Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Berig 2

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

Berig

Final (81/17/4); Closed by Rlevse at 13:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Berig (talk · contribs) - I'd like to nominate Berig, an experienced and knowledgeable editor; actively editing for more than two years he has quite a good knowledge of policy and has, during that time, improved reams of Scandinavian articles with Greece Runestones, Midvinterblot, and Viking funeral being GAs. He has accumulated nearly 20,000 edits (for those who like a simple count) which are mostly in mainspace with an impressive 42 DYKs. People, it's now your decision... -- Mentisock 12:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I feel flattered that I am nominated for adminship. I used to be an administrator by the name Wiglaf, but for personal reasons I scrambled my password in December 2005, and stayed away from WP for eight months. After having received e-mails from other editors that I was needed at Wikipedia, I returned with this user account. If this rfa should be successful my old Wiglaf account should naturally be de-admined.--Berig (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Helping out with work like moving over redirects and page protection, if necessary. I would also appreciate being able to remove misnamed pictures that I have uploaded.--Berig (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

A: One of the articles I like most is Viking funeral which was a stub before I expanded it. I like the fact that it is a well-referenced article that covers both historical, archaeological and literary evidence for the actual practices. For the same reasons I also like Greece Runestones which I will try to raise to FA status. If I succeed in doing so, it'll be the first one of a series of FAs on runes.--Berig (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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: Yes, it has happened that editors have caused me stress. I believe that the best way of dealing with editing disagreements is to take a break and return to the subject matter after a few weeks or months.--Berig (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. To clarify: I refer above to rare occasions when editing disagreements have caused me stress.--Berig (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from NuclearWarfare

4. Why did you not reveal your previous account during your first RfA under this account? Also, do you have any way to prove that you are indeed who you say you were?

A: I didn't reveal my previous account at that time because I knew that people would start questioning me about why I left and why I had returned. As things were then, I didn't feel ready for it. There are several long-time administrators who can confirm that I was Wiglaf, such as Haukur, Briangotts and Dab.--Berig (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, I can confirm Berig is a non-abusive sock of Wiglaf's. I understand the reason for the username change was disgust over being harassed by a troll. Fwiiw, I don't quite see why Berig would take it upon himself to suffer through another rfa when he could just ask for a new password for his Wiglaf account, or ask to have the two editing histories merged. --dab (𒁳) 12:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiglaf was desysopped. Voyaging^(talk) 02:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can also confirm that Berig is Wiglaf, longer answer on my talk page. Haukur (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Question from Pedro

5. Pending the answer to the excellent question above about non disclosure, you clearly stated that your previous leaving was not reversible. Apparently it was reversible as you started editing 8 months later, by your own admission, and now are requesting the sysop bit. What changed?

A: I noticed posts like this one (an answer to this one) and I received some moving e-mails asking me that I should return. Almost three years have passed now, and a lot of water has gone under the bridge.--Berig (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Further question from Pedro

6. Are you intending to block IP addresses forever if you regain the tools? [1]

A: No, I'm not.--Berig (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: That block was reversed by the candidate, presumably after being reminded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Was it? I don't see that in the block log. Pedro :  Chat  20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad, that one was unblocked on the same day by another party - I was referring to this one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions from RockManQ

7. Why did you leave Wikipedia the first time?

A: For personal reasons.--Berig (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

8. Is there any policies or guidelines that you disagree with? If so please tell why.

A: No, I don't think so.--Berig (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Aitias

9. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A: Well, it depends on the rationale for the hangon tag and if the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion.--Berig (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

10. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A: My personal standards for granting would be a user I trust with several months of experience and at least a few thousand edits. I would remove the rollback if the user employs it for other things but obvious vandal fighting.--Berig (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

11. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A: Technically such a photo can only be used if it is impossible to find or make a free picture of the person (I doubt that such a situation often arises). A photo of a person as appearing on the cover of a magazine may be allowed as fair use when it appears in a part of an article that discusses the magazine and the person's appearance in it.--Berig (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

12. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?

