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

Berig[edit]

Final (28/28/11); Ended Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:04:00 UTC

Berig (talk · contribs) – Berig has been contributing for a long time now, and has made thousands of usefull edits to articles about Norse literature, history and culture. In particular he is the creator of a wide array of articles on the characters in Beowulf, early Swedish and Goths Gothic kings. Because of his experience in these topics, he is pretty much uniquely qualified to fight vandals on related articles. He is courteous and well-respected and would make a great admin. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am flattered that I am being considered for adminship and humbly accept.--Berig 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Fighting vandalism, which I understand is more easy when you have admin tools. I would also help out with moving articles and other chores should anyone require my aid.--Berig 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I think my Beowulf related articles are my pride. I have tried to cover what appears both in Anglo-Saxon tradition and in Norse tradition + quotations from scholars on the relationships between the traditions. As Beowulf will probably be even more in popular next November (Beowulf (2007 film)), I think WP should have a decent coverage of the matter, by then.--Berig 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't think I have been in any real conflicts. As long as you cite sources and are clear about your references, there is little need for disagreement. When there is disagreement, there are usually other users who help out.--Berig 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from GeeJo (talk · contribs)

There's been a bit of muttering about your lack of namespace edits. You don't have to answer these questions (you already have my support), but I'd just like to see how you'd deal with a few situations that, while unlikely, could conceivably crop up:

4. An editor has asked for your help in an area requiring the admin tools where you have little expertise (say, merging histories from a copy/paste page move). Would you do your best to assist them using your common sense and any guides on the subject you can find, ask another admin for help yourself, or advise the user to seek help elsewhere?
I would absolutely ask a few experienced admins if they would like take care of it. Then I would read up on it out of curiosity and/or to prepare myself to do it myself, should the need arise in the future.--Berig 18:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Two groups of users are engaged in an edit war over a contentious point in an article, and one of the editors involved has asked you to intervene. They're each strictly avoiding going over the three-revert limit by passing the buck to a friend when they reach their limit, or by altering the passage while removing the substance of the other version. Tempers are rising and the reverts are continuing without an end in sight. What do you do?
I politely ask them to see the common points in their POVs, and if possible I suggest a neutral wording.--Berig 18:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. A user begins adding obnoxious comments to your talk page, calling you names and accusing you of abusing your status as an admin. On checking their contributions page, it seems that the guy has made a fair number of good contributions to the project, but has recently been attacking other users besides yourself. What do you do?
I take a cup of coffee and ponder about how to answer him.--Berig 18:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. After having made a few misjudgments (speedy-deleting several articles which shouldn't have been, unprotecting a Main Page template for a few minutes, or the equivalent), you're approached by a small group of established users who ask that you resign as an admin. You explain that the errors were accidental and short-lived, but they don't seem to care and repeat their request that you step down. What do you do?
I wait and see if other admins agree with them. There are many reasons why a group of users may dislike you, and I do think that admins should be open for recall.--Berig 18:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

8. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: To me they mean that an admin should use his common sense when necessary, and not be a martinet.--Berig 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: There are reasons for blocking for shorter or longer periods of time, for instance in cases of persistent vandalism, death threats, or 3RR.--Berig 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: I would ask other admins for their opinions. WP is not the place for advertisement, but it is the place for articles on notable businesses.--Berig 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. What is your age?
