Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kim Dent-Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Kim Dent-Brown

Final (68/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs) - Fellow editors, it is my pleasure to nominate Kim for adminship. Joining Wikipedia in August of 2006 Kim has been active since April 2007. Overall, his edit count may seem slightly slim for some at about four and a half thousand, however, just over 900 edits will not be shown on the "wanabee kate" tool due to his active participation in new page patrol and CSD nominations. So, as ever, my rationale;

Main Space

Maintenance

  • Active at AFD, and in particular, as noted above, many hundreds of C:CSD nominations
  • WP:AIV reports, as and when required.
  • WP:RFPP, WP:UAA assistance.
  • WP:RFA edits showing an understanding of the role.

Housekeeping

  • A clean block log.
  • Sensible User and Talk Page.
  • E-mail enabled.
  • A deeply civil and communicative talk history.
  • A desire only to apply for adminship as and when Kim felt he was ready - editors may peruse his talk archives to confirm this.

All, once again, I would only nominate if I believed a candidate could help us in our work by granting them admin tools. Kim has much to offer, and nothing indicates a hinderance. As ever, a net positive awaits us here, and I hope and trust the community will find themsleves in agreance with me that granting adminship to Kim is yet another step forward for Wikipedia.Pedro :  Chat  21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with pleasure and (I must admit) some trepidation for what is to come! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not propose to comment on either Support or Oppose contributions here unless specifically asked to by editors. If successful, I would add myself to the category Wikipedia administrators open to recall using these criteria.

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would start with work which relates to the non-admin activity in which I have been most active: speedy deletion, articles for deletion and intervention against vandalism. I feel I know these areas pretty well and they would be a safe place to start. In due course I expect I would get involved in page protection requests and similar areas where I have less experience. I doubt I would ever get involved in work involving the Mediawiki interface, as I have little technical knowledge and less interest in acquiring any...
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My first major article was on the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry and may soon I hope be rated as a good article. I had some very generous help in the early days of drafting this and it was a good learning experience. (I now make much better use of the Preview button!) I've also been involved with Wicca which was recently rated a good article: I wrote very little of this, but have had a big hand in editing it into shape. It is now a reasonably slim 42k long with good structure and links. When I came to it, it was nearly twice the size and much of the work has involved negotiating with other editors, forking off articles and protecting what's left from the inevitable vandalism and POV pushing that such an article attracts. I'm also pleased with contributions such as this page to act as boilerplate text for winners of the George Cross, and smaller articles rescued from CSD such as Haley Industries, Doon GAA and Zaka Ullah Bhangoo. The last I'm pleased with because it felt like a small blow against systematic bias. You can look at a partial list of articles I've contributed to here. I also like helping out new editors who are obviously in good faith, but needing a hand with the process such as these:
Update: I'm pleased to say that Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry is now rated as a good article. Still only two of these so far, Wicca being the other, and four DYKs, so a little way off a triple crown, but I'm working on it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:57, 12 February 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: When I started editing here and moved beyond article writing, I was certainly too trigger happy with CSD tags at first. This led to (only occasional) conflicts such as this one. I am more conservative in my tagging now, and have not got into any similar conflict since, but I generally find that if in doubt, waiting half an hour before hitting the 'save' button works wonders. I have no problem in maintaining a stout defence against true vandals, but most people here seem to be of good intent and I prefer to try and work on this basis.

Optional Question by D.M.N.

