Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barkeep49

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

Barkeep49

Final: (233/5/3) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 12:11, 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

10. How 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)

Additional question from Andrew D.

11. What is the origin or meaning of your account name, please?

A I made it for another place, which no longer exists, and where it made much more sense in context. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Ejgreen77

12. Do you believe that individual notability guidelines (like WP:NSPORTS) can override or trump Wikipedia's general notability guideline? I'm thinking of your !vote from this February 2019 AfD in particular.

AShort answer is no except where the SNG explicitly says it can (most prominently NPROF). Longer answer is that I worry about the size of Wikipedia relative the the number of editor hours we have to support it. As such I take seriously our real life impact and worry about, in computer speak, our attack surface. It would break my heart if subtle uncaught vandalism impacted the ability of someone to get a job that they need because they're 30 and their career earnings mean that they'll need to keep working. At OTRS I see the effects our articles can have on real people for whom Wikipedia dominates their search results. So yes I am skeptical that in today's uber-information environment that a first round pick who got coverage simply because they're a first round pick in 2016 is notable in a permanent life-long sense. I'm skeptical enough that I wrote an essay about it. So far my thinking hasn't carried the day in all situations. So be it and recognizing this, I do not go out looking for these players to nominate them for deletion. I will, however, continue giving my reasoning, as I've done here, in the hopes that in the long run I may persuade others to my position. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Your position in that AfD (and in the essay you wrote) seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ Q3, which specifically states that: if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia. How do you reconcile this? Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I contend that "Hey look at this first round pick the team we cover just drafted" doesn't actually meet GNG. I explain that in more detail in this section why I would suggest that. I also recognize that this is not the prevailing theory. So if I am fortunate enough to pass this RfA, I would continue to participate in some AfDs as a participant where I think I have value to add. I would act in administrator capacity for discussions where I think I can accurately and fairly implement the consensus arrived at by those participants and thus add value in that way. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Liz

13. If I can press you about Question #3, which I find to be a very important question, can you be specific and dig up a few examples of how you have handled conflict or confrontation? They shouldn't be diffs of a particular edit you made but a link to a user talk page discussion or noticeboard discussion that you participated in. Your pick!

Everything you said in your answer sounds good but it is more helpful to be able to see how you actually dealt with disagreement. I'm pushing this because when you're an admin, every decision you make can be challenged and I find handling criticism happens on a regular basis. Thank you.

A: I would, to continue an unexpected theme, suggest my participation in the discussion around the football SNG can show how I act in the midst of editors with a variety of viewpoints coming together to look at an issue. Here is an example of an editor coming to me upset because of a note I left them about an article they'd created. Those are two recent examples. If that's not hitting the right element of what you were hoping to see please let me know so I can provide an example that will give you the information you need to make a decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Mz7

14. Do you think you could elaborate on the parts of the toolset you would most likely use? For example, in Q1 you mentioned WP:OTRS and WP:NPP—which specific features of the administrator toolset would supplement your work in these (and other) areas?

A: I appreciate the chance to write on this point as I understand it to be a legitimate concern for some editors. I have heard it said that there are three essential elements of the administrator’s toolset: protection, blocking, and deletion. Working backwards from least to most likely to use, and only discussing the near to medium term, I would use protect the least. I have already explained why in question 310. There are times when the correct way to stop disruption is to block editors and so rather than resorting to IRC to try and get that done I would be able to do it myself. I would also respond to some of the clear cases that are reported at ANI (though admittedly I don’t read that as frequently as AN). I would use the delete tool the most. I am active in venues like AfD and DRV and there are definitely some deletion discussions I read but don’t participate in. I would flag those and return to them to assess consensus. Sometimes that consensus will be to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Senegambianamestudy

15 Africa is more affected by WP:BIAS. Yet, many of our great Black or African editors have left or are leaving the project. Why do you think that is, and what part do you think you can play to ensure we retain our good Black or African editors? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A: If only I could fix English Wikipedia's demographics problem (and of editor attrition). It is not a coincidence that a majority of my best content, including the articles I highlighted here, are about or by women or people of color (or women of color). And to address something that was written about in the opposes, I think that while certain topic areas have saturated the low hanging fruit other areas remain ripe for expansion. My area of Children's literature is one, but in a far less niche category I also will not forget my surprise in coming across Joaquim Silva e Luna - the serving Defense Minister of one of the largest countries in the world - to patrol many months after he had assumed the position. I don't know how we square the circle of continuing our practices around verifiability through reliable sourcing to establish notability - practices I support - with the fact that notable topics in some parts of the world aren't written about in that way and making knowledge about those topics equally as available to an English speaking audience - an endeavor I also support. That's more of a non-answer that you might have been hoping for, but given the enormity of what you've asked I hope it touches on a couple areas of thought that are helpful or at least interesting for you. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 9 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)