A: Well, that is something that never happened to me when I fought vandals as Wiglaf. No, since there is inevitably a conflict of interest, I would not block the IP in that situation. However, if the IP continued by vandalising another page, I would block it. If the IP ceases the vandalism after its edit to my user page there is little reason to block it in the first place.--Berig (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Question from Lankiveil

13. Was this a valid speedy deletion target? Why/why not?

A: No, I don't thinks so. It appears to have been sufficiently notable.--Berig (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow-Up What leads you to believe that it was "sufficiently notable" (other than the fact that the article is still there)?

The topic of the article had been in the news, and that is sufficiently notable IMO. I think some research is warranted before an article is nominated for deletion, but I'm an inclusionist who rather includes (e.g. writes articles) than removes.--Berig (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question by User:Royalbroil

14. What would you do if you ran across this speedy deletion nominee? Is it eligible for speedy? What if it were a prod and enough time had elapsed? Royalbroil 12:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't be the one who deleted it. This is because it looks like a border case and I don't know enough about the subject to judge.--Berig (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Korg

15. You said: "If this rfa should be successful my old Wiglaf account should naturally be de-admined." However, the Wiglaf account no longer has admin rights.[2] How do you explain this contradiction?

Oh, I didn't know that the admin rights had been removed.--Berig (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The rights were removed by request several months ago, according to the user rights log on Meta. So you didn't request to be desysopped? Could you please shed some light on this matter? Korg (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did but I did not receive any confirmation that they had done so, and I never bothered to check. I was considering my options for becoming an admin again and apparently the Wiglaf account had to be desysoped before the Berig account could get the tools. Then I got a new job and I have had less time for WP than I would like to have.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Korg (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xenocidic

16. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: I'd kindly respond that he can indeed make constructive edits but ask him to wait out his block as a week passes fast. I'd also point out to him that the 11.18 edit was not his "latest post", since that one took place 11.28.--Berig (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from DGG (talk)

17. What is your feeling about how to dealwith articles that, although probably correct and citable from standard references, are not cited, such as the articles you wrote at [3], [4], [5]? -- & Under your new a/c , [6]; or where the only sources are from early 20th century encyclopedias, such as the [7], [8] , [9] Are you quite sure there is nothing new or changed to say from modern scholarhship? for [10], what happened to that village after 1897? , under your new a/c, [11], [12]; or for articles with only non-English citations but where there is a decent chance English references exist, do you think it important to try to find them? e.g.[13] , [14] DGG (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is something I used to decide depending on the topic. If I wrote a short stub that I wanted myself or others to expand later, and if I thought that the content was not controversial, not likely to be contested and was easily verifiable, I usually did not add many references. In some of the articles you have referred to, I thought it sufficient to refer to easily accessible primary sources that the reader could consult. Lately, I have changed my routines and in more recent articles you are not likely to find many statements that don't have inline sourcing, even if the subject is completely uncontroversial. In the case of the old village, I wrote the article in the hope that someone more knowledgeable could contribute with what happened after 1897. As to your question as to whether it is important that the reader can find English references, I agree that an English-language source is always better than a Scandinavian source. However, in many cases there are no English-language sources that can be consulted, and a good case in point is the runestone articles where the standard reference works are only in Scandinavian. I think that all articles should be well-referenced and cover the topic well, but I have written so many articles (more than 400) that it is truly a daunting task to bring them all to GA status.--Berig (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional question fromDragonflySixtyseven:

18 Why have you not done any patrol? DS (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am watching more than a thousand pages in subjects that I am fairly knowledgeable about which gives me plenty of edits to check.--Berig (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Berig's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Wiglaf
• Requests for adminship/Berig
• Requests for adminship/Berig 2

• Links for Berig: Berig (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Berig before commenting.