4. Hi there. If you noticed a vandal was causing a bit of bother for several different users, for instance making personal attacks towards other user, would you block the user for a short period of time, or would you attempt to work with the user to try and make them into a better Wikipedian? Please explain your reason. D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A: My actions would depend on the context such as the nature of the attacks and the rest of the 'problem' user's edits. In principle, I would always prefer to work with someone and dialogue with them to try and improve their editing and make them a more constructive member of the community. Part of this dialogue might of course include giving them escalating warnings on their user talk page, interspersed with more encouraging attempts to engage them. A block would be a last resort as personally I can't see this having much direct effect on the editor other than giving them a sense of justified grievance.
Eventually of course a block might be necessary, even if some kind of dialogue is established but the behaviour doesn't change for the better. But it would be to protect the encyclopedia and its other editors, not because I see a block as some kind of 'short, sharp shock' to bring the rogue to his or her senses. There would be obvious exceptions to this gradual approach, where an immediate block would be warranted. These might include:
  • An editor who has no other constructive contributions elsewhere in the encyclopedia, ie who seems to be running a vandalism-only account. (The kind of user whom previously I would have reported to AIV.)
  • An editor who has constructive edits elsewhere in their contributions, but whose attacks are so extreme, widespread or unpleasant that immediate protective action is essential. (The kind of user who would merit at least an immediate 'final warning' template without escalation up the templates.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
One further thought. All the above is very nice in principle. It might work with people whose improper behaviour includes things like content blanking, POV pushing, edit warring, silly test editing, inserting unsourced material and original research etc etc. But the question was about people who have been making personal attacks on a range of other users. My guess would be that such folk would be the least likely of all to respond to the 'softly softly' approach above, and who in practice would end up sooner or later with a block to protect Wikipedia. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Strong Support per my great nomination :) pre transclusion as nominator Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    You stole my gig! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Supporting Kim Dent-Brown Majorly (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support. After seeing a note on Pedro's talk about adminship, I checked the user's contributions and was impressed. I think this user will make a fine administrator. SorryGuy  Talk  00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support per Pedro's great nom. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support per Pedro, whom I trust a great deal. However, apart from that, user has the diversification I look for in an admin hopeful. Examination of talk page leads me to believe the user is level headed, friendly, and calm. The answer to the questions are honest and candid. Seems like the candidate can learn from mistakes. Wisdom89 (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support I was on the fence over this one... I mean come on, never edited wikipedia naked? Live a little :P now I am off to go put on some clothes. Dureo (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Looks like Kim will make a fine admin. --ChetblongT C 02:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support How could I not, with this user's record and such a nom? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - I think he'd make a good admin.   jj137 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Jmlk17 03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Definitely. — Dark (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support, seems to have a decent grasp of CSD policy, which is a must working in that area. A good, solid admin candidate. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 07:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
  14. SupportNick mallory (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support seems thoughtful. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Strong support. I see a lot of Kim's work on new page patrol, and he is doing excellent work there. Just the new page patrol would make me nod with this RFA and move on (I rarely vote in RfA's not between 65% and 75%) but his excellent communicative skills, civilty, and WP space edits made me decide to drop in and voice my support. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Per User:Kim Dent-Brown/Criteria for recall. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Because of one of those AfD's I saved from Kim. :) Rudget. 11:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC) - Strong support - I really don't need to say anymore than what Pedro has said. Kim reflects all those qualities that are needed in administrators these days, perhaps even passing more than all of them. Apologies to Mailer Diablo, but.. I approve this message. Rudget. 12:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. Erm, OK. This was a little bit of a surprise. Daniel (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. Yep, no problems here. User:Dorftrottel 14:58, February 11, 2008
