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

Bearian[edit]

Final (63/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian (talk · contribs) - I'll fill in this section after you indicate your acceptance. Shalom Hello 02:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian (talk · contribs) has been an active editor for the last six months. He has added substantially to the encyclopedia, creating dozens of new articles from the "requested articles" lists: see User:Bearian/Contributions for examples. He also has spent hours solving complex administrative problems, especially at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I am impressed by Bearian's prudent method and sound judgment. He always looks for ways to solve a problematic article before recommending its deletion, and he deals kindly with his fellow Wikipedians. Bearian has the necessary experience and temperament to be trusted with admin access, and I hope this process will be little more than a formality for him. Shalom Hello 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Copied with permission. Bearian 19:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I respectfully decline this nomination, because I am not yet ready. I will be open to another nomination in another month or so. Bearian 12:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I accept. Bearian 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: In the future, I hope to do some things I can not do as an ordinary user, but would need to be a sysop to do:
  1. To close out debates at AfDs, both controversial and in cases of clear consensus, but not where I have stated an opinion.
  2. To monitor vandalism and correct as necessary at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, and providing semi-protection where necessary.
  3. To mentor new editors and admins.
  4. To delete pages nominated for speedy deletion.
  5. To block vandals after 4 or more warnings.
  6. To work on the backlogs at old articles nominated for deletion.
  7. To revert vandalism after two or more supervening edits, and do so more easily with "rollbacks".
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I actually did not need to be an admin to do my best work so far. I am especially proud of articles at Nick Katzman, Tom Winslow, and Teodoro Maniaci, although they are not yet Good articles. They, like all of the articles I have created, are works in progress. I am an eventualist. I consider them my best work, so far, because they are decent biographies about people who are not famous for being famous, but are otherwise notable. Also, I have attacked the huge backlog of legal articles requested at WP:AR1. I am continuing to create a body of work, none of which, by themselves, is great. Some of my other good work so far has been to bring stubs and articles at AfD to the Heymann standard. I like to rescue "lost" articles at AfD and "orphaned articles". For legal examples, see Law practice management software, Hague Justice Portal, Pro-rata and Ted Frank. Also see Grieg in pop culture and Irish Americans in New York City for non-legal examples. For the full list, see User:Bearian/Contributions. I have not always succeeded in getting articles rescued at AfD, for example, Electrocrunk.
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: I have had some conflicts. I consider these as my mistakes in communication. With so many edits across so many fields of knowledge, as well as at AfD and COIN, it is inevitable that will happen sometimes. The catalog of my conflicts include:
4. Optional question by self. What is your specific experience at English Wikipedia?
A: My past experience at WP includes:
  1. I have been an active and regular contributor to WP, about 1,000 edits per month. I have made 6,000 edits (over 2,500 in the main space) to over 3,000 pages in the past seven months. My actual count is at least 6,050, with many articles I nominated or tagged for speedy deletion, as well as some articles I tried - but failed - to rescue at AfD.
  2. I have created 58 current articles and stubs; see User:Bearian/Contributions. Most of these have been for WikiProject:Law. I have also created some biographies, and stubs on religion, music, science fiction and cuisine. Some of them are pretty good, but many are merely stubs.
  3. I have been very active at articles for deletion, the conflict of interest notice board, for proposed mergers, and the requested articles pages (WP:RA, WP:AR1, and WP:AR2). I have commented extensively at this page, WP:RfA. I have just started to become active at admin's intervention against vandalism page and request for page protection.
  4. I have fought vandalism by reverting the changes, and placing notice tags on the offending users' talk pages. I have not reported much on WP:AIV - unless it's extreme. My tussles are evidenced by attacks on my user and talk pages, see the diffs at my userpage for that.