Discussion

• I think it would be useful to have the details of the old account made easily available. I have had a look and found nothing awful and it gives a fair picture of what the candidate will be like with the tools again. There is nothing to indicate why this old account was abandoned so suddenly and completely, and it may be that the candidate still does not wish to revisit the matter, and I leave it up to the candidate if they are happy to place the history of that account here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Here we go: Wiglaf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Keegan^talk 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Haukurth confirms that Berig was indeed Wiglaf. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• As does Briangotts. I think we can call it confirmed now. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Shouldn't Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiglaf be linked in the "RfAs for this user" box? (I was going to add it but couldn't figure out the syntax.) — Athaenara ✉ 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done FWIW Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per nom. Berig is by far one of the most active and resourceful contributors on Norse topics I know, and he is a pure pleasure to work with. –Holt T•C 15:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - Reasonable stipulations in the answer to Q1. I see no reason not to allow this user access to the tools. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Why not. America69 (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Support The user has over 18000 edits with over 12000 mainspace edits further the user can get back the bits from the crats if he/she wants but still seeks tools through RFA and Last RFA over 2 years ago.Also track is good. See no misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Support — Great article work, already been an admin in the past so no worries about using the tools. Why not? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, great article writer. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Malinaccier in the oppose section brings up a good point, but Berig seems to know what he's doing. A few GAs and 42 DYKs indicate a dedication to the project. Best of luck, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Support, as nom. -- Mentisock 19:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Taken with the previous accounts tally of over 20,000 edits the candidate has almost 39,000 edit total (and perhaps more than 40,000 including deleted contribs). However, more than the mere count is the focus of the edits - to improving the encyclopedia. A review of the previous admin actions gives no reason for concern, and as the tools are granted on the basis of trust rather than use I see no reason not to support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Nice guy, good editor - one of the first people I met at Wikipedia. Haukur (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Support a good candiate, was already an admin without a controversial background, understands that the comunity changes (evidenced by starting at square one to learn about the changed norms of Wikipedia) instead of recovering or transfering his adminship. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Support a highly qualified, trustworthy, dedicated, level-headed, mature and approachable candidate, who has accumulated a lot experience over the years, a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy as well as a large repository of patience. He has demonstrated great organizational skills and has contributed quality edits to an incredible amount of articles - actually, his generosity with time and expertise has made Wikipedia into one of the best places on the Internet to find well-organized and well-sourced information on runes stones and other subjects relating to Norse history. If the organizational or vandalism-fighting aspects of his work here (such as moving over redirects and page protection) would make the admin tools useful to him, he certainly deserves them. Pia (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. Hemmingsen 06:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Because the opposes really aren't anything to worry about, IMO. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Opposes noted, but I think there should be no chance of misuse. Honest, if brief, answers to my Q's. Pedro :  Chat  12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - Complete faith and trust in this superb editor and former admin. — Realist² 13:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Looks Goood To Me. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{ZOMG BBQ} 13:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Seems good to me. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Strongly support I cannot see any mistakes or stuff like that when looking at your editing history so far. You seem to be a constructive editor to this wikipedia and I am sure you would make a fine admin! J.B. (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Great article work, good answers to my questions. Overall a good candidate. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - Great article contributor; was an admin in good-standing before he left; after returning, he has worked diligently on the project for two years before deciding to take up the tools again. I think he shows the reasonable and thoughtful approach one desires in an admin. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Support The more article builders as administrators the better. AniMate 15:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
24. seems OK to me. Dlohcierekim 15:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
25. Weak Support. I'm not real keen on your activity for the last three months, but I still think net positive applies here. Useight (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
27. Support. I supported without reservation the last time Berig ran, and I'm more than happy to do so again. Excellent editor, with many many fine works both behind and ahead of him. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
28. Weak Support I'll assume that this is wiglaf and in that case this is pretty well open and shut. I would prefer it if we had some way of demonstrating clearly that Berig==Wiglaf, but barring some evidence to the contrary, it isn't a show stopper. Protonk (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
29. No concerns whatsoever: I don't believe that Berig is "inexperienced" at all. Unless Wiglaf/Berig mysteriously forgot relevant policies, then I don't see any reason to worry. (1.) He's been active with this account for over two years. (2.) he doesn't appear to be an RfA regular, so his answers to the questions are more likely to be genuine rather than "copied and reworded". (3.) There was no abuse that I know about from his former account. (4.) Berig mentioned in his answer to question four about who can confirm that he is Wiglaf. Finally, I'm not worried about inactivity either...remember the adage: "better an admin who uses the tools sparingly but effectively than one who uses them often and abusively". Acalamari 18:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. Fine contributions. He has enough evidence of collaboration with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
31. Support - Likely net positive. — neuro^(talk) 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
32. Hello, I'm Judas Iscariot and I just received 30 pieces of silver -- I'd like buy a microwave oven, please...oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: Support for someone who can clearly be trusted with the duties of adminship. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - can be trusted. X MarX the Spot (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
34. Support I'm surprised that your criteria for granting rollback are more cautious than some people have for rfa votes, but over caution is scarcely grounds for oppose.. ϢereSpielChequers 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. No reason not to trust with the tools, ample experience suggesting user is deserving of trust. Support is an easy call for me, here. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 23:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
36. Support per Acalamari. LittleMountain5 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Good mainspace contributions, has clue. faithless (^speak) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
38. Support per all above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
39. Support IMO there are no good reasons against the nomination, and Berig is definitely an active and deserving candidate. Also, the election of his previous account puts him in good light, despite the account being "inactivated." Firebat08 (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. This user didn't abuse the tools first time around and doesn't seem to have gone off the rails since then. Berig does a lot of stuff on Wikipedia and can be trusted to use the tools uncontroversially and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
41. Hmm, many opposes point to lack of admin experience. The candidate has held a flagged account before. Keegan^talk 05:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    whose last edits were over 3 years ago... a LOT has changed since then... and standards have changed since then. Just as I wouldn't hold the edits of a reformed vandal from 3 years ago against them, I can't use that as a free pass. Edits from 3+ years ago, are 3+ years old... and thus not a reflection on CURRENT policies, guidelines, or understanding of how things work today.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    ....and whose edits resumed a year later and have continued for the past two years. Let's be frank, Balloonman: the more things change, the more they stay the same. The blocking, protection, and deletion policies have hardly changed along with the five pillars since administrators were created. While I can understand where you're coming from in hesitancy due to time, certainly this candidate is trustworthy. Keegan^talk 04:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

42. Support What better way for him to get (more) admin experience than by giving him back his (old) tools? Amerique^dialectics 06:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
43. Support. I have often worked with and collaborated with Berig here on Wikipedia, and I've always found Berig to be evenhanded and levelheaded. I see no reason why he should not have administrator tools again. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
44. Support - You are a good candidate, I see no problems after reviewing your current and old account. The AFD rationales and question answers are not fantastic but do not concern me, and neither does activity with quality being preferred over quantity. I have reviewed the opposition and none of it concerns me. The answer to question three is fine in my opinion, taking a break while stressed and returning later is good advice and not running away. Experience in admin areas does not concern me either, I think you have enough general experience for the tools and it is rather difficult for non-admins to build up the edits at pages such as WP:RFPP, I had nearly none there myself before I got the tools. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
45. Support I don't remember any significant troubles involving Wiglaf or Berig so I see no reason not to reinstate his adminship, although I'm wondering why he simply isn't returning to his previous account. Would save us a lot of work. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
46. Weak Support: The recent inactiveness is kind of holding me back, but such and experienced editor who has made so many valuable contributions should definitely get the tools. Even a little work as an admin will help Wikipedia, and I think everyone has agreed he is not someone who will abuse the tools. Chamal ^talk 13:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
47. Support I am going out on a limb here, and I hope it does not smack me in my face down the road, but I think Berig can be trusted. MBisanz ^talk 15:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
48. Support While duly noting the opposing rationales, I don't find any reason to be concerned for possibility of abuse of tools. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
49. Support I'm a little confused about the inexperience objections when Berig was an admin under another name even though it was long ago. No one has pointed to any objections under his prior adminship so I'm presuming he's still qualified. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
50. No worries here. I trust him to do the right thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. The candidate has been an admin before and is quite experienced. Majoreditor (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
52. Support No real issues; some mainspace concerns, but as has been said, the candidate has already been an admin. I trust his judgment. GlassCobra 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
53. Support. I have seen past admins being opposed for various reasons, but inexperience... — Lost^(talk) 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. No problems. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
55. Support, will make a fine admin. —Angr 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
56. Support , meets most of my requirements. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 16:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. Contributions are great, opposes not convincing. Wizardman 16:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
58. Support the candidate has already been an admin without any issues. Opposes are not convincing to not support you -- Tinu Cherian - 17:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Highly educated content builder. Gold-dust. Who cares if you haven't ticked the wiki-process boxes, you're inteligent enough to work it out if you ever want to use the tools in those ares. Which can't always be said of process admins doing content. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
60. Support. Fine, just fine. HiDrNick! 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
61. Support I think he should become an admin he used to be an admin so he knows the tools if he just got a new password for his old account he would be an admin if he passed once I find no reason why he shouldn't pass again. Etineskid (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
62. Strong Support just as qualified as ever. I've seen him around on some articles, and he has well-thought out answers to all of the questions. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