    Before this closes, I have come back to say that I fully trust this editor with the tools more that most. Barkeep is a model content editor who also has good judgement in conduct disputes. It's an idea combination for what folks seek in admins on enwiki, and I could not be more happy this RFA was put forward! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:22, 8 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)
50. Support. Not just yes, but hell yes. Would definitely be an asset. In all my interactions with them, and in others I've witnessed with other editors, they have always been instructive, supportive and civil. Even if I hadn't as much personal interaction with them, the fact that MelanieN and ♠PMC♠ nominated them would have been enough for me.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
51. Support The answer to question four is great (i love that question; it's such a good way to begin to understand an editor's philosophy of editing), and his honesty in question five about knowing his limitations is exactly what i look for in an RfA candidate. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
52. Support To have put together so much quality content in a fairly short span of time is impressive. I get the impression that this is a user who makes sure they know what they are doing before they do it, which is a quality we need to see more of in our admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
53. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 18:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
54. Support – I have always been impressed by Barkeep. I'm doubly impressed by the number of GA's they have in so few edits, as well as their solid AfD record. Clean block log, not bad edit distribution, and the NPP school shows a level of commitment and caring. Glad to support! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
55. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
56. Support - Editing history is a little patchy, but I've seen him around and have no other concerns. Deb (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
57. Support because as of this writing there are no editors I respect in the "oppose" section. Ok, seriously now.... Supporting because of trust in the nominators, have always come away with a positive impression when I've seen them around, great answer to question #4 and an entirely satisfactory answer to #6, and their content creation. They have been editing steadily for 18 months, which passes my hardly-rigid rule-of-thumb, and none of their pre-2018 contributions give pause for concern. Several editors have remarked on their civility and helpfulness, I haven't seen anything to the contrary. Therefore I think Barkeep49 has the experience, CLUE, and demeanor to further assist this project in an administrative role. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
58. Support I think the highest praise I can give is I saw this request for adminship and thought, huh, based on my previous interactions with them I thought they already were an admin! Absolutely no qualms. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
59. Support I've seen this editor around in the past year and haven't seen any reason to believe we should withhold the mop. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
60. Support. Passes my RfA criteria, which are, "Has been around a while and I don't recall him doing anything stupid". Plus User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/, which is awesome. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
61. Late support as co-nom since it went live while I was asleep :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
62. Support. He does excellent work. Mcampany (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
63. Support Yep. He's shown up on my watchlist a few times, and I've never had a problem with his edits. He meets all of my criteria, and I'm sure he'll be a fantastic admin. I'm glad to see him going for the bit. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
64. Stellar ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
65. Support Clueful, not a jerk. Granting him the tools will clearly be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
66. Per nominators. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
67. Support. Barkeep49 took the baton on (informally) coordinating the NPP project some time ago and has done an excellent job of it. I'm glad to see he is also active in other areas of the project and understands how to write articles. I'm confident he will be a fine admin. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
68. Support. I think this person will be a good admin.--Frmorrison (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
69. Support. Clueful, impressed by # of GAs, mentorshiop school shows ability to "make it work" & "get 'er done". Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
70. Strongest possible support I'm sorry I've come late to this party - I have been hoping for a while that Barkeep49 would run, and wanted to be amongst the first to support this. Barkeep49's great contributions in terms of content creation and to new page curation almost go without saying at this point, but I want to focus on his work in supporting less experienced editors. He took me through the NPP school process, and since then he has acted as a mentor/sounding board for me - throughout he has been enormously generous with his time, exceedingly supportive and responsive, and has time-and-again demonstrated to me his a deep level of understanding of our policies and his eagerness to help others make this a better place. I'll also note that he is prudent, even cautious, about wading into things - on the few occasions where he hasn't much experience in an area I've asked him about, he's never offered an unqualified opinion, rather he offers advice about where else I could seek help. For me, he is way beyond a general good editor who wouldn't misuse the tools - he is 100% the kind of person who could be trusted to use them wisely, and to the benefit of the project. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
71. Support a no-brainer for me. Every single interaction I've had with Barkeep49 has been pleasant and constructive. No concerns whatsoever with handing them the mop. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
72. Support. I've seen the candidate around multiple times, and supporting is an easy decision for me. Sound judgment, and definitely trustworthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
73. Support. Can't see any issues here. Nightfury 20:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
74. Support. should be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
75. Support wants to be an admin & wants it so bad they will go through the RfA to get it. Clearly barking mad so will fit right in. Find bruce (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
76. Support - 15,000 edits, plenty of work at AfD, no blocks. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
77. Support - seems like a great addition. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
78. Support Like Rambling Man, every single interaction I've had with Barkeep49 has been pleasant and constructive. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
79. Support. A model candidate that I would trust with the tools. Thanks for running Barkeep49. Loopy30 (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
80. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
81. Support any time I’ve seen this editor at work they’ve been sensible and balanced. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
82. Support Why not? VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 22:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
83. Support I've not, to the best of my memory, had any direct interactions with Barkeep49 - from the other comments here and from a review of their work, I gather that has been my loss. Looking though the contribution history and article creations, I see a sound understanding of Wikipedia's policies and purpose, and the answers to the questions above give me even more confidence. No concerns at all; Barkeep49, I hope to rectify our lack of interaction to date by standing you a pint in the admin lounge very soon. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
84. Support Knowing this user in the GA sector of wikipedia has always been positive. The tools will be put to good use. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
85. Support I see only positive contributions, including an excellent demeanour on his talk page when dealing with questions from users, be they newbie or experienced.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
86. Support Why not? -FASTILY 23:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
87. Support per the reasons articulated above by Fastily. bd2412 T 23:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
88. Support An asset to the 'pedia and that will only increase with the mop and bucket. MarnetteD|Talk 23:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
89. Support An editor definitely worthy of the mop. I am pleased with Barkeep's answers and feel they will be a great asset. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
90. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. I've seen Barkeep around, and like what I've seen. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 01:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
91. Support trustworthy editor with a great content creation record who understands what our core business is and has a pleasant disposition. Happy to hand them the mop and am sure they will use it judiciously. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
92. Support No reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
93. Support per me asking them if they want to run for adminship a month ago. Has done good work on closing RfCs and is a sensible person. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
94. Support I trust the candidate will not abuse the tools. Even if only used occasionally as part of their normal editing, that is still a net positive for the encyclopedia. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
95. Support I think the answer to question 1 shows that the candidate will show restraint when venturing into an unfamiliar area as an admin. No need for concern about the answer to that question, it's actually a good thing. ‑Scottywong| [speak] || 03:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
96. Support - Per everyone else. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
97. Yes Please! SQL^{Query me!} 04:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
98. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
99. Support Excellent trust. WP:NONEED refutes most of the opposing arguments. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
100. Support. Over the last few months I found myself checking Barkeep49's user page more than once, thinking they were an admin already. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
101. Support with pleasure. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
102. Support I am confident Barkeep49 is qualified and has the right temperament. IP75 (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
103. Support – Eminently qualified and trustworthy. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
104. Support (edit conflict) I am very pissed off that this RfA just appeared on my watchlist and I come to see that 102 now 103 folks have already beat me to support this. The candidate has the needed experience and has largely shown good judgement. There are contributions in many admin related areas. Overall I feel he will be a good admin. I hope Barkeep49 will sincerely consider all the criticism by the oppose voters and prove them wrong with his good work. All the best.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
105. Support - seen them around the AFD circuit and generally been impressed by the quality of arguments. Clearly experienced, no obvious issues, good answers to the questions. Hug^syrup 06:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
106. Level headed. El_C 07:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
107. Oppose per watchlist-clogging non-use of the preview button. [19] Try again in six months.—Mkativerata (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

