Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian Kendig


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

Brian Kendig
Final (35/3/1) ended 04:00 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Today I was looking through the microsoft history for references for a particular section, and I came across these beutiful NPOVing edits. That edit is from LAST YEAR btw, and the user has been here for over A YEAR AND HALF! User has over 2000 article space edits, 1000 distinct pages and has around 2715 total!!! Ryan Norton T 03:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * I accept! And I am extremely flattered by the attention. :) Thank you very much, and I'll do my best to do right by the trust you've placed in me. - Brian Kendig 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) EXTREME NOMINATOR SUPPORT!!!! Ryan Norton T 03:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Enthusiastic support for a "worker bee" who goes about improving this project in his unassuming way, not to gather applause but to add significant substance. Please forgive the cliche... but I thought he...etc. I believe that Brian will be an exemplary addition to our dedicated admin staff. --hydnjo talk 05:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Brian and all the rest of the WikiGnomes. They could use some more recognition around here.   [ +t, +c, +m ] 09:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Hooray for well-mannered and articulate editors who just get on with it. The Singing Badger 18:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Fully deserves the mop and the flamethrower. Tito xd 18:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support CambridgeBayWeather 19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Pcb21| Pete 19:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8)  →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  21:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes, please. Lupin|talk|popups 02:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support.  User could make good use of admin privileges. Superm401 | Talk 04:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Merovingian (t) (c) 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Good support.--MissingLinks 07:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - per my standards and above comments. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 17:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support good answers to questions, sounds like an excellent editor. DDerby (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support in slight sheep mode: good answers to questions, I don't know Brian but he seems a reasonable being, mop him. Alf melmac 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Awesome. Welcome aboard, Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support been here for a long time and wasn't involved in anything bad.  Grue  05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, will make a good admin. --Angr/undefined 06:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support hell, just pulling a decent NPOV edit of a flamebait target like Microsoft gets my vote.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. You mean he isn't an admin already? I'm surprised, actually. I'd have nominated him myself if I'd known. :-) – Seancdaug 03:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, and damn the editcountitis.  Ral  315   WS  17:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, looks like he'll make good use of admin powers. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and only the main namespace directly serves that end. I agree that it is important for an administrator to demonstrate a wide spectrum of interaction, but with over 300 non-mainnamespace it is hard to see how others fear hasn't. We need administrators from all parts of the spectrum of positive interaction, not everyone has to be a wikipolitican editing primarily outside of the main namespace. --Gmaxwell 18:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Weak Support. I say weak as I still don't know him well enough to full on support, but from (the very little of) what I've seen, he's great :D R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. It's good to see candidates who aren't intentionally combative, such as those who gravitate toward policy discussions.  Unfocused 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Cool. --JuntungWu 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Good editor - this imbalance stuff is silly--Rogerd 02:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Andre ( talk ) 03:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. He definetely deserves it! Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|12px]]  smile!  22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Seems like a reasonable editor, and I don't see at all how edit count would be a problem. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Quite positive interactions on Browser wars (quite some time ago). Clearly not a troll or vandal. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. Carbonite | Talk 13:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  16:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Has been here over a year and a half, and only has less than 3000 edits. Private Butcher 21:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good lord, are you kidding me? Less than 3000 edits?  You're worried because he has LESS THAN 3000 EDITS?   Ral  315   WS  13:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides, that would be fewer. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From the top: Please include a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrá 07:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Oppose . Quite an imbalance between namespaces. (~90% in article NS). Will consider if the nominee explains why. De ryc  k C.  15:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question. I put most of my effort into maintaining articles, and I discuss them when discussion is useful; is there something you feel I should be doing differently? - Brian Kendig 20:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The user is talking about having more edits in the wikipedia namespace, such as on pages like WP:AN/I WP:AfD, etc.. If you ask me its quite superficial though (even though I have a healthy distribution myself :)). Ryan Norton T 20:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now - thanks! I've started discussions in the WP namespace when I've needed to get involvement while following procedure on something, or when I've been unclear on policy (for example, when the Upload form had a required "I am the copyright holder" checkbox which would seem to preclude uploading fair-use stuff). In general, though, I prefer to leave the policymaking and debating to other folks. - Brian Kendig 22:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The imbalance is now less serious (~80% now) and I'm withdrawing my opposition. De ryc  k C.  17:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just so's no one thinks I intentionally tried to do anything about this ratio - I'm not really sure how the percentage changed so much! Almost 40% of my slightly-more-than-100 edits over the past week have been in non-article namespaces, mainly Image and Template, just because those were what I found that needed attention; but my focus remains the articles. - Brian Kendig 00:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)


 * A. There are two things with which admin privs would really help me. One is the quick-revert tool to undo vandalism - I've often wished I had access to this. The other is the ability to rename pages when there's already a page in the way; previously I've been having to seek out an admin to move things around whenever I find a situation where this is necessary. It would also be really nice to be able to fix typos on protected pages (I've sought help fixing occasional misspellings on the Main Page sections). As for other admin duties, such as protecting/unprotecting, deleting/undeleting, blocking/unblocking, etc. - I look forward to participating, to monitor the lists of situations where these are needed, and lend a hand to reduce the backlog and keep things running smoothly. - Brian Kendig 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?


 * A. I am most proud of my bold edits to Windows XP, which (IMHO!) gave it a kick in the pants and led it to its eventual Featured Article status. I'm also really happy with areas where I've been able to take a family of related articles with duplicated or contradictory information, and move blocks between them to be more on-topic - an example is removing the long and detailed plot summaries from Star Wars and Star Trek and merging them into more specific articles about the movies and series. I also enjoy keeping on top of the Disney-related articles, fine-tuning them to remove speculation and add photos. - Brian Kendig 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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. Just have a look at the history of Virtual Magic Kingdom for the most recent example of conflict and stress. ;) In short, a new user didn't know his way around Wikipedia, and continued to revert edits back to his own versions with admonishments like "Now leave it be!" I tried every route of communication I could find and followed procedure for conflict resolution, but for a while I thought it would be fruitless because he failed to see anything but the article itself; finally he figured out how to use the Talk page and we discussed things and came to an understanding, and since then he's become a great contributor to the page, and has even been helping out another new user. Other times I've encountered conflict have generally been because a user has a specific agenda (most commonly, wanting to promote a specific web site or suppress an unflattering but verifiable fact in an article); with communication and consensus these can be overcome. I don't take edits personally. When someone tries to use email to complain to me about some edit I've made, I insist on bringing the discussion to a Talk page instead, so as to invite other viewpoints. I refuse to get into personal fights with other users - it's not about me personally, it's about what's best for Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.