    My fool-self just realized that this user was Wiglaf. Make that a strong support. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

63. Support. Exceptional work, tons of great edits, absolutely an asset to the mighty 'pedia. Full speed ahead! - FlyingToaster 08:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
64. Support. It's nice to have admins with good article writing experience. Deli nk (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
65. Support - despite the opposes, seems like a no-brainer since he was already an admin and left without any controversy. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
66. Support trust with tools. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
67. Absolutely support. Will be a net positive, at any activity level. henrik•talk 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
68. Strong Support...He's been around for how long? He'll do fine with the mop. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
69. Support, may adminship not drive you away from article writing too much! -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

    I have to support you because obviously you are a editor who has done much work for this website. So behold your self: the best editor around has spoken and he is content with you: this means you will be an administrator and you owe that completely to me. Upperclass Wikipedian (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Blocked SPA editor. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (Upperclass Wikipedian has been blocked for disruption and vandalism). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

70. Support and thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - meets my standards; nice user page, plenty of experience, if a bit uneven in use. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
72. Support. Rami R 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. Per above (sic). Sometimes all that can be said abut a topic has been said, but we somehow need !votes to achieve consensus. VG ☎ 22:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
74. Strong, though late, Support". A great Wikipedian and trustworthy candidate by any name! It is my pleasure to endorse Berig since I wasn't around to do so for Wiglaf.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
75. Support. Anyone who earns Pete Hurd's support is good enough for me. Eusebeus (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
76. Support Good user, will make a good admin. --Patrick (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
77. Support. I see no opposition that convinces me otherwise. — Athaenara ✉ 05:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
78. Support - Trustworthy editor --Flewis^(talk) 08:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
79. SupportWhy the hell not, its no big deal. No RfA spam on my talk page please.--intraining ^{Jack In} 12:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
80. Support. Former admin who hasn't done anything crazy with the tools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
81. Support. Successfully held the tools previously, and has been a productive editor since then. No flags (for me) raised by the arguments below. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. When I visited this RfA, my first thought was that this would be an easy support. I looked at all the DYKs and article building and was impressed, but then I asked myself if Berig had any experience in anything but article building. In his last 500 edits, 18 were to the Projectspace with five being to RfA's. I understand that this user wants the tools mainly to work with moves, but Berig needs at least a little experience outside of the projectspace, and I'm not seeing it. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Weak Oppose I agree... when I read this page, I thought for sure that I was going to be supporting this candidate. Unfortunately, I can't. Not only did I see any meaningful activity outside of the project space, but Berig hasn't been active in the project for 3 months. I want to see admin candidates that have been active for at least five of the past six months---and I consider 150 edits to be a good base line for an active editor. Based upon that criteria, Berig, hasn't been active for the past 3 months. In fact, we are almost at the end of October, and at this moment Berig only has 58 edits for the whole month this includes 7 edits related to the RfA. While I might be able to over look some issues for a trusted editor, I can't support somebody who isn't currently active in the project whose edits don't demonstrate policy knowledge.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) COMMENT: forgot to put my actual !vote on here...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
3. I would love to support you, really I would. However, a combination of little edits to admin-related areas and inactivity pushes me to Oppose. RockManQ ^(talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, and add A Nobody's rationale to my oppose as well. RockManQ ^(talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