     Mkativerata, I think you accidentally wrote this on the support section. William2001^(talk) 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

108. Support: Yep, easy one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
109. Support Unlikely to abuse tools. Probably sane. Some clue detected. No red flags. GL&HF Poveglia (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
110. Support Excellent answers to all the questions. A solid candidate. Trying to predict how a candidate for administrator will use the tools ahead of time is a foolish exercise. Two years after passing RfA, my pattern of action as an administrator is very different from what I had visualized, but I think that I am doing useful work. I am confident that this candidate will do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
111. Support, solid respectful editor who will be an asset to the cleaning crew. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
112. Support. I took a good look and liked everything I saw. Haukur (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
113. I first met Barkeep49 early last year, and I've always thought of him as a quick-learning, conscientious Wikipedian. As many of my fellow editors have already attested to above, it is always a pleasure to collaborate with Barkeep49. He's not shy about sharing his thoughts or asking questions when he is unsure about something (and I know he won't believe me when I say this, but his opinion always tends to matter more to his peers than he thinks it does!). One of his thoughts that has stuck with me is his essay Wikipedia:Mushroom effect, which documents a phenomenon that he has observed in successful RfA candidates—one which he would be conscious enough to avoid—and one which has caused me to ruminate on my own behavioral changes following adminship. His answer to my question (Q14) clearly demonstrates that he would use the tools constructively and sensibly to augment the work that he already does on Wikipedia both in the content space and in the project space. To me, it is clear beyond doubt that Barkeep49 will become one of our most respected administrators. Indeed, my only misgiving about this candidate is that I didn't get the chance to nominate him. Mz7 (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
114. Support Happy to support. Csgir (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
115. Support. This candidate would definitely be able to better assist the growth of our encyclopedia with adminy and lot of experience editor.--Nahal^(T) 11:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
116. Support He has good collaboration skills and civil nature. Just what I'd expect from an admin. Masum Reza^📞 11:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
117. Support based on the candidate's responses to questions above. Comes across as the kind of person suited for being an admin. - Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
118. Support - sensible, civil, obviously competent, and clearly interested in working on project-side stuff to better the project. Over past interactions I've noticed a tendency to not proofread your own comments (or at least that's what it looks like to me) and so some of your statements come across unclear. If you're adminning in contentious situations that could come back to haunt you. But you're clearly on the right path and an asset to the project, and can only improve with the mop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
119. Support per nominator. and per one or more of my rationales. (More than adequate content creator, if that's your thing.) Quick talk page survey found user to be civil, knowledgeable, and helpful to others.-- Deepfriedokra 12:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
120. Support What a great candidate. Great noms, great answers to questions, great attitude and temperament. I'm not concerned by anticipated under-use of the tools or vagueness about exactly which tools would be used. Every little bit helps, and Barkeep is clearly a person who would be responsible with whichever tools he decides to use. ~Awilley (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
121. Support Per nom and per my personal interactions with him. Will do well with the mop. Kb03 (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
122. Support I like Barkeep's answer to the questions—especially the answer that mentions WP:Lua. And that he uses moderation in achieving his talk page. I've see this editor around, though not interacted with him. I appreciate his contribution to content—as author and in reviewing for promotion. The list of support !voters is impressive. So, why not pile on? Thanks for accepting the nominations! — Neonorange (Phil) 13:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
123. Support Seen him around Wikipedia often, net positive user. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
124. Support Due to his work at NPP, Barkeep49 and I have interacted dozens if not hundreds of times over the past year or so. But it doesn't stop there, that work involves participating at Phab and with the WMF and Meta on the complex on-going improvements and enhancements to the Page Curation system. NPP is arguably the most important single content process on Wikipedia, and what he perhaps does not fully realize amongst all the other excellent work he does, is that he has become the de facto coordinator of NPP, a monumental task for which - despite what may be suggested in the oppose section - the admin tools are almost essential. Suffice it to say that if I had known he was willing to run for RfA, I would have offered to nominate in a flash. But this RfA doesn't need my vote to convince anyone what an excellent admin he will make and that's why I'm unusually voting late. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
125. Support I have seen them around and have no concerns. The answer to Q12 is food for thought. --Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
126. Support - will be a net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
127. Support, quite plainly has the right experience and temperament to make a good admin. SpinningSpark 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
128. Support Falls under the "I thought they already were an admin" category, for me. Clear net positive to grant the tools. Strikerforce^Talk 14:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
129. Support An asset and good choice. Just don't F it up ;) N.J.A. | talk 14:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
130. Support I believe that he will be a capable and competent administrator.  Lefcentreright (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
131. Support - can't say I have encountered the candidate too frequently in the past, but they would absolutely be a net positive for the project, and are ergo worthy of the mop. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
132. Support Sure. Katie^talk 15:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
133. Support: The candidate will make a great admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
134. Support. Excellent content contributions. The candidate tends to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in a sensible, straightforward way. — Newslinger talk 16:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