Please be aware there is a recent extensive discussion about the propriety of asking a candidate's age at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 75#Optional questions, redux, including the suggestion that candidates might want to reply something like this: "Old enough to be eligible for the RfA process". Agent 86 19:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Old enough ;-).--Berig 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Strongest possible support as nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Mainspace contributions are more important than endless chatting on IRC and talk. I'm sure Berig will read up on our policies. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support (edit conflict) looks great on cursory inspection, would reconsider if someone could give a reason better than lack of "project space contributions", which does not worry me. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: In this case, I would be looking for something on the lines of "this here demonstrates that he just doesn't get it". The whole "absence of this or that fails to demonstrate that he gets it", okay, but in this case it doesn't worry me. A good record, good sense, and a strong nomination is already evidence that he "gets it" and that the details will sort themselves out. And if I may respond to a specific concern: "deferring to more experienced admins or mulling it over" works for me, it actually reinforces my sense that the details will work out. !Vote unchanged at this time. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, a sensible contributor who seems unlikely to abuse the tools; though I'd advise that the user ease into using them in any areas where they feel their experience is a bit lacking. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - with all respect for the opposers, I feel that we are first of all mainspace editors, and that there is no better way to learn policies than through constant mainspace editing.--Aldux 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Actually, engaging in discussion on policy and guideline talk pages, as well as XfD pages, and participating in the various village pumps probably grants greater exposure to policies than just simple article writings, but I agree that admins are (or should be) mainspace editors first and foremost. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Berig's a great editor and I trust the nominator's judgment. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. support in the spirit of 'less bull more editing'. Berig is fully aware of our policies, and can always read up on them if memory should lapse. dab (𒁳) 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support From what I have seen Berig seems like he would make a great administrator.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Berig appears to be a very good editor, and Briangotts is a good judge of character. Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. When I was growing up, admins were chosen mostly on the basis of their mainspace contribs...all else was basically cruft. And the admin corps was the stronger for it. Then vandal-fighting became all the rage, and XfD involvement. Suddenly we had a large group of admins who couldn't write articles and didn't know how to interact with the writers or resolve editing conflicts without resorting to anti-vandal tactics (threats, blocks, protections etc). Moreover, these cruft admins lacked the moral authority and respect required to police a community of writers. In a short time Berig has demonstrated skills that are at the core of what the project is supposed to be about. I have no doubts that in no time he will master the policy cruft as well.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom. 6SJ7 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom. I've seen good contributions from you and I have no reason to suspect that you would misuse the tools. AGF. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support While more wikinamespace edits are needed, we also need more specialist admins to improve this site as they are more familar with the text, and that's key to improve an encyclopedia. Jaranda wat's sup 01:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support great editor who's showed enough good judgment that I can be confident he won't abuse the tools. You can learn policy pretty quickly; not so much with common sense. Opabinia regalis 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support this person in my opinion has all the right qualities to be admin. Atlantis Hawk 09:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Most of the admins on the site don't understand all the policies. Seems sensible and competent. Proto::► 10:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support you meet my criteria, and you seem like a good editor. However, I would advise more involvement in the Wikipedia namespace in the future.-- danntm T C 18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good article contributions show dedication to the project. You don't have to be a "career admin" to be a good admin. Oldelpaso 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support per above. Nobody has to be an expert in everything. Just H 21:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Joe I 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I really don't like opposition for editcountitis. If we can trust him with the tools, why not? BigDT 22:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Sigo 16:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support. I support, because he is a great editor, and I appreciate his mainspace experience. Why weakly? Because reading his answers above I thought: "couldn't you give us some more convincing answers?"--Yannismarou 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Per Yanis. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 08:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. support, good luck --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Moral Support. A good contributor but I cannot see neither a strong need for admin tools nor wikipedia namespace involvement. If you withdraw and come back in a couple of months (after working on any shortcomings), I am positive you will succeed without a problem. Best wishes, Asteriontalk 14:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Top notch. Haukur 03:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I'm impressed with your mainspace contributions. However, you need projectspace contributions, to show you are familiar with policy, and you only have 29. Even in theory, we can't only give admin tools where they relate to vandal fighting, we have to give them all. So I have to be able to trust that you know what you're doing with all of them, and I can't. -Amarkov blahedits 15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per lack of WP-space edits. – Chacor 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Same question I asked (aeropagitica): would your adminship have passed the standards you're applying here? Apparently you had 2,000 edits and most of your wikispace edits were "votes". I'll avoid turning this into a rhetorical question by supplying the answer for you. Admittedly, adminship was no big deal then, back before [deleted], [redacted], [removed], and [inaudible], made it into one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Chacor. Terence Ong 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Just because a person has few WP-space edits doesn't mean they are not familiar with the pocicies. --///Jrothwell (talk)/// 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment True, but it also doesn't help establish that they are familiar with them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I consider EVula's reasons for his "neutral" important enough to merit opposition. yandman 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per all. --teh tennisman 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I can't support a user w/ very few edits re to communicating w/ other collegues. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Vandalism can be fought without access to admin tools, easier or not. --MECU≈talk 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Not all great article editors have the foundation to be great admins. Huge lack of "nuts and bolts" experiance as it's been phrased already. Thanks for your work but I don't see the precedent for sysop. NeoFreak 19:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Weak answers to questions indicate a lack of experience, knowledge, and confidence with process. --Daniel Olsen 20:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Plenty of mainspace edits are great, but <40 Wikpedia space edits and no Wikipedia talk edits menas not much experience in discussion with policies etc. Also per Daniel Olsen. –The Great Llamasign here 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose You're clearly a great asset to Wikipedia...but I just don't think you're right for adminship. Your contribs. are large, although your time here is not and neither is your interaction with other users. Sorry, keep up the great work and try again in the future.Ganfon 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Sorry, I'll have to oppose although I acknowledge that you are proving an outstanding editor (and I specifically commend you on your contributions to Scandinavian folklore articles). But as of this moment I think that neither you have the need for the admin tools (you state that you would like to use them for fighting vandalism but I see no recent vandalfight) nor experience in the processes that would require admin intervention such as XfD (your Wikipedia space count is very low). I'd be happy to support after you've had a lot more involvement in these areas.--Húsönd 00:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose - You have done some good work on your contributions, but the answers to the questions are unsatisfactory. Sorry. Insanephantom 13:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I share concerns about lack of policy knowledge and experience, which I feel is confirmed by your answer to Q10. The answer to Q5 suggests you have not been sufficiently involved in contentious issues and disputes on Wikipedia to understand the likely role of an admin in stopping an edit war. Finally, the answer to Q6 alo seems far to mild a response- an admin should be prepared to use the tools fearlessly (in appropriate circumstances). I suspect more experience (esp. of policy) will lead to your having more confidence to deal with difficult situations and I would then have no hesitation is supporting you at an RfA. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per WJB. Answers to questions don't demonstrate knowledge of policy. James086Talk | Contribs 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I'd like to see a bit more experience with the project and suggest that the nominee review the relevant policy pages. This will help next time around with more thoughtful answers to the questions. I also object to User:Agent 86's color commentary and coaching on the questions. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Lack of WP-space edits is my major concern; article-space edits are very good but probably don't require Admin tools to continue at the same quality. I'd like to see better edit summary usage on minor edits as well. Geoffrey Spear 16:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Little projectspace participation - crz crztalk 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose and suggest this be withdrawn: please try again with a bit more experience and more consistent use of edit summaries. Jonathunder 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Why you want to be an administrator is perhaps the most important part of an RfA, but your answer to question 1 is very weak. Furthermore, this is your principal reason for requesting the admin tools, and yet I see no substantial recent vandal fighting. You seem to be an excellent editor, but remember: being an administrator is just about having a few extra tools. It's not a trophy or recognition of being a valuable contributor, which you certainly are. I would support if you were more involved in and familiar with these types of tasks. Dar-Ape 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I am hoping to see candidates with good understanding of policy and procedures. I also like to see strong evidence of effective and supportive user talk. Work on those areas and come back again. Kukini 01:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak oppose The lack of wikipedia namespace edits is a concern here. Moreover, there is no strong evidence of knowledge of policies as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose While the candidate has a great deal of main space edits, they only have 375 talk page edits. This suggests they lack team work experience. Alan.ca 06:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per lack of project namespace experience. I suggest you get yourself involved in AfD's, AIV, etc. and then come back in a few months when you have nearly a thousand project namespace edits. You're a great editor on other parts of Wikipedia, so I'm sure you'll be fine with your potential future RfA. Nishkid64 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, low Wikipedia-namespace edit count indicated lack of familiarity with policy. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per the 29 Wikispace edits. WAY too low. Relatively high edits/article doesn't help either improve on the Wikispace edits and try running for adminship again at a later date. --Wizardman 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Lack of XfD experience. Dionyseus 06:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Needs more Wikipedia space experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 02:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. While your contributions to the encyclopedia are to be commended, your lack of involvement with the nuts and bolts of the site fails to show that you fully understand the many, many policies and guidelines that an administrator is expected to understand and enforce. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral The importance of demonstrating your knowledge of policies and guidelines cannot be overestimated, as these are what guide decisions on admin tasks such as blocking, deleting and protecting articles. The best way to do this is to contribute to XfD discussions and cite policies when you give your opinions. Do this in addition to your other regular tasks and I think that you will succeed in gaining consensus on the next RfA. Give it three months or so. (aeropagitica) 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of idle curiosity, how many significant Wikispace edits did you have when you were nominated back in February? You had 2,500 or so total edits (apparently an overestimate based on the current editcount tool, but counts then could have included deleted edits IIRC), and over 500 Wikispace edits, but most, if not all, were XfD, and you hadn't made any Wikitalk edits. Would you have supported your own candidacy? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning towards support: I entirely agree with Amarkov, we need to give people all the tools. Since Berig has demonstrated a solid grasp of what Wikipedia is, that shouldn't be a major problem. Just in case anyone's forgotten, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game of nomic. An arbitrarily selected number of Wikispace edits do not demonstrate a candidate's grasp of core values. On other hand, more edits would at least demonstrate a passing familiarity with the insane number of badly thought-out policies, guidelines, essays, rants, and rulecruft which make up Wikispace. That's not to say that Berig should follow the example of those editors who appear to game the system by making zero-value edits, things like updating the count in RFAs, etc, just to increase their wikispace edit count. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been told on a previous RfA that it would be sad if a candidate didn't game the system to become an admin. I abhore the concept of gaming the system and moreso the damage caused to Wikipedia by prospective candidates as they scrabble to pickup the 300-500 WP namespace edits seemingly required at the moment, normally just banging in votes to AfD with no research on the merits of each case, tallying up votes on RfAs and the like. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per EVula. If he comes back in 3 or so months with more XP in other areas, I will support. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. This is one of those candidates that I sometimes see who I really want to support, but something is missing. In this nominee's case, I think it it the lack of experience beyond editing articles. The candidate's answers to GeeJo's questions are what keep me from endorsing the nominee. The answers only seem to be half-way there, they don't really tell me what the nominee would do beyond deferring to more experienced admins or mulling it over. I'm still open in this RfA to be persuaded otherwise, but I'll more than likely support should the candidate be re-nominated again in the near future. Agent 86 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. This candidate has very good skills and has contributed but what makes him better than the countless others that have also written about Norse literature. I remain neutral and feel indifferent to him becoming an administrator or not.Mcstcisco 23:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Harold A. Mesa "mcstcisco"[reply]
    Apropos of nothing, I wouldn't exactly call contributors to articles on medieval Norse literature countless in number. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral low activity in the project space. ← ANAS Talk? 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I do not to seem to pile on, so am voting neutral. But you have very few edits in WP:NAMESPACE, and canvassing is not looked on with favour.--Anthony.bradbury 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am curious as to what you mean by "canvassing". Maybe you interprete my thanking people who are making an effort to support me, as "canvassing". I swear to you that I nothing else but common politeness in mind while doing that as I have seen others do that before me. I had no idea that such good faith gestures could be interpreted as bad faith activities. My deepest apoligies for my unitentional improper behaviour.--Berig 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Great editor! I am very impressed with your mainspace contributions. As much I would like to support however, unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia namespace is really not good =( AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 06:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - good editor, but not many wikispace edits. I'll be glad to support somewhere down the line when I see more participation in Xfd and policy discussions. // I c e d K o l a 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. Good editor. Should grow a bit more outside of the mainspace. Would support in future. Nephron  T|C 17:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category