4. Weakly. I would like to support as well, but I just think that you should be more active, both in the project space and overall. In addition, you say you wish to work on protection, but you have less than 4 edits to WP:RFPP. Xclamation point 17:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose - per Malinaccier's comments. macy 21:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose I'm not seeing the kind of admin-experience that would make me comfortable supporting.--Koji† 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

   Ironic, considering this user is already an admin, and other users you have previously supported have never been admins yet have had sufficient "admin experience" to gain your support. Sorry I'm being annoying, I understood what you meant...but I couldn't resist :P--Serviam (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

7. Weak oppose per weak “arguments” at [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] (sounds like a reason for a merge and redirect), [23], etc. (I do not find that “per x” style “arguments” actually add anything new to discussions and I cannot take seriously use of the nonsense “word” “cruft”; nor do I find use of the subjective and disputed concept of notability as a persuasive argument; when considering the good faith work of others, we should be considerate enough to come up with thoughtful and original comments that bring something to the discussion rather than vote-sounding WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:PERNOM, and WP:JNN non-arguments). It is important that administrators close discussions in a manner and with rationales that are still respectful of good faith contributors and that explain their judgment. We can only get a real sense of the why behind someone’s argument if he/she articulates it, especially in discussions that are not unanimous. I do not see from my experience with the candidate in the above cited examples much of an explanation beyond one or two words of how he actually interprets and understands policies and guidelines with regards to these examples. In fact all of the preceding examples are the kinds of arguments typically cited as ones to avoid and from administrators I look for more carefully thought out arguments that tell me the logic behind their thinking. Yet, I am still only saying a weak oppose, because this and this are reasonable arguments that I agreed with. Moreover, I am impressed by the article creation (including good articles) work he has done as shown on his user page as well as that the candidate has never been blocked. Finally, I assume good faith regarding abandoning the old account and starting over with the new account. I can think of many legitimate reasons why someone would leave thinking they will not return, but then coming back and starting over. If the old account was not indefinitely blocked and the new account is therefore not evading a ban, then there is nothing wrong with someone coming back and editing in good faith. It is not worth it to me nor is it any of my business as to why the editor left and did not see a need to immediately return. He said he left for personal reasons and didn’t edit for a time. Thus, the new account was not evading a ban or acting a sock and to protect whatever his personal concerns were, I do not feel it is right to inquire any further. So, in summary, I just don’t see enough care in “votes” at AfDs to trust the candidate closing deletion discussions with appropriate thoughtfulness (which is important to me) and so I have to oppose, but again, I see a number of positives that make it a weak oppose. So, all the best in any event. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   Discussion relating to the length of A Nobody's rationale moved to talk page, not relevant to this RfA.

   I think this one of those above at least was a proper use of"per nom" -- first saying per nom, and then explaining adequately why. and being right, also. DGG (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose. The candidate lacks experience in admin-related areas. The answer to question three also concerns me; it seems the user wouldn't try resolve the disagreement, but runaway from it. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 02:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose I reviewed the candidate's edit record and success highlights, which were pretty impressive, but the relatively low recent edit counts, lack of project-space involvement, and the answer about leaving for weeks or months at a time when the user is stressed, leaves me to believe that the editor has potential, but definitely needs to gain more experience solving issues, not just taking breaks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 06:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose The high amount of poor arguments at AFD, cited by "A Nobody," have shown me that I cannot trust you with the tools at this time. Please put more thought into your AFD votes, as "per above" and other weightless arguments are discounted by any responsible closing administrator immediately. SashaNein (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose As much as I'd like to support, the lack of activity for a while makes me a little afraid. To ensure you will stay active, I think it's necessary to wait for at least a couple months of fair activity (at least 200 or so edits a month, ideally more). Voyaging^(talk) 02:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose from previous neutral. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose A nice summary in the comment from A Nobody above along with a rather strange situation given in reply to #4 which leaves more questions. SunCreator (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose When I was reading over the nomination, I figured this would be a pretty good candidate. When I got to the CSD question, I figured, okay, deletion is not this users "thing". There is nothing about deletion or AfD in Q1, so a weak answer there is not a problem. But the diffs brought up on AfD shows this user is reasonably active at AfD, and I believe we should hold our administrators to higher standards than other editors. Combined with the weak unblock answer, and the userpage vandalism answer, I don't feel confident about this user as an administrator, even while his planned admin actions are not in these areas. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Weak Oppose The answer you gave to Q3 leads me to believe that if and possibly when you get stressed with a disagreement you will leave it not IMO a good thing for an admin to do. BigDunc^Talk 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong oppose: this user has not done any newpage patrol at all. DS (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

    No offense intended, but that's awfully narrow, especially considering that the user doesn't wish to work clearing WP:CSD backlogs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

17. Weak Oppose per Q13. I was initially worried by the non-arguments shown by User:A Nobody above, but that wasn't sufficient enough to convince me to oppose. What tipped the balance was the answer to Q13, which, while correct in a sense, essentially boiled down to "I won't delete because I'm an inclusionist", rather than any argument rooted in policy (in this case the CSD A7 policy). Please don't interpret this as an attack on the candidate's mainspace contributions, which appear to be excellent. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

Neutral

#Combination of questionable experience with admin-related areas and unanswered questions. Per Malinaccier, Neutral for now. RockManQ ^(talk) 04:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)_{Switched to Oppose RockManQ ^(talk) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)}

1. Weak Neutral (leaning towards support) Seems like an excellent candidate, but needs more experience in admin areas. Sam ^Blab 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

   No issue with the comments, but I have to laugh at "weak neutral". "neutral verging on oppose/support" I can understand, but what does weak neutral mean? "I am sitting on the fence as to whether or not I should !vote"? :P Ironholds (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   LOLO Ironholds, you take the cake :P. Nearly all of my neutrals lean towards support. Sam ^Blab 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral I see a great future ahead for you, and this RfA will most likely pass, but I'm just worried about the last of involvement in admin areas. Let me see how the rest of the RfA works out, I may later support. iMatthew (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral The lack of recent activity is a bit concerning as well as lack of experience in admin related areas. Being an admin 3 years ago is great as well but it is just that, 3 years ago. It's a long time and the lack of current activity with the great experience beforehand will mainly lead me to not being able to support or oppose. --Banime (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - The lack of recent activity is somewhat concerning, as is the fact that the requester has not done any recent admin related work. Though he seems to have been an OK admin a few years ago; it was, well, a few years ago. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

4. Unnecessarily punitive answer to Q16, and out-of-touch answer on Q12 (a vandal vandalizing one's userpage does not place oneself into a conflict of interests: just block them) but since he technically could've just re-requested the tools I suppose opposing would be a bit silly. Would urge Berig to consider offering users a {{2nd chance}} if there is a sliver of hope they would become constructive contributors - no need to make them wait a week, as reblocks are cheap if they return to vandalism. Vandals are a dime a dozen, constructive contributors are golden. –xeno (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (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.