135. Support due to the track record for success. Happy mopping! -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
136. Support. I have interacted with Barkeep when they have reviewed many of my GA nominations. And each time they have been civil and patient, ready to find alternative solutions for problems that may came up: for instance, when they failed one of my nominations, they posted to multiple talk pages to ask for other reviewers, and in my view this is a sign of good communication. I also think their contributions focus well on both content creation (e.g. their featured list and several GA's) and admin work (e.g. XFD). I'm happy to give my support because they seem like they know what they're doing. epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
137. Support. You have my vote of confidence. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
138. Yes. SilkTork (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
139. Support Lots of clue, good to be around. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
140. Support giving a patient, level-headed, clueful editor access to the admin tools. If Barkeep doesn't find much need to use the tools, we'll be no worse off. If Barkeep finds ways to use them, things here will be all the better. Thanks for volunteering for the role. Ajpolino (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
141. Support. I feel like this user will be a great administrator. EPIC (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
142. Support although I do wish the oppose and neutral voters were able to cast their lot with less resistance, but I often feel that way about most RfA runs. — Ched (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
143. Support Obviously sufficient experience. I've only had brief interactions with Barkeep personally (all positive), but I've seen them frequently in my watchlist. They seem to be sensible, reasonable, civil, and open to discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
144. Support. When I saw the RfA notice on my watchlist, I thought to myself: "I wonder if that's Barkeep49, it's about time he ran for admin". I'm glad to see this nomination. Best of luck. Vexations (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
145. Support Excellent candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
146. Support. I have seen Barkeep around, and have no concerns. The answer to Question 12 suggests we may have a rare admin who recognizes that our number of sports biographies is wildly inflated, and that can only be a good thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
147. Happy to finally see this RfA happening, and thrilled to be able to support it. — 🦊 22:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
148. Support Not seeing any good reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
149. Support Seems fine from here. Collect (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
150. Support A fine candidate. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
151. Support First of all, because of MelanieN's reasons given in her nomination. But looking over the nominee's responses, I can see potential for much good, in ways they haven't thought about yet. I ran for admin about a year after it was first proposed to me, to combat vandals, primarily because one sock kept evading everyone. Having had the tools for a while now, I find numerous positive ways to help projects and individual editors. There are a lot of little Wikignome tweaks that make life easier for other editors. There's so much value in having the tools, if you really want to do good for the project. I predict this nominee will use the tools for the better of the whole. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
152. Support Trustworthy, well-rounded user who will be a great asset to the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 01:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
153. Yes please. feminist (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
154. Support Level-headed and trustworthy. It's been a pleasure working with Barkeep49 on the WP:NPP project. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
155. Support Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
156. Support -- Barkeep has my confidence in his abilities as an admin and anyone who can get a chuckle out of me can't be all that bad. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
157. Support with pleasure. I'm glad this is finally happening, and hope it will gain us an admin with great demonstrated clue, a cool head (I don't think I've seen them lose their shit yet, which is an achievement in the potentially contentious areas they are active in), and special dedication to an area in need of much more attention than it currently gets (NPP). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
158. Support, seen him around doing a great job. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
159. I am proud to support this candidate in what is shaping up to be a very close and contentious RfA. As I said during his EotW nomination, Barkeep49 is one of our very best editors. He is, of course, talented, dedicated, a natural leader, and beyond qualified for this role. Over the last year and a half, I've also gotten to know him as an incredibly kind and supportive person who thinks before he speaks, who steps up to take on responsibilities even (especially) when it's hard, who serves as an excellent counterweight to the somewhat impulsive nature of the community that we create, who brings a different (and usually correct) position to every discussion. As someone who has been urging Barkeep49 to run for many months, I could go on for paragraphs more, but I'll spare everyone that. I could not be more delighted to see this RfA. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
160. Support. Seen them around, seems to be sensible. No concerns from me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
161. Support I don't see any reason to oppose. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
162. Support Experienced editor, can't see a reason to oppose. Tolly4bolly 11:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
163. Support per answers to questions 4 and 11 (an unnecessary question.) Airbornemihir (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
164. Support. Constructive contributor, no complaints —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
165. Support --Alaa :)..! 12:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
166. Pile-on Support. I admire especially the frank reply to Question 1, "my plan is to do administrative work here and there as I come across it naturally doing my Wiki work". @Nihlus: in the Oppose section, I wish I'd had the courage to say something like that in my own RFA 50 years ago, instead of mumbling gormlessly about how I probably wouldn't block anybody (ha). I strongly believe candidates don't really know what areas they'll be active in as admin. It's just hard to tell in advance what will actually appeal and actually make you feel useful. Bishonen | talk 14:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC).