  21. Support - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 15:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support - high quality of edits. I'm convinced. - Philippe | Talk 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support I've had moments where I thought he was one Kwsn-pub (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support Great nom from a trusted user, and contribs look good as well. Best of luck! GlassCobra 18:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support. No concerns here, he's an exemplary editor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support - Kim is an excellent editor and I expect that he will be an excellent admin! —Travistalk 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support, great candidate. Use of the clichéd "I thought you were already an admin!" held back so strongly you wouldn't believe. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support Rigadoun (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support per excellant nom. SpencerT♦C 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support. No problems here. Malinaccier (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support - excellent editor, no problems here. Black Kite 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  34. support David Underdown (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support Just worked with editor on his GA nomination. Very conscientious and thorough. And works extremely quickly and efficiently as well. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Support I can't find the slightest possibility of misuse of the tools ,and I can find great need for them. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    This is a duplicate vote (see above). Andre (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. I just read through the last 6 weeks of your talkpage and history. You have a very easy demeanor about you (which is not exactly easy to do with a keyboard - kudos to you). You respond to criticism with poise and patience. Now that you will likely be spending time in the Janitor's realm cleaning up vomit, mopping the floor, patrolling the halls, and locking the doors at night, your demeanor will go a long way towards increasing your notability to other Wikipedians at least. (I read your "10 odd" userpage too :)) Easily one of the strongest admin candidates I've seen in recent weeks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support Great one! Good luck with the mop. нмŵוτнτ 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Though I would ask that he add a message or a userbox on his user page saying he is male. Kim can be a male or female name and its annoying to not know; I hate using the wrong prepositions. Jon513 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    FYI - His userpage says I am male in the section called And now? Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    <joke>Good point, I now change my vote from support to still support</joke>. Jon513 (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support. Nothing but good interactions with this editor, and I know the mop will be in excellent hands. (Insert standard text expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support Good user, seen her around as a constructive contributor, no reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 02:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  41. Good one. See that sig everywhere, it seems! ~ Riana ⁂ 04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support Reviewed contributions, see not a trace of any problem. --Abd (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  43. The Transhumanist 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support well done, good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support per my standards. Other than never editing in the nude, liking kittens, and speaking English, we don't have much in common. However, WP could use an admin to mop up some of the Wiccan articles. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support - Per Nomination. There is no reason not too. PookeyMaster (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support Trusted user. No concerns at all. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  48. I have always been impressed with Kim Dent-Brown. Acalamari 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support No immediately clear reason to oppose. Xenon54 01:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support User:Kim Dent-Brown has been very active in AfDs. I have reviewed his entire edit history. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is evenhanded in the discussions of AfDs. He already appears to be functioning as a good admin even though he does not have the administrative tools. He consistently shows patience and courtesy when interacting with other editors. He writes well and makes quality edits. My sole interaction with him was on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havidol which was positive.--Dan Dassow (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I updated the tally from (63/1/0) to (66/1/0) to reflect the current count.--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support, good answers, good edit history. Seems level-headed, fair and knowledgeable. Dreadstar † 08:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support looks a goodie. And we could do with an admin called "Kim". --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support. He's a worthy candidate. Axl (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support, will make a good administrator. Razorflame (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support No problems with this. Gary King (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support. Not an editor with who I am familiar, but certainly seems to be a user I am willing to trust. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support from experience working with this editor, can trust with the tools. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support — Zerida 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support - no reason not to. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support - Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support. Good editor, good candidate. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support Has done good work, has sound judgment and works well with others. His work on Wicca has crafted it into a better and more focused article. (pun certainly intended) I'm a tad prejudiced because he works on articles in my areas of interest but this also means I'm impressed with his work. Pigman☿ 00:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support Kim Dent-Brown is a polite editor and tries to help, when new contributors write their first articles, if they don't cover all the wikipedian standarts. He gives them time and advices how to continue their work.Drjmarkov (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support Per the nom... Looks good. :) Midorihana~iidesune? 09:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support Never had any dealings myself but seems able, civil and conscientious. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support My support.. :) Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support Would make a great admin. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose

#Weak oppose I respect your contributions, sir, but I hope you understand that to become an admin, one must have an excellent edit history. You come close to that, but not really crossing it. A man of honour (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC) — A man of honour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. #:Could some please just block A man of honour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This doesn't merit any further discussion imho. User:Dorftrottel 14:57, February 11, 2008

Seriously. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm. On the userpage it says "Okay, to be honest with you, I am not N00b, but have been on and off when it comes to editing WP, so I do not need you to start listing policies and stuff, I know what I am doing!!" Not sure what to make of it, so I asked the user at their talk page for some more explanation. User:Dorftrottel 15:31, February 11, 2008
I am no vandal!!!!! Why do I need to get blocked? is it because I have voted here or there?? A weak vote is justified here because I think a sysop should be an excellent editor as well, this user is clearly one of the anti-vandal ones but even 5000 new pages patrolled will not say anything about them. A man of honour (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, stop harrassing A man of honour. He's entitled to his opinion. A man of honour, what would you ideally like to see from this candidate in order to gain your support? I'm not trying to harangue you here, just asking for some more specific criteria. GlassCobra 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. My criteria are simple: A user with some 4 GA's, and/or two/three FA's (Wiccia is not enough). Vandal fighting is really appreciated, but these are my criteria. I hope my opinion is repected. A man of honour (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Having taken a look at A man of honour's contribs, it seems his account is only 3 weeks old, yet he's been making edits solely on RFA matters after very few article edits. The average newbie won't even learn about RFA that quickly. Could he be a sock of somebody?--Alasdair 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Alasdair, please assume good faith. Read A man of honour's talk page, and you will see that he stated that he contributed under several IPs in the past. GlassCobra 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent), Again, I am not anybody's sock!!
Anyway, if this vote continues like that, I will change my Oppose, this user deserves to land on 100. if anyone else opposes, my !vote will remain the same.
kinde regards
A man of honour (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral

#Appears to be a decent editor, but I am unable to support at this time, due to lack of incentives that have been offered me for doing so. However, I will support if the nominee switches over to support column in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2. Given the presently high supply of Kim Dent-Brown supporters in the RfA marketplace, which according to vote trading economics would tend to lower the marginal price of each additional supporter and require additional consideration, I am willing to negotiate in reference to other nominees you would like my support for. Please note that this firm offer expires on February 17, 2008. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I decided to elaborate on my wiki-philosophy in reference to such indecent proposals at User talk:Sarsaparilla/Tit for tat. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Or, how about a contribution to this particular discussion (in favor, opposed, abstained, or legitimately neutral based on the merits of the candidate) without linking it to a different one where you don't like how it's turning out? They are not related and your !vote here is unfounded, unusual, unnecessary, and (if I may be so bold), unwanted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought you just said it was a keeper. Make up your mind. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keeper's my name. Nothing more. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't ever change it. That username's definitely a, uh... username that you should hold onto. 71.63.91.68 (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Humour is one thing Sarsaparilla, but what exactly is your (very advisedly and very blue for once) POINT in this neutral? Pedro :  Chat  20:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I mistook this user for Kim Bruning. (Sorry, you all look alike) Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's fair enough, but I'd ask you reconsider your view that RfA voting is tit-for-tat. It's a bit insulting to RfA candidates. I think all(most all) those who request adminship do so in good faith, and would certainly wish to be judged on their suitability based on their contribution history, and not how they comment at other RfA's Pedro :  Chat  21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for any wikifuss caused by my nominator, Sarsaparilla. I have no clue what he is doing with this, beyond some kind of WP:POINT. Because I was led to look at this because of reference to his alleged "vote-trading" in my RfA, I reviewed nominee's contributions and voted above to support as a result, not that I see it as necessary, there seems to be little serious opposition and lots of support. Good luck! --Abd (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I almost opposed because at first I mistook Kim Dent-Brown for yet another Kim. They're all the same to me... User:Dorftrottel 23:00, February 14, 2008
Eh, my name gets mentioned? But I'm no Kibo! I'm going to assume that Sarsaparilla thought they could get away with this due to my notoriously good humor? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC) And Dorftrottel: obviously all Kims totally rock. Kim Jong-il just happens to rock at being evil. O:-)
Ah, the bitter regret. I should have written User:Kim Jong-il. User:Dorftrottel 12:18, February 15, 2008
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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks