🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Berean_Hunter
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Berean Hunter

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Berean Hunter

[edit]

Final (160/0/0); ended 20:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Maxim(talk) 20:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]
Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) – I'll keep this nomination short, because there is little I could say that would not be better said by simply looking at Berean Hunter's history on Wikipedia. He's been around since late 2007, he owns a complete set of Clues, and he's not afraid to use them. I've decided to nominate him today because, while he was doing his usual stellar job helping the checkusers at SPI, I offhandedly asked him to delete an attack page from a long-term abuser in a case I was processing.

If we ever make a poster for the "But I thought you already were an admin" meme, it'd have to be Berean Hunter posing for the portrait. — Coren (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom

[edit]

Ever since I met Berean Hunter I've known he would be the kind of admin we want. Not flashy, avoids drama, mature, focused and keeps a positive attitude about everything he does. I've worked with him on articles some and a great deal at SPI, so I know he is exceptional about researching first and not jumping to conclusions, which are traits that will serve him well with the bit. He has quietly been dedicated to helping Wikipedia for a long time, racking up tremendous experience and now I think he is more than ready to helps us in new ways. He is easily trustworthy and there is no question that he will be an even bigger asset with the extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you. I accept the nomination.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would continue clerking in sockpuppet investigations but with the added ability to evaluate deleted contribs as evidence and the ability to merge cases. I would also continue working problems at noticeboards and plan to expand my investigative scope to more thoroughly encompass copyright infringement cases and spamming cases as I've found them to be so closely intertwined with socking.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: From a creation standpoint, I feel the best contributions are adding images into articles. This is one of the things that makes our articles come to life and more interesting. I stepped outside of my usual wiki activities and managed to get a few of them into articles. Most have been related to the American Civil War. In particular, I'm happy about those that were added during 1st Great Wikipedia Dramaout because we managed to get quite a bit done as a concerted creation drive without the usual fuss. My smaller part in that may be seen on my user page in a collapsed box titled Dramaout log which was some template work and adding 107 images mostly for our ACW articles. Also, I consider my contribs where I have been able to help someone, facilitate them or otherwise teach them how to do something as being amongst the best.
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, I have been in editing conflicts before. After editing on Wikipedia for a while, you get used to that and it becomes routine. Removing spam links, vandalism or someone's fringe theory will frequently get you into controversy. You have to look beyond their anger and try to diffuse situations by getting them into a discussion on the talk page which focuses on the edits and the reasons behind them.
Additional question from Scottywong
4. As a followup to Q1, do you intend to participate in any admin areas outside of SPI and the noticeboards? Are there any admin areas that you're not yet comfortable with, but seem like they might be interesting to you? How would you approach these types of areas?
A: Yes, I imagine that I will try to add duties as my skillsets grow. After learning within SPI, I would like to add both WP:CCI and the anti-spamming venues. I can see that there are folks with talents in those areas and I would like to learn more from them. I don't fully understand all that is going on there but I would spend time observing, communicating and working with those folks to develop the proper skills. Beyond that, I would try to work where needed at the time.
Additional question from Carrite
5. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name? If so, what are the names of these accounts?
A: I edited a few times as an IP before creating my account but I have never had any other account.
Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Crisco 1492
6. As an admin you may occasionally have to comment on things that may be out of your depth (random example, title disagreement: should it be Ramadhan or Ramadan). Assuming you were the closing admin in a move request for said article, with one side (15 !votes) arguing that their spelling is closer to the original Arabic, and the other (14 !votes) arguing that their spelling is the most common name in English, how would you close this discussion? For the purposes of this question, the article is at Ramadhan.
A: Assuming your hypothetical situation that the article has been stable at Ramadhan for a while, I would close as a move to Ramadan. The group of 14 are making an argument which is firmly rooted in common name policy while the argument that the spelling is closer to the original Arabic carries no weight in policy or guideline. The spelling difference here is not applicable under ENGVAR so that carries no weight.
7. How would you personally define disruptive editing? What do you think are blockable offences? (Interpretation of applicable guidelines and policies welcome)
A: Disruptive editing is anything which results in the editors within our community having to persistently undo the contributions of or otherwise spend time, effort or resources to clean up behind editors who either refuse to comply with policies and guidelines or can not comprehend how. This definition also includes high-drama events that sweep the attention off focus from productive activities so that the disruption may be dealt with accordingly. Persistent disruptive behavior such as vandalism, copyright infringement, BLP violations, illegitimate socking and those who keep reverting against talk page consensus are all examples of blockable offences. Blocking should just be done to prevent further disruption from occurring and never as a punitive measure however.