     Bishonen, I understand your position and the position of many other supporters. However, I have always been a firm believer in having a demonstrated need for the tools. There's a weak argument here for Barkeep, which is why I opposed and likely always will for those who make the same case. Do I think he will necessarily be a bad admin? No. Do I think he will be a great admin? No, I am not convinced. I always hope I am wrong but after supporting previous RfAs where I have come to strongly regret supporting after the fact, I feel like my bar is set higher than many. Nihlus 15:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

167. Support per noms.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
168. Support - an excellent candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
169. No major objections, no red lights = support as far as I am concerned. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
170. Support Excellent candidate; thoughtful, willing and able.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
171. Support I reviewed a month of contributions and found them to be quite diligent, productive and sensible. Andrew D. (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
172. Support. Good temperament and thoughtful. Gilded Snail (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
173. Support, a solid candidate with extensive well-rounded experience. As a side note, I don't think that anyone ever really "needs" the admin tools. Having trust, sufficient knowledge and experience should be all that's required. Nsk92 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
174. Support per nom, and a positive impression built up from numerous encounters, especially around the craziness on WP the past few months. Grandpallama (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
175. Support, no concerns. GAB^gab 21:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
176. Support I've only interacted with Barkeep49 briefly, but I've been impressed with his thoughtfulness and willingness to help other editors. His work at new pages patrol is impressive, and his mainspace contributions are also excellent. He's got the breadth of experience and temperament an admin should have, IMO. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
177. Support This here Barkeep appears to run a square house so they've got my support.  Spintendo  22:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
178. Support Easy one for me here, seen them doing great work over in NPP and clearly has great content creation work. Has a clue and knows to seek help if they are not sure. Also have a calm demeanor and very unlikely to get heated in a difficult situation. Agent00x (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
179. Support Finally a candidate that I can recall making positive contributions to the project. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
180. what they said appears clueful, good answers, no reason to expect abuse. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
181. Support No red or yellow flags. This candidate meets my criteria for RfA. I have read the opposing comments and do not find them persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
182. Support - uh huh, for sure! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
183. Support I'm surprised the candidate wasn't already an admin, but nonetheless, contributions made are highly above normal expectations I would place on a candidate, so good luck! EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
184. Support Excellent answers; excellent nominations. Lourdes 11:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
185. Support I knew nothing about them prior to this RfA, but their answers seem fair and I like the content work. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
186. Support It's good for some admins to be content-focused. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
187. Support Should make a good admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
188. Why not Zingarese talk · contribs 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
189. Support Will do good. -- ferret (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
190. Support Stellar candidate, good answers. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 19:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
191. Support Not convinced by the objection that the candidate may not use the tools much. There is no limit on the number of admins we can have, and, as with content creation, a small amount of work by many is equal to a large amount by the few. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
192. —Kusma (t·c) 21:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
193. Support. I have not worked with him, but seems to be an overall solid candidate based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
194. Support good use case, can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
195. Support – Well qualified. Liked his essay at User:Barkeep49/Baseball Prospect Notability. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
196. Support Add me to the pile. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
197. Support Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
198. Support. I think that the answer to Q12 is absolutely fantastic; admins and editors are allowed to have opinions that are not entirely in sync with the current policies - after all, we recognize that consensus can change, and that it has many times over the years. Barkeep49 has identified the correct method for administrators to address these sorts of topics. Risker (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
199. Support I have considered opposing editors' concerns about answers to Qu 6 and Qu 12, which would concern me too if I had had no experience of this editor's actions at AfD. However, I have seen them change their opinion on notability of a book based on another editor finding an award [20], acknowledge that the sources found are enough to indicate notability, and that more sources would likely exist offline, so they "err on the side of inclusion given the current evidence of notability" [21], argue convincingly about the type of specialist journal/magazine, reviews in which would help establish notability of books/authors, vs those that don't [22], and change to Keep in an AfD they themselves had nominated, based on arguments and sources provided by other editors to show that the subject met WP:BASIC [23]. That leads me to believe that they have a more nuanced view of notability and worthiness of topics to be in an encyclopaedia than some of the opposers suggest. And everything I have seen of this editor shows clear, calm, thoughtful and polite engagement. I am also happy with their answer to Q1, which seems very sensible to me - as with any aspect of Wikipedia, the more they use it, the more they will no doubt find that they can be involved in and contribute to. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
200. Support Very little to add which hasn't been said by those above. Nick (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
201. Support. Candidate is obviously trusted and experienced. AGK ■ 13:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
202. Support, I have seen their contributions to many discussions, and find them good. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
203. Support (edit conflict) this nomination doesn't need my !vote as it is already sailing to a successful close by the looks of things, but I find myself writing one anyways. I have interacted with barkeep a number of times over the past couple of years and I have no doubt that he will make a good fine administrator. I have every confidence in him to not abuse the tools, his nominators, and that he has a demonstrable "need" for the tools. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
204. Support per nom. No concerns raised at oppose that would bother me, has a clue, not a jerk, all the rest of it. Best of luck to you, and welcome to the admin corps.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
205. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
206. Support: No more needs to be said. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
207. Support for easily meeting my minimum criteria and nothing persuasive seen in the oppose section. Ifnord (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
208. Support - should have become an admin years ago. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
209. Support Strong candidate who will be an asset to have as part of the admin team. Schwede66 23:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
210. Support I have worked with this person on my time on Wikipedia and I have found him to be very good at what he does and that is to make this site a better place. HawkAussie (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
211. Support. I've had only positive experiences interacting with Barkeep in AfD and beyond, and was under the assumption that they were already an admin by the way they handled themselves in discussions. Utopes (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
212. Support. The comments already made suffice. Nonetheless, I will remark that I see a great contributor with good demeanor and interactions with others. NPP contributions are particularly good preparation for adminship. Good perspective shown by answers to questions. Trustworthiness established. Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
213. Support. Easy support from me. I know him well and trust his judgement. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
214. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 13:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
215. Support Net positive. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
216. Support I remember vetting Barkeep earlier this year for the Editor of the Week and finding the type of editor that is an excellent example (to the rest of us) as to what a Quality Editor does. A teacher, a congenial nature, eminently qualified. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
217. Support Per TonyBallioni. OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
218. Support - His work at NPP is fantastic.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
219. Support - His answers seem very well reasoned to me. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
220. Support Has a clue. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
221. Support From what I've briefly seen written by this candidate who seeks Administrative duties, he is, both, competent and level-headed. Without question, his work is all geared to the benefit and good of this worthy project.Davidbena (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
222. Support Sysop is no big deal - editor appears level headed and should be trusted with the tools -- Tawker (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
223. Support - Barkeep is currently one of my favorite editors around the project. His attitude rarely manifests itself further than mild annoyance and he is almost always extremely amiable. His thoughtfulness in editing is clearly evident. In short, he is the very model of a modern Wikipedian. Happy to see he is finally at RFA. Killiondude (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
224. Support - Good judgment, great work. The arguments in favor of this candidate are strong and, frankly, the opposition arguments strike me as weak. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
225. Support Experienced Wikipedian who shows good judgement. Won't break anything. Harrias ^talk 08:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
226. Support Sound judgement and a gentle manner. Undoubtedly a net positive to the project. (As an aside, I often think that new admins should be encouraged to write about their experiences after their first year so as to help or encourage other editors who are thinking of taking up the mop. Maybe Barkeep49 would be the perfect person to consider doing just that?) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

