Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Bradv

Communicative
There's a lot to like about Brad, but by far the best is how communicative he's been. He's been honest and open about the Committee and has been an excellent ambassador for ArbCom's work. Likewise when voting on cases/motions/etc., Brad gives a real understanding of the issues at hand, and often I find I learn something just by reading that vote. It's a skill shared by some of the best Arbs I've seen, and I look forward to seeing Brad on the Committee once again. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 12:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Enthusiastic endorsement
I'd like to add my enthusiastic endorsement of for re-election to the Arbitration Committee. I have had the privilege of working with Brad for a while now, as a fellow clerk prior to his election in 2019 and subsequently supporting him as an arbitrator for the past year. Even though I was positive he would be an excellent addition to the committee, he still managed to exceed my high expectations for him. Brad is a fantastic communicator who has something insightful and thought-provoking to say in every discussion, and he brings with him a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of policy and arbitration procedure alongside a strong sense of both fairness and empathy. It's clear to me, and I think to anyone that knows him well, that Brad really means it when he says that he loves this project and is proud of everyone helping to build it. He has both my thanks and my vote.  C Thomas3   (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly second this. I first got to know Bradv in late 2018, when he joined the arbitration clerk team. Brad was a fast learner and quickly became one of the most active clerks, leading to a unanimous promotion recommendation among the full clerks within only a few months and confirmation by the Committee shortly thereafter. He became de facto lead clerk for several months before his election to ArbCom, where he has been one of its most effective members. Bradv has become one of the Wikipedians I know best, and so I can say this with confidence: he is one of the most genuine, most thoughtful, most patient, and most honest people I have had the pleasure of knowing. Please join me in voting for him. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Dispassionate
- and therefore leaning to a cold, hard way of reviewing cases without always giving sufficient examination of the veracity of the claims of the original posters or comments by the uninvolved Wikipedia 'governance obsessives' or those with a general  disinclination  for the  somewhat  necessary  need for  administrators. This may work for  some  cases but  not  for others, so a lack  of consistency. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I presume that your impression of me has been formed mainly by my participation in your arbitration case, since I'm not aware of any other significant interaction between the two of us. I've explained my thoughts on that case in some detail here. – bradv  🍁  06:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither in my voter guide section about you nor here have I made any reference to that Arbcom case. Some voters who read my comments above: 'This may work for some  cases but  not  for others...' may even consider them to be a plus point, but the operative word is consistency. There are no rules at ACE that anyone who writes a voter guide or comments in the discussion section needs to have interacted with a candidate. We're talking about you here, not me (you've had your satisfaction already in dealing with me the way you chose). I have concerns in general for years about the role of the Arbitration Committee and hence the people who compose it - which might also include  'governance obsessives' . I am not a spiteful or vindictive person, you have linked to comments of yours, you may now wish to read my voter guide - fully. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your voter guide section on him quotes a line from his accept vote at your case, directly, in quotation marks. Parabolist (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, you mean this one: "We have a duty to perform a thorough examination of all the facts". Yes, well it wasn't intended to be a reference to my Arbcom case, more an illustration of something he claimed and then, in my opinion - and that of others - didn't honour. Still, as I have also mentioned,, he may have some qualities that appeal to voters, but the choice of candidates is not great. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)