Additional question from Jorgath
8. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: Admins are responsible to the community that they serve and need to be able to justify their actions and communicate properly with other editors. Editors may audit an admin's actions and question them and the admin should respond with their reasoning. Conduct unbecoming to an administrator will cause the community to lose faith and a pattern of failing conduct will likely result in sanctions or desysopping.
After an admin has been reverted by another, there should be no more reverting unless there is a community consensus or an agreement between those two admins. You might think of it as a 1RR restriction held collectively on the admin corps where any one admin can use that 1RR up for the whole group. WHEEL should be prevented through discussion and in the case of BLP, emergency or privacy concerns the material should be left deleted unless there is a consensus to add it back. If it involves page protection following an edit war, the page should remain protected during discussion.


General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Ain't gonna be nobody doing a beat-the-nom support on my watch! — Coren (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, definitely. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 21:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I've been impressed with Berean Hunter's work at SPI, where his insights and conclusions are typically spot-on, and it would be very useful for him to be able to push the buttons himself. Also, per nom. —DoRD (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - A lot of good work at SPI.--Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support bumped in to this user a few times, SPI seems to need a few extra admins. Obviously knows his way around Wikipedia, so why not. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 21:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as co-nom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - per nom, and personal observation. Good editor. Moriori (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - While I haven't bumped into Berean myself, based on my review of their contributions and examining the nomination, I vote yes! Sarah (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Could have sworn you were already one; you will make a more-than-welcome addition to the team, and it's always nice to see somebody wanting to get more involved with SPI. GiantSnowman 22:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support as trustworthy, safe, reliable and if Coren is the nom, who could say no? QU TalkQu 22:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Amazing work work with WP:SPI, which is an often overlooked, yet incredibly necessary cog in the machine. Giving this user the mop would be a net positive. That would be enough for me, but I also note that he is unfailingly civil, knowledgeable and helpful. I can't find anything not to like here. If anything, I'm amazed this nomination is this long in coming. Trusilver 23:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as of writing, opposes are unconvincing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that sort of like trying to divide by zero? Carrite (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. My general rule per the "no big deal" criterion that almost everyone else ignores is that anyone with experience who isn't a prick who wants to be an admin should be allowed to be an admin. But in this case I want to go further - it's not just that BH ain't a prick; he's an ANTI-prick and therefore Strong Support Egg Centric 23:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I would prefer a wee bit more article creation, but strong edit count, civility and work at SPI make Berean an excellent candidate and a strong support.E W 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Great work, for years. Great to see you here. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support . About time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Per Kudpung Calmer Waters 03:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. If we're going to have admins, might as well have decent ones. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Trusilver said it real nice. It would definitely be a net positive and this user seems reliable enough to be entrusted with this. Mysterytrey talk 04:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I've always found Berean Hunter to be a net positive. See no reason why not. Monty845 04:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Good luck in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Someguy1221 (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Easy one - I've seen Berean Hunter around the place a lot, doing lots of good stuff. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Seen him around. Everything seems fine. Thought he was. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. His contributions to yogurt rival lactobacillus acidophilus's contributions to yogurt. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I expect there's a lot of furious digging into the past going on, to show that someone was slightly less than civil to a CU proven sockpuppet back in 2008. (No, I'm just giving an example of what might be found by someone with too much time to spare...) I've seen Berean Hunter around for a long time and for most of this thought that a mop was already in their possession - and that it belonged there. Peridon (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support yes please Arcandam (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Has been doing valuable work for Wikipedia, mostly behind the scenes; could do even better if they had tools. Up to now, they have been working like a janitor, but without a mop. I have been impressed by their calm, rational demeanor when I have encountered them. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oh yes. T. Canens (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A patient and thoughtful user who's done demanding work at SPI. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I've seen this editor being sensible at ANI; I, too, thought they were already an admin. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support – Unusually well qualified for admin tasks due to his experience in SPI which requires good judgment and where the work is both stressful and confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support largely based on previous interactions at AfD, fine nominations, and a review of previous contributions. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Arggggh, how did I not notice this yesterday?!? Berean's doing great work at SPI and the noticeboards, and will only be a greater asset with the tools. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. In all of my interaction with Berean (mostly on noticeboards), I've been impressed by his civility, incisiveness, and analytical skills. He communicates well, he's interested in expanding his skillset, and he likes helping people. Pretty good traits for an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Qualified candidate. Courcelles 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Good candidate, nice to see one with content work.VolunteerMarek 20:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support qualified, lots of good things. —HueSatLum 21:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Thought you already had the bits. As per your nominators (both well respected) and the edits speak for themselves. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support a great candidate. -- Dianna (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support He'll do great. WayneSlam 22:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I've actually never seen Berean Hunter around, but his answers to the questions and a few random spotchecks assure me that he is a high quality editor, and his most-edited articles suggest he doesn't shy away from high traffic work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Good enough. I've had a few interactions with the fellow and they were positive. Seems non-dramatic and not an egotist. Go images, too...TCO (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Many positive observations of him at work. Good head on his shoulders. Looks good in a suit. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support trusted --Aude (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Yes please. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Opposes continue to be unconvincing! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Yes, please. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support — 31K edits, nearly 16K to mainspace, ample tenure. One 3RR block from 2008 not concerning to me. No indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Suppport. I legitimately did think this user was already an admin. Works well in admin areas now, so clearly would be an asset with the tools.Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I thought that you were already an admin! Electric Catfish 14:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Obviously competent and trustworthy. AGK [•] 14:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Looks good; I also like their well-thought out answers to the additional questions. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. SupportElen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not. I see no reason not to support. Is it necessary to state this blindingly obvious minimum level of reasoning? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "This discussion process is not a vote...Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that as if it were policy, but the components you have strung together to make it appear it is an instruction are actually part of an explanation that in close run votes, a well argued submission will carry more weight with the bureaucrat than a mere "oh yes". So please stop badgering people who simply choose to chalk their mark on the wall. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an instruction, and "voting is evil", remember? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonetheless consensus is shown to some extent by the level of community support. Moreover some prefer not to repeat the reasoning of others. Thirdly if admin is no big deal, then all one needs to support is lack of objection. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  60. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Good luck.--Chip123456 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support It seems clear to me that a solid, reliable, experienced editor deeply involved in sockpuppet investigations would be more effective if granted the administrative toolkit. Thanks for the work you do, Bearean Hunter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Knows what he's doing. Unusually calm under drama. Serif font in sig is a grave sin, but RfA is for candidates to learn from. {{Archery}} is still the wrong colour, but when the worst you can come up with in an RfA is a two-year-old bikeshedding argument the candidate will be fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Secret account 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To leave a comment on the support, while I rather see a much more broad level of experience and I remembered there was one SPI case a while back in which I wasn't impressed with his behavior, its not significant enough to oppose. Considering SPI is probably the one area we need the most administrators at as it's heavily backlogged and considering all the editors supporting the nomination, I feel it's a net positive for BH to get the tools. Secret account 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support: all said. Pundit|utter 01:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. This site will only benefit if he is given adminship. →Σσς. 02:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Of course. -- Ϫ 02:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Yep - looks all good, best of luck! – Connormah (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
  70. Support does well, and will continue to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - I've seen BH around and his contributions have always been clueful. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Kilopi (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Stephen 03:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support We need more people at SPI, and Berean is undoubtedly an excellent candidate. Good answers to the questions as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Already thought candidate was an admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Absolutely — Experienced and thoughtful. Will do good work as an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Confident that Berean Hunter will make a fine administrator. No worries here. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 05:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Absolutely. I've only seen good things from this user. Jafeluv (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. mabdul 08:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? mabdul 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Yes. Good candidate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Experienced user. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. No concerns here. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Well-qualified candidate, good answers. --John (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support User can be trusted with the tools.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Handing him the tools will help the project. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Risker (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Good candidate with a great editing history. Good answers and well-trusted. —Hahc21 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support...I see no evidence they will abuse tools or position.MONGO 15:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support As per Dennis Brown(co-nom) TheStrikeΣagle 16:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, do not see any problems, competent in the prospective admin activity area.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support I get to support two great admin candidates in one day! It's been a while since I've done that! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - a sensible request and I don't see any likely harm from it. -— Isarra ༆ 18:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - a sensible and reliable candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Today is just a very good day for RFAs. bd2412 T 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support could use tools at SPI. --Rschen7754 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support — Ched :  ?  22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC) .. and to preemptively answer the "Why"? .. I've seen their work and think they would do well with the tools. [reply]
