting. I am also proud of the work that I’ve done at my New Page Patrol School where I have hopefully increased the knowledge and skills of the editors who I’ve worked with there - regardless of whether they ultimately got the NPP perm or not.

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: While I don’t seek conflict, I am also not conflict averse. So by and large if I get into a disagreement with someone - and I have - I try to avoid letting it cause me stress. Which isn’t to say that I don’t experience other related emotions like frustration while editing Wikipedia. When that happens I try to act like the adult I am. So I might walk away, either temporarily to compose myself or permanently. I might seek the counsel of another editor. I might type out a reply and let it sit there until I’m less emotionally charged. I also work hard to try and understand the point of view of the person I’m in conflict with knowing sometimes I’m going to be right, sometimes they’re going to be right, and sometimes both of us are right. If it is an attack against me often times I can assume the editor is just having a bad moment and let whatever the attack is slide off me while staying focused on the issue. From there I try to find a way towards consensus.

An example of when I’ve felt frustration is at DYK where I think there are any number of unwritten rules and norms. When I’ve come up against these I have stood my ground where I thought it right (on content) but largely tried to respect editors who are more experienced than me by deferring to their judgement and to try and learn from them, both in the moment and through conversation later. In the end I have found that I don’t get as much joy from DYK as I do from other processes so I simply choose to participate there less than some other project content areas.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Reyk

4. In your opinion, what is the most important of Wikipedia's policies and why?

A: I don't want to be an admin that approaches issues with one policy as foremost. Obviously some policies, like BLP or Child Protection are weightier than others like Article Titles but all of these have an important place in my mindset as I do my work on Wikipedia. So when I'm writing content I keep my eye firmly focused on writing neutral, verifiable, summarized, content. When I'm discussing something with others I work hard to honor civility and always show good faith. I would like to hope that one of my strengths as an editor is knowing our various policies, including what I don’t know about policies and need to reference, and then keeping them in mind in proper balance throughout my work in building a collaborative encyclopedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

5. What would you say your two worst/least competent areas are? Do you edit in them?

A:There are a whole bunch of technical areas where I am wholly inadequate. I knew, for instance, that there are LUA modules which interact with templates somehow. What they did I could not have told you before reading WP:LUA while writing my answer to this question. Now I know that it’s a scripting language that runs some of the templates I’ve had occasion to look at here and there (mostly while trying to create and improve this). Yesterday I had a need to create a template so there I was stumbling my way around trying to make Template:Gacheck do what I wanted. In the end I got there thanks to reading the help articles, and importantly being able to ask an experienced editor for assistance with one issue I just couldn't crack on my own. But there's definitely a reason why I've only attempted to create new templates so far and not edit existing ones - with something new if I mess it up a little it'll be OK. So I do know my limitations and would not be afraid to ask for help before doing anything as an admin which is at the boundaries of my knowledge. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Lourdes

6. Would you say that the techniques of redirecting and draftify may result in sidestepping speedy/Prod or AfD deletion discussions? e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]...and many more

A: Draftifying should not be used to sidestep AfD. As I've said as much in advice, "Draftify can be a tempting "easy way out" to avoid deletion decisions for the less experienced patroller". As for the redirects I view it as an alternative to deletion and when reverted will either leave it for a fresh opinion from another NPP or take it to deletion. In both these cases it is a kind of speedy deletion. Crucially, however, it's one that preserves the content, which in the case of my dratftiies is because I hope that they do turn into articles ready for mainspace (which is different than an article without issues). If you want me to discuss one of those specific diffs know I am happy to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from John M Wolfson

7. What is your biggest regret on Wikipedia, and how have you learned from it?

A:I try to do a lot of thinking before acting in life and the asynchronous nature of Wikipedia only makes this easier. It’s why my responses to some questions are not as succinct as some other editors who’ve gone through this process. So that’s prelude to my saying that I don’t really have a list of regrets. I have mistakes I’ve made that I’ve learned from and tried to never repeat. Certainly. Some of those mistakes if shown I’d wince at - such as, to tie it into Lordes' question, some draftifies I did when I first got the NPP perm. But I try to act deliberately enough so as to not set myself up for regret. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from John M Wolfson

8. Someone adds something silly to a living person's article (say, for example, that "Jimmy Wales comes from Wales.") on April 1, and keeps re-adding it when challenged, citing the date. What policies apply in this situation, and in particular what excuse is not applicable?

A: Our April Fools info page makes clear that jokes are to be kept out of mainspace. So our normal policies around verifiability and Biographies of Living people apply and deliberately adding incorrect information is vandalism. An editor who continues to add this information could be edit warring in addition. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Pudeo

9. You were inactive from April 2010 to March 2018, and before that semi-inactive from July 2005 to December 2009. Why did you stop editing Wikipedia and what made you come back? I suppose such long inactivity periods are rather unusual, atleast among wikipedioholics. --Pudeo (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A: So the starts to my Wikipedia active periods coincided with when I had extra time at work and wanted to do something productive. I'm definitely busier now at work than I was when I came back in March 2018 but am invested enough at this point that I'm editing beyond just extra time at work. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Wyatt2049

10How do you plan to use some of the other Admin tools such as protect, and Block, and how often do you plan to do these things? --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 16:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A I don't have plans to use protect - counter-vandalism is not a task I've done beyond what pops-up on my watchlist. I would want experience as an editor to make sure I understand the norms and conventions in the area, not just repeating what our policies say, before I would jump into using the toolset. As for block, I don't know how much I would end up using it. I will default back to my answer to question 1 and say my plan is to do administrative work here and there as I come across it naturally doing my Wiki work. There have times in the past where I've reported something on IRC which I would now handle myself. I wish I could give you a more definitive answer but I don't honestly know and don't want to mislead either way. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Barkeep49: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Barkeep49 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

1. I have seen the candidate a lot at NPP, good work. Do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support - An excellent editor I've come across before, usually at AfD. No idea how he snuck in an extra 19 Good Articles than I have in the same number of edits, but it's a great sign of his energy right there! ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support From what I have seen, I think this user will be a great admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Support – Barkeep49 is a fine editor, and has everything it takes to be a great admin. I endorse the nomination statements wholeheartedly. – bradv🍁 12:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Well-intentioned editor who has spent significant time and energy helping others become more competent. Clear net positive to the project. --valereee (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Support I have nothing but good things to say about Barkeep's work at NPP and in discussion closures, and am of the opinion that he has precisely the correct attitude and temperament that we need in our admins. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Support: I've seen the user around a fair bit and sometimes disagreed with them but have found their demeanour to be calm, collected and civil. I have no issues with closures of theirs which I have seen, so I trust them on RfCs. The user has plenty of experience in content creation, NPP and AfD so I can trust them with the tools in those areas. Overall, the user is civil, responsible and has a need for tools. — Bilorv (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Strong support: for their work with NPP. I also find them to be a very helpful editor and think they do a great job with children's literature on WP. Enwebb (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Support very competent user, very active at NPP, has my full trust they will use the admin tools wisely. Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
10. Support I took some time looking over their edit history and participation in various Wikispaces and they seem like an ideal candidate. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
11. Support. Nothing that indicates to me that they are likely to abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
12. Support - Great editor, with use of the tools, and clearly a great content creator. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
13. Support precious "radiant child" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
14. Support Does good work and knows what they are doing. Won't be malicious with the mop. Thanks, L3X1 (talk
15. Support A good addition to the cleaning crew. FitIndia ^{✉ बात} 14:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
16. Support The first interaction I remember having with Barkeep was when he was asking for help learning to do something new. That was a great first impression, and has been representative of what I've seen of him since. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
17. Support good article work and good interactions with this editor. Will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
18. Support I've known the editor for a long while. Worth a shot. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
19. Support. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
20. Support. I have come across this editor several times in the course of content creation and GA assessment. They have been friendly, open, cooperative, and accepting of both criticism and alternate ways of approaching things. I am happy to accept others judgement re technical skills, I am already more than satisfied that they have the character to trusted with the tools. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
21. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
22. Support good work on closing RfCs, judgment is trusted. --Pudeo (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
23. Support on tenure, AfD stats, article creation experience, and reasonable answers to questions. Chetsford (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
24. Support - good stats and experience, not a jerk. --MrClog (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
25. Support. Solid candidate. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 14:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
26. support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
27. Support – Yes, definitely. – Levivich 15:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
28. Support Will be fine. Fish+Karate 15:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
29. Support Competent, trusted user; giving him the tools will definitely be a net positive. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
30. Support Has a clue, answer to Q8 was exactly what I wanted to hear and Q7 was fine. Also no big deal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
31. Support Have interacted with user a couple of times, I have faith he is a talented content editor and dedicated Wikipedian. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
32. Support Solid and experienced; definitely a net positive. ComplexRational (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
33. Support Great experience working with this editor. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
34. Support as nom. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
35. Strong support level headed, won't break things. Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
36. Trusted, competent ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
37. Support An editor with very good NPP experience, AfD experience, and content creation experience. On top of that, has good character. I do not see why I would !vote anything other than support. William2001^(talk) 16:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
38. Support No reason to oppose, and many to support. This candidate would definitely be able to better assist the growth of our encyclopedia with adminy bits. Vermont (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
39. Support Looks like a really good editor to me TurboSonic (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
40. Support - Very easy support. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
41. Support - I have a good impression of the editor. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
42. Support - On the reputation of the nom. SlightSmile 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
43. Support - have interacted with this editor on a number of occasions in notability and other discussions, and have been impressed with their arguments and demeanor. Fully support. CThomas³ (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
44. Support My limited contact with Barkeep has been entirely positive, and I expect him to make good use of the tools. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
45. Support - Trusted and competent editor, Easy support. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
46. Support Plenty of good work in several areas. It's unusual to see templates and modules discussed at RfA, but Barkeep49's answer to Q.5 convinces me that they will use the tools within the limits that they are comfortable with. And that's all the community could ask for. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
47. Support – I've worked alongside Barkeep on #wikipedia-en-help quite a bit and have complete confidence in them being given a mop. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
48. Support - I've had several interactions with Barkeep49 over the years and they've always struck me as a good editor. I'm sure that we've probably disagreed on things as editors are wont to do on this site, but I can't for the life of me remember any that would make me doubt that they'd make for a fine admin. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
49. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - I think that Barkeep49 is a good user. I think that he would make a good admin. One problem I have is he might not do the protection as often as I would like to see. Still, He is a good canidate. However, I think that slightly more experience may be needed. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 17:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• I purged the cache couole of times from one device, then checked from other device; but the tally still says (7/0/0). As of this comment it is (31/0/0). I also checked support section, everything looks fine. Any thoughts? Pinging Xaosflux, and Primefac. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The tally at WP:Requests for adminship is closer, but it currently says 30 while the actual tally is 34. Definitely weird. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC) P.S. I wonder if it relates to the deletion of the sock vote under "oppose"?[19] That made the count into 7/0/0 and that's where it is stuck. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

And there you have it. Sorry about that  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)