     Nick Moyes, I have an essay in my mind about my experience at and thoughts about RfA that I plan to write sometime after this closes. I'm really bad at blogging so no promises on keeping it for a year but reflecting back after the first year does seem like something that could be worthwhile. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

227. Well-qualified, good answers to the questions, and I trust MelanieN's judgement. I think you'll be an excellent admin—keep up the good work! MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
228. Support - Duh! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
229. Support Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
230. Support Don't remember any negative incidents with this one. SemiHypercube 20:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
231. Support Meaningless at this point :) but I really like the answers to the questions, particularly q 15 and, to some extent, q 12. Based on the answers alone, Barkeep49 is clearly someone who thinks about how we do things here (important), understands that our "how" is not perfect (very important), but is willing to give the process a chance (super important). I think they will make a great admin. --regentspark (comment) 21:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
232. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 01:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
233. Support I'm not expecting to make much of a difference at this stage, but we have a qualified candidate who if anything should have made admina while ago. The deleted contributions look fine, and I don't see much in the oppose section to agree with. The only thing that gives me qualms and delayed my support is the support for the theory that our attack surface is our spread of articles rather than our flow of edits. I have seen more than one editor spiral into deletionism after falling for the theory that our depth of articles is our attack surface rather than the basis through which we attract and retain members of the community. We need a corps of volunteers to handle the flow of new edits and new articles, and it is our content that attracts and retains them. ϢereSpielChequers 10:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't normally do this, but I feel compelled to oppose in this instance, because I feel that the candidate does not have any particular need for the tools in order to continue doing the good work that they already do on the project. I don't generally base my decision on an RfA based solely on need for the tools, but in this case, I feel that granting them to a candidate who cannot articulate a significant desire to improve Wikipedia in their prospective capacity as an administrator would be capricious or arbitrary. If the candidate can provide clarification or a more substantive answer to question 1, then I'll be happy to reverse course. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   AlexEng, you may want to update your RFA criteria then, because according to that page this should be a slam-dunk support. – bradv🍁 00:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Thank you, bradv. Believe it or not, I did take my own updated criteria into account when I made this decision. This is an exception. I'll go ahead and update the page a bit, though, since I don't want to "guarantee" support without exception. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   AlexEng, I coordinated NPP for nearly a decade. Anyone who is not aware of what that work alone entails could be excused for not knowing how essential it is for the coord to be an admin. Please do reflect upon eventually reversing course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Comment: While it is true the candidate does not have any "particular need for the tools in order to continue doing the good work that they already do" on the project, tools will be needed to expand and be an effective admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose per the answer to question 1. While it's nice to get admins who don't necessarily want the bit, it is important to get those who can actively do something with it. Nihlus 01:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Nihlus, please see mny comment above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose per the answer to Q12. Advocating for the removal of material that meets WP:GNG is not what I'd expect in any admin candidate. I would not want anyone who would take such a position to have the ability to close AfD's, especially for what is essentially a lifetime appointment. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Advocating for the removal of material that meets WP:GNG Maybe you need to read the answer and the essay again? --JBL (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   That was my reading too, the candidate is saying just the opposite, he was advocating removal because it does not meet GNG. The principle that SNGs do not trump GNG, that is, that they only indicate that the subject may be notable, is a principle that has wide consensus amongst editors (but still argued about enough not to have been explicitly written into guidelines). SpinningSpark 14:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   WP:N states "or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". There it is, "explicitly written into guidelines" (I'm not quoting with the intention of mocking, just for taking your words and not applying them as my own). This is my frustration of the debates I've been involved in of my own article creations. And as has been noted to me elsewhere (I forget which AfD it was in, please forgive me for not being able to cite it here and now), some projects follow GNG to the letter (whatever that letter is...), and some have rejected this. I was always taught that GNG only applies when an SSG cannot be applied. But times have moved on. Bobo. 18:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   The answer to Q.12 was near perfect, IMHO. Barkeep49 recognises that some SNGs, like WP:NSPORT, only indicate the likelihood that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the GNG. Whereas other SNGs, like WP:NPROF offer alternative criteria that we have agreed denote notability in the absence of sources satisfying GNG. The debate and confusion is almost always a result of editors not understanding that two different types of SNGs exist. --RexxS (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Actually, he's arguing the exact opposite. See the AfD referenced in Q12. The subject cleared GNG by a wide margin with multiple in-depth citations in reliable sources. Barkeep advocated redirecting the article because it didn't meet WP:NSPORT. That's my concern here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   "Barkeep advocated redirecting the article because it didn't meet WP:NSPORT" is not my reading of that AfD, where Barkeep wrote, I don't dispute that GNG supersedes the SNG and linked to their essay on baseball prospect notability. Barkeep can correct me if I'm wrong, but in that AfD, 18 sources were put forward, and Barkeep's argument there–and in the essay–was that baseball prospects (like many athletes) are all the subject of a ton of coverage, but that coverage is routine, about one event (e.g., a draft, or a signing), local and/or not sustained. In other words, it's not significant coverage that satisfies GNG. It's a quantity-over-quality argument. It was a "fails GNG" !vote, not a "fails NSPORT" !vote. – Levivich 03:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