  5. I sometimes nominate articles for speedy deletion and conflict of interest.
  6. I often welcome new users, and sometimes userfy autobiographies. I avoid biting newbies and try to assume good faith.
  7. I have used edit summaries well over 99 % of the time (see my edit count).
  8. I have sign over 99 % of my talk page entries (see my contributions).
  9. I communicate so much with other users that I have had to create 2 archives for my talk page (soon to be a third).
  10. I attended the NYC wiknic in August 2007. See this page for images.
  11. I have also done a lot of mop-type work at WP:Law - systematically watching, tagging, and categorizing dozens of articles.
  12. I have taken short wikibreaks of a few days, but am otherwise consistent.
  13. I make a strong effort to obey all rules, and not edit in anger.

Optional question from Dreamy

5. If confronted with multiple users, that are not sockpuppets, that all agree on something, even though you have already attempted to explain why what you believe to be correct, is correct, how would you then handle it? Assuming that they stand united and will not just be pushovers.
A: Oh, that happens all the time with my students and at times with clients. I try to get evidence to prove something. I learned once that, "People defend what they help to create." Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. Bearian 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Question from User:Pedro. How did the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk make you feel, considering the amount of effort you put into trying to save it? Pedro |  Chat  09:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:Well, I'd be lying to you guys if I wrote that I was not disappointed. However, I'll live with it. Maybe it will become a notable genre yet in the future. Anyway, I discovered yet another new form of music I like, and a community at WP. So it is not all bad. :-) Bearian 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from The Random Editor:

7.. I took a look at your earliest contributions, and it appeared to me as if you knew right away what you were doing. Have you edited under a IP before, or have you had a previous account. If it was a account, would you mind sharing the name of it with us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Random Editor (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, I have made some of the edits at User:71.245.156.223, and perhaps one other IP address in January and February 2007; I'm not certain. I have not had any other accounts at WP. I have an account at a certain well-known blog, from which I learned some Internet 2.0 protocol. (However, that account reveals my real name and address, so I'd rather not disclose it in such a public forum.) I know a bit of HTML from a 100-level college web design course, so I found Wiki markup somewhat comparable. This is much in the way I picked up cognate vocabulary in Latin and French from my high school and South Bronx Spanish, high church Episcopalian liturgy, and law school legalese. I'll follow up when I investigate further and get a more complete answer to you. Bearian 01:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I made all the edits under 71.245.156.223, but those were done after February 2007. Hmmm, perhaps I forgot to log in? More to come.... Bearian 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still not sure. It's not the Internet cafe I'm using now. I edited a few times from an IP address located in early 2007. That's all I can figure out now. Maybe another admin can figure it out. I have not had service on my home computer, so I am a vagabond user. My co-workers have complained that I use the work computer too often. I hope this answers your question. Bearian 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., folks, I can't find the old edits from the old ISP. Here is my final answer, on how I "knew right away what (I was) doing," which in turns may be pompous, pitiful, or poignant.
Sheesh, Bearian, this isn't the Spanish Inquisition. Relax. :-) Ronnotel 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from User:Geo Swan
8: There is Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Less than ten percent of the existing administrators have volunteered to be open to recall. Were you planning to open up your administratorship for review? If not, why not? Cheers! Geo Swan 12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:Yes, I would be open for review after 6 to 7 months. I think that is enough time for me to learn the job. Bearian 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bearian before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support Oh, sure... I hardly ever agree with you on anything, but you always seem to know what you're talking about. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Civil, competent, and some of the better answers I've seen in some time. Hiberniantears 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Solid record of contribution. Ronnotel 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Civil user who gives opinions backed solidly by relevant policies and guidelines at AfD. Should make a good admin. — TKD::Talk 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support He respects advice from smart people--יודל 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support someone who declines a nom can't be all that bad. Yossiea (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Give this user the mop! Dreamy \*/!$! 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Prolific, sensible contributions to AfD. Espresso Addict 22:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support An excellent candidate.