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

RadioKirk

Final: (62/2/4) ended 0:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk (talk · contribs) – Well, as I was recently made an admin, I thought I'd try and pass the favor along (my first nom, forgive me). But enough about me... RadioKirk has been with us since June 2005 and has since racked up around 4260 edits. I came across RadioKirk fighting vandalism, and he has shown himself to be an effective, yet calm, vandal-fighter. Wikipedia would be in better shape if we just gave RK the real rollback button. He has contributed very nicely in many of the pop-culture articles, substantially helping a few Featured Articles along the way. He seems to be a very nice, and receives and responds to advice very well. RadioKirk was nominated for adminship back in December, but only 19 people voiced their opinion. Most of the oppose comments were about his lack of time and experience here. I think since then he has shown great growth. As he is unlikely to abuse sysop tools, I am happy to nominate RadioKirk for adminship. LV (Dark Mark) 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks and, I hope, appropriate humility, I accept—without reservation this time. I believe I'm ready, and I'll answer the questions below a little later, on a full stomach. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Yep. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, great editor with lots of experience --TBC☆O M G! 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Experienced editor. _-M o P-_ 23:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very experienced. I Support. General Eisenhower 23:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. DarthVader 23:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support--Seems like a good guy with good intentions.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Terrific vandal fighter, makes few mistakes. Well-rounded also, with contributions to project/image spaces too. --Knucmo2 00:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support with all those reports to WP:AIV, it would be great if he could just take care of it himself, as it would free up other admins so they can worry about other things. Mets501talk 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I opposed last time but he is ready this time Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support - I've seen RadioKirk around a lot and he's really involved and always friendly. I think he even knows that nn-bio equals non notable bio too :) -- Tawker 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. An oppose is physically impossible. :-) Royboycrashfan 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I've had positive interaction with this editor. FloNight talk 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Richardcavell 01:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Joe I 02:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support all the best. Rama's Arrow 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --Terence Ong 03:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy nominator. Xoloz 03:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, excellent editor, great interactions --Deville (Talk) 04:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support excellent wikipedian - Patman2648 06:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, have watched him on RC patrol for a while now and been grateful for his work. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 07:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support--Jusjih 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support reaches my standards. Computerjoe's talk 14:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Looks like a very trustworthy editor who understands Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. </cliché> --TantalumTelluride 16:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Lots of reasons to support, none to oppose. Fetofs Hello! 16:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support as above. Bucketsofg ✐ 20:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Great improvement. (^'-')^ Covington 22:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support ==Shawn 22:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per nom. --Elkman - (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Because I do. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 06:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support- terrific efforts in the fight against vandalism. A smart, well-rounded and clearly capable candidate. Reyk YO! 10:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: --Bhadani 12:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Doing good work, so might as well have the tools and the badge. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Thunderbrand 16:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No reason why should not be. Davewild 16:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. His statesmanlike handling of the User:Jim16 business has convinced me. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. This dude kicks a$$. :D Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 18:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support -- Kukini 21:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, of course, per Reyk, Davewild, Tantalum, and Fetofs, to name four. Joe 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per all other reasons. --Arnzy (Talk) 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - solid editor. Metamagician3000 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. --Irpen 05:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Seems to be acting like an admin already and won't abuse the buttons. --kingboyk 07:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support.  Grue  07:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. —Khoikhoi 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, solid editor background, participates in Wikipedia namespace. -- ReyBrujo 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. There are better women to obsess about than Lindsay Lohan, but a guy's gotta have a hobby!. Support'++'Lar: t/c 03:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldn't believe me if I told you it was more parental than anything, would you? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It gets worse. — May. 2, '06 [07:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • cough*WP:NPOV*cough* [grin]. Seriously, I should also note that obsessing over a person and obsessing over her article are entirely different things—but, you probably won't believe that, either. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 12:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Trustworthy, great editor and reverts vandalism---Admin Role Model (though not an admin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primate (talk • contribs) --Primate#101 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Joseph Solis in Australia 10:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Good quality candidate. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, the extra tools will be good for him because he will delve into backlogs. Go for it!--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, this mop's for you. Deizio talk 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, fantastic article namespace contributor. Usually I like to see a little more Wikipedia namespace, but this user's outstanding article contributions more than make up for it. Grandmasterka 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Jared W 11:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Qualified Support Dealing with vandals is important, but an admin should have a variety of expereinces, i.e. RfA and Arbcom. Dlohcierekim 15:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support on Wheels! I've had nothing but positive experiences with this guy. Is an asset to the product. Give him a mop! --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 00:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose: too hung up on user boxes. See his user page. Thumbelina 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm... how do userboxes interfere with his ability to be an administrator? _-M o P-_ 17:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not userboxes, but policy. I believed then and I believe now that a small handful of admins had (and still have) an itchy trigger finger. That's why I decided to help work toward a solution. Nevertheless, yours is a legitimate concern, and I thank you for voicing it. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - My only previous interaction with this user was during an edit conflict over a reference in the Lindsay Lohan article. The conflict that occured between us was eventually resolved in a civil manner (as RadioKirk mentioned below). I appreciate RadioKirk's honesty about the conflict. But I still have significant concerns about his behavior during the conflict (especially his use of edit summaries and his reply to my comments in a manner that I believe qualified as harrassment). In other words, I think this user is an excellent contributor, but not yet qualified to be an admin. When he cultivates a calmer, less over-protective approach (which I firmly believe he has the potential to do), I will support any further nominations made for adminship. -- backburner001 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As honest from your POV as was mine from mine. Well worded and appreciated. RadioKirk talk to me 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and thank you. -- backburner001 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning support for now, I need to think about this. He is an otherwise great candidate but his area of focus has been narrow. Poke me in two days if I haven't made up my mind. JoshuaZ 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Still neutral, the Lindsay Lohan thing made me want to oppose almost but Emma Watson makes up for it. JoshuaZ 07:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Wondering about scope and experience. I may change this later. --Danaman5 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply, if I may? One user's (or two [grin]) narrow scope is another's expansion within comfort levels. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've had nothing but positive interactions with RadioKirk and would like to support, but to be completely honest, some things about him scare the shit out of me[1], thus, Neutral. However, he does achieve a modicum of balance with contributions in other areas. May change to support if he promises (a) to significantly expand his "comfort level" zone (b) never to use admin tools on anything even remotely related to Lindsay Lohan. — May. 1, '06 [11:21] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    (a) I cannot promise the speed with which I'll expand, but expansion is the idea;
    (b) Unless it was to block persistent vandals (which hasn't happened to date), it wouldn't be necessary. Even then, I'd post the details at WP:AN/I for review of equitability. (If it helps, getting that article to WP:FA status was a lot of work; I am familiar with WP:OWN and I'm sure I have failed on occasion in my efforts to avoid being overprotective.) RadioKirk talk to me 12:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, partially per freakofnurture, also per incorrect answer to question 4. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked up Template:Db-bio (formerly (Template:Nn-bio). How was I incorrect? RadioKirk talk to me 19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Non-notable" is not the same as as "does not assert notability". Kimchi.sg 07:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's essentially what I understood "non-notable" to mean from a WikiPOV—and I'd like to think my db noms bear that out. I guess I needed to be more specific... RadioKirk talk to me 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. There's a world of difference between a bio that does not assert notability (which is an nn-bio and is speediable) and a bio of someone who's non-notable. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Edit summary usage for RadioKirk:

Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Username RadioKirk
Total edits 4442
Distinct pages edited 1409
Average edits/page 3.153
First edit 2005-06-14 17:34:55
(main) 2153
Talk 375
User 196
User talk 1210
Image 103
Image talk 1
Template 19
Help 1
Category 6
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 335
Wikipedia talk 42

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would not jump in and make any huge changes over what I'm doing now. As a start, I would expect that I would block the more persistent vandals that I'm reporting now; then, as I become more familiar with the tools, I would probably toe-first into backlogs and mediations, growing as gradually then as I have until now.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Aside from my persistence in fighting vandals' persistence, I'm particularly happy with my work on three articles: Lindsay Lohan which, with the help of peer review and the FAC process during a massive rewrite, was a huge experience- and confidence-builder as it became featured; Karen Dotrice, a featured article only five weeks after I'd created it; and, Ike Altgens, created and improved to good article status in three days (I'm still hunting for more background info before I go to FAC).
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: Yes, here. In the beginning, user:Backburner001 completely convinced me that he believed "be bold" meant "my way or the highway", and that he was being less than honest when he said he wanted the instant data improved (as opposed to "gone altogether"). Eventually, it worked out, as I rather expected it might. More importantly, we were perfectly civil in a separate discussion during the dispute; it is important to me that I try to consider each discussion to be a separate and distinct entity, even those occurring with someone with whom I may have a dispute.
4. What do you understand the abbreviation "nn-bio" to mean, in full? Stifle (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I believe that's non-notable biography and, if memory serves, I've dealt with a couple. (Edit: Actually, I'm sure of it. I've caught a few using VandalProof that I nom'ed for speedies because they were painfully obvious, and I remember one [Edit: now two] that I actually researched before nom'ing.) RadioKirk talk to me 02:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category