   To summarize: it looks like this vote should be read as an oppose based on differing views of how GNG should apply to baseball prospects. (Which is fine! just not quite what was actually written by Ejgreen77.) --JBL (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

   My primary concern with the answer to Q12 is "I worry about the size of Wikipedia relative the the number of editor hours we have to support it." This community is a little too oblivious or unconcerned as to the breadth of notable topics still not covered here because the coverage those topics received in reliable sources escaped the notice of certain corners of the web during the 21st century. I seem to recall a discussion to this effect with a certain admin back in 2011, whose choice of response was along the lines of "Can't you see we have all the content we need?" Sorry, you're not fooling me. What I saw then and continue to see reflects the attitude that it's okay to spend inordinate amounts of time parroting fleeing news stories and aggressively scrubbing politically-charged topics and to let the rest of encyclopedia fall all to hell, because those topics really aren't part of a comprehensive information resource but rather some individual editor's vanity project (yet they're somehow still notable topics — really...). I came here with far more interest and intent in contributing to "the sum of all human knowledge" than I did in contributing to a popularity contest hellbent on picking the lowest-hanging fruit at every opportunity. The latter is precisely the direction this community has continued to pursue, with "pick your excuse" as its rationale. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

   JBL, many thanks for summarising Ejgreen77's position. AGK ■ 13:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Q6 and the diffs presented. Husounde (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

   At NPP we come across a great deal of under-sourced, duplicate, non notable, or otherwise problematic new articles. Drafitification or redirection is an appropriate course of action in some/many of these cases. Polyamorph (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

   I asked the question. I found Barkeep's answer spot on. I'm in support. Lourdes 11:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

   I was all for moving such content to draftspace at first. I stopped doing it for one reason: the community has allowed draftspace to exist not as a collaborative environment, but instead as a one-way judgement pipeline, where a small group of editors bury and kill everything they don't like and have the gall to call that "collaboration". Their haste to bury and delete notable topics creates problems when it becomes apparent to everyone that those topics are notable. The end result includes fractured article histories, plus valid sourced content buried in deletion purgatory that often remains there. If Barkeep is truly concerned about the number of editor hours available to support the project, then there should be concern about valid sourced content being deleted merely because it wound up in draftspace and contributors being told that they have all the time in the world to start all over again from scratch. If you haven't figured it out yet, the people who keep coming back under such circumstances are paid editors and other COI spammers, not legitimate contributors. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose per question 15. I don't think he understand the issues. I was not looking for a panacea or magic wand when I asked the question, but what part he would play (or at least attempt to play) in order to resolve the problem that has been affecting this project for years. As an admin, his actions/behaviour (or lack of action) will have a direct effect on editor retention whether he realise that or not. If he does not even understand the issues (or does not even think there are problems), then there is no way he can provide solutions to the bias and racism at English Wikipedia. His answer to my question is all over the place because he does not understand the issues. I cannot support but wish the nominee the best of luck. He is most likely going to pass anyway. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

   Non-sequitur. That question, and his answer, have nothing to do with adminship. An admin does not dictate solutions. Any user of the community, admin or not, can suggest solutions, and the community must develop a consensus around one or more of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

   What a sham! You would think this was an election for "King of the world". Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

   To oppose on the basis of this thoughtful and humble answer to a question about fundamental project principles, when neither the question nor the answer have much to do with prospective use of the administrator's tools, seems a little bit "off topic" to me, and I hope the bureaucrats will give this oppose the weight that it deserves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Barkeep49 would make a great admin and they clearly have an exceptional understanding of what is required, I would definitely support, were it not for the single time I have encountered this user. The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/September 2019 was set up by Barkeep on 16 August. It wasn't until the drive had actually begun that the rules on review length became apparent and there were two problems with the GAN record template, one of which wasn't, and still isn't addressed even after notifying Barkeep. I find prior planning a crucial skill in events like this, and it ultimately put me off of reviewing anymore GANs. I asked Barkeep why they were "imposing strict 'rules'", Barkeep hasn't replied and proceeded to add the rule to the GAN drive page, regardless. Maybe a response would have been courteous? Maybe Barkeep didn't respond due to the response from Lee Vilenski, but that didn't address the issue that I had? I found the drive a great idea, but please, please try to be punctual and not dive in head first so as not to waste other's time. As said, Barkeep will surely make a great admin, and it would have been great to have had a first positive experience with you. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

   I think you take some our projects' semi-regular exercises in self-indulgence slightly too seriously, if you don't mind my saying so  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