  98. Support Great work all-around, clearly has a need for the tools and I trust he'll use them responsibly. --IShadowed 22:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support More than deserving!--Hu12 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support, very thoughtful and knowledgable editor, great attitude, will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support: Of course! Elockid (Talk) 03:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Eminently trustworthy and experienced. About time. Steven Walling • talk 04:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Always been impressed with BH's contributions. As others have said - about time. — sparklism hey! 07:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Thought he was an admin. I won't be able to close this RfA, so very happy to support it for such a clueful editor. And welcome to WP:100. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support for his experience and stats, I have seen his work at SPI (mistook him to be an admin already). --DBigXray 14:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - Impressive work. Ceradon talkcontribs 15:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Trusted user who will be a fine admin. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Late pile-on support. I know it's a cliche, but I thought s/he was already an admin. You do great work and will be an excellent admin. Good luck! MastCell Talk 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support So he can stop bugging me about deleted contribs and blocks for SPI. jk, Berean is a great admin-to-be, and frankly he needs the tools to do a solid job, which he is doing without the tools right now. Full support from me. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Great candidate, no worries. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Never interacted with the editor, but good answers to questions and no apparent issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - While I am not personally familiar with the nom, the community's overwhelming support makes a bandwagon !vote here academic. Also, anyone this skilled at SPI is an important asset to the project. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support per "but I thought you were an admin already." Although awaiting answer to question, it'd take a lot to make me overturn this one. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support I thought they were one already. Doc talk 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Keepscases (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support A little while back, I looked at Berean Hunter's profile and was surprised not to find the admin bit there. The candidate's SPI work and policy awareness both are more than ample justification for the admin tools. --Orlady (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - Its extremely rare for me to vote on an RFA and even less likely I would support 2 in the same 10 minute span but absolutely I support this. Kumioko (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. No questions here. I've been working with this editor for many years in the ACW content area and have strong trust based on lengthy experience with this candidate. Like Kumioko above, I find it a great and rare pleasure to vote support on more than one admin candidate in an evening. A very good night on en.wikipedia.org. BusterD (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Might as well pile on... my look at his work has me convinced. Best of luck with the mop. Vertium When all is said and done 00:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support, excellent candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - I've noticed you around. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  123. Support - I'll pile on too. I've noticed this editor's work here for years and always felt this was a positive influence. Overwhelming community support. SPI is one of our most crucial areas of expertise, and having the tools is a huge plus. A big win for all! Jusdafax 04:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - Easily meets my criteria, so why not join the pile? Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 05:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support I see no reason to oppose. His work at WP:SPI has been fabulous. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - Solid work, no problems here. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 18:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. I was a little unhappy that Q3 answer avoided specifics, but I've seen this editor perform in a contentious article with strong PoV issues, socks, and blocks. The article came under control and progressed. Glrx (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Having looked over their contributions, I see no cause for concern PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Nice SPI work, well trusted by the community. It's a joy to see so many successful noms in one week! Way to go wikipedia, the new blood will be of great benefit to the community of admins. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Gabe? You already !voted in support (#113). Why are you voting again? David1217 What I've done 23:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I indented it. This is the 2nd duplicate vote on this RfA. Berean, you must be the most popular candidate ever. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, with so many great noms this week I must be losing track! Anyway, what a nice issue to have huh? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Seems like a solid user who will continue to serve as an asset as an administrator. Michael (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Falls into the cat "I thought s/he already was an admin. Solid record in many areas so this is an easy one for me. MarnetteD | Talk 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - I kept asking him, why wasn't he an admin already, on IRC. Long overdue.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Wifione Message 03:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support looks like a very convincing candidate to me. Berean Hunter I hope you serve the community well. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support' Joining in the pile-on for support - very solid candidate! Skier Dude (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - Absolutely. Not only because of the editor, but because of a need (I think) for more SPI clerks that have administrative tools. I see a need there, and Berean Hunter will fill that need well, I think. - SudoGhost 07:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - Seems to be a reasonable, rational editor with solid history on Wikipedia. --Nouniquenames (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Berean Hunter is experienced in investigation, is a respected member of the Wikipedia community in good communication with any others, and is an excellent coordinator of the addition of images to articles. I expect this user to be a good admin. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Absolutely. GedUK  12:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - Good candidate. AlexiusHoratius 17:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Berean Hunter appears to be an experienced and competent contributor who can be trusted with and would clearly benefit from admin tools. Michael Anon (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Seems like a reasonable editor with a high level of clue. AniMate 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support per the above. I would have been neutral but for the singular achievement of collecting a full set of Clues. They will serve the candidate well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Intelligent and willing editor, long overdue for the mop. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support effectively clean block log, very longterm trusted user. I'll trust others re your major locus of activity as it isn't an area that I'm active in. Deleted contributions look pretty good, but when this ends you might want to have a look at this one - you prodded it, but I'd have preferred to see you add a hoax tag, maybe even a G3. ϢereSpielChequers 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - specific plans for using the tools, votes of confidence from many respected editors, and a deleted contributions vetting from WSC are reasons enough for me to support. 28bytes (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - I'm confident that this user has a need for the tools, and will use them well.--Slon02 (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - Have noticed the high quality of the candidate's work, and am confident they'll use the bit judiciously. -- Scray (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Born to be an admin who will serve the Wikipedia community. I'm sure that when he handles the tools properly, he'll gain community trust. Good luck. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 09:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support - After a close look at their edits, found nothing wrong. I'm a bit late to the party but yes they deserve the rights. TheSpecialUser TSU 10:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Has been around since Dec 2007 experienced , well versed in policy and see no concerns as per track.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support- ...and good luck. :D Dru of Id (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support, wait, Berean isn't an admin? That needs to be fixed immediately--Jac16888 Talk 15:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Always happy to support potential candidates. Fine answers given to most of the questions above. I've seen Berean Hunter's good work at the SPI and given their experience and knowledge and understanding of various Wikipedia policies, they will make a good administrator as they already are an asset to the project. Have also randomly checked some of the contributions and everything seems good. All the best Berean! TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support I haven't had the chance to look into this candidate as much as I wanted to, but I trust Dennis' judgement and 157 other supporters. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support with no concern. KTC (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Add me to the list of people who thought you were already an admin. I frequently see your name pop up in my watchlist, and as you're always doing good work I'm happy to support. Acalamari 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. I've seen the candidate's work numerous times, so add me to the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. No concerns, and good answers to the questions. WikiPuppies! (bark) 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Votes for Romney are unconvincing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Regretful Oppose The candidate doesn't demonstrate a true need for the tools. I'd like to see him work in more areas than just WP:SPI.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of times I've flown thru SPI, listed the CU findings but left half the sox unblocked, identified that the sockmaster is a different chap to the one everyone thought it was but left the SPI where it was etc, it's handy even for an SPI clerk to be an admin. Block and delete tools are handy in copyvio and spam cases as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral
[edit]
Initially supportive since he shows enough clue to make a good admin, but I can't review the oppose votes that have been oversighted. Blade says he found them unconvincing, but I can't support without seeing them myself. Since there are no reverts or revdels in the history, they must have been oversighted. Will switch to oppose if Berean himself requested oversight of criticism relevant to his RfA. Kilopi (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC) struck after the original commenter and an oversighter both say it's a joke, not a conspiracy.[reply]
So far as I know, there are two sorts of removal. One is by admins and these can be viewed by admins. The other is by oversighters, and these cannot be viewed by ordinary admins. Both leave a trace in the history record in grey, but the oversighted ones are not clickable by admins. I can see no sign of oversight, or of admin deleting. Blade was, I think, suggesting that there cannot be any convincing opposes rather than referring to oversighted ones. Peridon (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no oversighted or revdel'ed opposes. The phrase "opposes are unconvincing" is a common one at RfA, and when Blade said it with no opposing votes, it was meant to be humorous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Dennis says. Kilopi, please reconsider. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kilopi, I can assure you there are no oversighted of deleted oppositions; Blade was obviously only being facetious by making reference to the lack of opposition.  :-) — Coren (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will confirm that was my intent, inspired by a similar comment at my RfA. Sorry for the confusion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely the way that I took it. Carrite (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Berean_Hunter&oldid=1270615928"