--Húsönd 22:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Absolutely. No reason to oppose. Solid candidate. Pursey Talk | Contribs 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Certainly appears to understand policy, and I particularly like that he has (twice!) declined a nomination for adminship. faithless (speak) 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Strong support per significant participation on Wiki pages, good answers. --JForget 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support! — xDanielx T/C 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Extensive edit count with quality edits, very organized and professional with answers, civil editor with knowledge of policies and has much experiences to admin-related jobs. He deserves to get the mop. GeneralIroh (Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.) 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Great record. Pleasant and competent discourse. Dr.K. 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support as nominator. Shalom Hello 02:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Happy to give my support. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Great explanations in answers, as well as solid contributions. Phgao 05:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Nice guy with an excellent record of contributions. --Eastlaw 06:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - such a lot has been achieved since you started - a good candidate. Lradrama 08:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A very careful, sensible, and competent editor. DGG (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Of course. Contributor show's a high degree of care, civility and commitment to Wikipedia which is very endearing. I think it is little things like this: [3] - that discern a great editor from a good editor. Definitely has my support. ScarianTalk 10:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. EXTREME Support. I wasn't going to bother voting on this RfA, since it looks like it's going to pass unanimously. However, I briefly looked through the candidate's recent contributions, and found his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Murphy. Most users would just post "Delete, fails WP:BIO" and move on, secure in the knowledge of adding +1 to the projectspace count (I admit I used to do exactly this before I became an admin, so I'm being somewhat hypocritical). However, instead, this candidate took the time to reformat the article, remove cruft and add inline citations, in the hope of saving it. [4] [5] [6] [7] So, even if we didn't mention his prodigious edit count (2,000 more than I had when I passed RfA), his civil and intelligent comments, and good relationship with other users, this would still be a candidate worthy of everyone's wholehearted support. WaltonOne 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Bah. Walton beat me to it, but almost exactly the same thing happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk - per my Q6. Outcome was delete, yet Bearian made some 15 odd edits trying to save the article. And per his answer above he lives by the communities decision to delete it despite his best efforts. Prime admin traits. Bring forth the mop please. Pedro |  Chat  15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I honestly don't remember having a dispute with this user - obviously if we did it was so minor (or so well resolved) that it's left my mind. That's a good sign :) In any case this editor's contribs look good, seems to display a good understanding of policy, and looks worthy of support to me. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - give the man his own mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per above. (Good to see other participants that remember the old mop and bucket.) Meets my undergoing refurbishment standards. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I have seen Bearian around the wiki, and have the utmost confidence he will do a good job. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Bearian is a great addition to Wikipedia! -Lemonflash(do something) 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Per Q4 answer. Yikes! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) (Drought) 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. CO2 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I get a very good vibe from this user, and I have no idea why. But as for a much less arbitrary reason, he has demonstrated a willingness to actually try to save articles from deletion, something I greatly respect. And most of the above. — i said 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Upon reviewing the candidates responses I have concluded that the problem lies with me and not the candidate; I see no evidence that the mop will be abused. LessHeard vanU 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 21:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Jmlk17 23:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns to me. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Newyorkbrad's rationale. Acalamari 01:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I've seen this editor's work, and found him to be a civil contributor with good judgment. His participation at AfD seems knowledgeable, and he does try to fix up articles marked for deletion. He creates new articles from scratch on legal topics that appear well-balanced. He gave sensible answers to the questions above. EdJohnston 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support As per Newyorkbrad and has a good track and declined nomination shows he is not after Admin powers.Pharaoh of the Wizards 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per Newyorkbrad and good answers to questions.