   Willbb234, I'm a little confused by this comment, as an RfA seems like an odd place to bring up complaints about a GA backlog drive. Your comments on Barkeep49's talk page were addressed in full by Lee Vilenski, and it looks to me like there is a consensus for these rules at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Backlog Drive (and while you commented there in defense of your own reviews, you did not actually object to the rules or bring up your concerns). What I see in all of this is a candidate who really wants to help, is willing to do the heavy lifting to make something happen, but doesn't presume to be the one in charge. These are admirable attributes for an administrator to have, and I think you should support. – bradv🍁 00:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Willbb234, You inquired about the template on Barkeep49's talk page on September 1st and he replied to you on the same day. IP75 (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Neutral I'm not thrilled by the opinions the candidate expressed in the background of and response to Q12. Lepricavark (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I think Barkeep49 is a capable, courteous editor with generally sound judgment, and who will be a good administrator. However, I have concerned with the diffs presented in Q6. To me, they show an overuse of redirection for newly created articles with references and excessive reliance on explanation via edit summary in place of proper discussion. For example: redirecting Stay Rad! (9 sources) 18 minutes post-creation, Australian Communist Party (4 sources) 19 minutes post-creation, and Holymoorside Primary School (5 sources) 7 minutes post-creation. I do not really disagree with the end result in these cases, but a new editor could easily be discouraged by seeing their work redirected within as little as 7 minutes (potentially while they are in the middle of making another edit) without prior notice or discussion. I do disagree, and am reverting, in the following two cases: Alexander II Magnet School (Macon, Georgia) (8 sources) and Djesse Vol. 1 (11 sources). Relatively well-written articles such as these should not be redirected without prior discussion on the article's talk page.
   @Barkeep49: I am sure your RfA will pass, and I am glad for it. I am posting here solely so that my comment will not get lost among ~200 supports. I respectfully ask that you consider my comments in the future. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

   Black Falcon, that's fallacious. If you want your concerns noticed by the candidate, you can post it to their talk page. If you want it noticed by the broader community, I'm sure there are better places for that as well. Either you support the candidate or don't. Prioritising wider visibility of your comment over accurate representation of your position on the candidate is, in my opinion, unfair to the candidate and a misuse of the process. Whether it'll pass without your support is beside the point. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

General comments

@Mkativerata:

a) Since you appear to be opposing, are you in the wrong section?

b) Since Barkeep49 has made 16 edits to that article since 2005—two of them this year—your grounds are dubious, to say the least.

c) If this is a cunning joke, then apologies for completely missing the point. It's still early.

——SerialNumber54129 07:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I think we should ignore @Mkativerata:'s opinion because of Mkativerata's watchlist-clogging non-use of the preview button. Poveglia (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're abosultely correct, Poveglia  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I read Mkativerata's !vote as a clear joke, especially as the diff linked is from 2005. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record: Mkativerata used to be an admin back in the day so it is safe to assume that what they posted is about as serious as my response to it. Poveglia (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Get a clue, folks. Mkat is famous for this joke - posting a support !vote in the support column and headed as "oppose", with an "oppose" reason ridiculous enough that we ought to get it. He only does it on nominations that he unequivocally supports and is sure will pass. I felt honored when he did it on my RfA. I'm glad to see he still does it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Bearing in mind the first oppose, I suppose I might as well make my usual observation that "need" for the tools is a very poor discriminator to use in judging whether or not to grant them. No candidate needs admin tools because there's always another admin with the tools to do that job. And that works until we run out of admins. Please remember that we are still experiencing a steady net loss of admins at an almost constant rate, so that day may not be so far away. I would ask anyone who comments at RfA to seriously consider the proposition that the only vital criterion is "Does the community trust the candidate with the tools?" --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that basically any good-faithed user who notices a vandal has a need for the tools. But not everyone is suitable for the role, not everyone has a lot of spare time, et cetera. Poveglia (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I was very interested in Kudpung's comment above, that anyone who tries to coordinate at New Pages Patrol has a definite need for the tools. (He knows because he did it for a long time.) I would never have thought of that. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I agree the "need" for the tools is a very poor discriminator to use in judging whether or not to grant them. The issue for me is not neediness but trustworthiness. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I s'pose I'll speak up, since I'm one of the "need" for the tools people. When someone initiates an RfA, there is a reason why: e.g. "to help clear the backlog at RfPP and need the tools to do so". If I oppose an RfA for "no demonstrable need", it's because the candidate did not articulate an administrative function that they could perform. I emphasize could here because it's not sufficient to say you'll handle x (i.e. would), I need to trust that you are competent to handle x. There-in lies your "trustworthiness" criterion. At a job interview, the employer wants to be convinced that you are a) a good fit for the company, and b) a good fit for the role. We don't have "a)" because "anyone can edit", so it rests on "b)". Failing to meet "need", means you've failed a basic interview question: "why should I give you the job". I don't agree with the "no big deal" crowd; it's a big deal because the community that appoints you, does not have the authority to terminate your appointment. Disclosure: I have not voted, and I will not be voting. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Having failed years ago I remember the personal aftermath and the grinding realization, "They don't trust me". I bought a nice set of three battery powered tools last year since I needed a drill. The saz-all and the power saw were of minor interest since I didn't plan on using either very often. I repaired my back porch yesterday using the saws alot and the drill a little. Who can forecast what we will do with tools once we have them. My 2¢. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many things that only admins can do, and not all can be judged from a non admin's actions. I'm happy to see the tools go to trustworthy longstanding members of the community. At the time when I passed RFA I had no idea that I would wind up checking the deleted edits of lots of candidates at RFA or setting scores of accounts as Autopatrolled. It would be a brave editor who stood at RFA saying I have been active in X or Y area but I'm ready for some new challenges, please can I have the tools. But in some ways I would rather have such a candidate than one who has participated in 100 AFDs or made fifty AIV reports. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• Discussion by Eschoryii moved to WT:RFA (diff). Primefac (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

---

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.