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Great answers to all questions, very good experience, and he is a knowledgable and civil editor. He will make an excellent admin. Dreadstar † 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Every time I see this editor, another place of Wikipedia becomes even better. Full support. :) -WarthogDemon 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support While I agree with you about 1% (maybe that's too high) on matters at Xfd, you obviously know policy and won't misuse the tools. I also will say, I admire those who fight the good fight against the odds often for the good of WP, even against a majority of opposition (even when I am in that opposition). WP improves best by vigorous civil debate and you have certainly been a good contributor to the vigorous debate and have remained civil - and I even recall when you so improved an article that you turned around virtually all of us at Afd but in searching through your edit history I couldn't quite recall which it was but the memory remains. Good luck! Carlossuarez46 06:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support A contributor who knows policy and whose first priority is solid encyclopedia building, with great interaction that is so important to dealing with other users as an admin. It speaks very highly to your character that those who often disagree with your opinions are also supporting you here. ~Eliz81(C) 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Candidate appears very qualified, and I appreciate the dedication to improving articles to meet Wikipedia's criteria - that is, it's great to see a "Keep and clean up" voice that follows through on the "clean up" part. JavaTenor 17:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Looks experienced and competent. WjBscribe 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - woah man! Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Suppport, even though I think you're fighting a losing battle at City of Dublin Male Voice Choir. (*grin*) Still, you know policy, you think before you type, and you can be trusted with the mop. --Fabrictramp 16:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - user is most certainly not insane. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - However, I have not seen an psychiatric exam report (see above by ST47) showing either sanity or insanity. WP requires citations. Archtransit 17:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Good editor, seems trustworthy, and he treated me fairly when I was vulnerable. - Crockspot 21:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Since the day I welcomed him, it was clear he'd be a good editor. I see I am not alone in that opinion! Jokestress 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - seems like a fine candidate. Good and comprehensive answers to the questions, and has a fine track record - Alison ❤ 04:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support Hopeshopes 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Note from EVula: User has been indefinitely blocked for vandalizing various RfAs. Striking comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. No comment. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Pile-on support: I don't see any cause for concern, and I trust User:Shalom's judgement as nominator. I'm sure Bearian will do good work - though I'm still a little upset that he outed my identity... MastCell Talk 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support -- Thanks for answering my question. Cheers! Geo Swan 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Very good answers and edit count. Have fun!!! •Malinaccier• T/C 00:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Nice user, good answers, lots of contributions spread nicely among all spaces. --Kudret abiTalk 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Hopping aboard the steamroller. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong support -- impressive, thoughtful candidate. --A. B. (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong support - Level headed and reasonable. - Jehochman Talk 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Very, very weak oppose User states he is currently editing from an internet cafe, be it from a personal laptop over wifi or the computers there this poses a slight security risk, heightened for a sysop. Don't leave your fly open. Dureo 04:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it pose a risk for a personal laptop? --DarkFalls talk 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is addressed in the essay I linked. Dureo 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns. I have a secure password, but am planning to change that, if chosen as a sysop. Is Verizon Internet service reliable and secure enough? I'm hoping to get them at home ASAP. Should I stop using the college's computer for this purpose, or should I get a bot account? Bearian 17:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I would hold this as a reason to oppose, but, yes, please do exercise caution on a public computer. An incorrectly configured system could be infected with a key sniffer and potentially leave your account vulnerable. Ronnotel 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest creating a sock account for you to use when you edit from a less-secure location, such as a college computer. Socks are allowable in instances like that, and it's suggested that it be named something similar enough to your main account to make it obvious; for example, my own account is creatively named User:EVula's sock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is a weak reason to oppose, thats why I said weak, weak :P, but still concerns me, if you take your own laptop, it's a small matter to break the WEP/ WPA and pull your password out of the air, even worse if you use their computers and someone has slipped some type of keylogger onto the system, so being careful goes a long way. Dureo 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a point of interest, about 70% of my Wikimedia edits are done wirelessly (granted, it's a home network, but still). Yes, the danger is there, but I don't think that wirelessly connecting on your own machine is terribly high-risk (as opposed to logging into a public terminal). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mine too... but we aren't talking about from home. Dureo 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral I want to support, but I find that I am uncertain. Perhaps it is the quantity of contributions to RfA and XfA for someone so "new" to WP. Hopefully the answers to The Random Editor's question, or this, will alleviate my concerns. LessHeard vanU 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Change to support. LessHeard vanU 15:33, 22 September 2007 (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