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. ;)
RadioKirktalk to me00:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Terrific vandal fighter, makes few mistakes. Well-rounded also, with contributions to project/image spaces too. --
Knucmo200:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Mets501talk00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
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 :) --
Tawker00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
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. ;)
RadioKirktalk to me12:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Grandmasterka20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Qualified Support Dealing with vandals is important, but an admin should have a variety of expereinces, i.e. RfA and Arbcom.
Dlohcierekim15:50, 4 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. :)
RadioKirktalk to me18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
backburner00103:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
JoshuaZ04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
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.)
RadioKirktalk to me12:55, 1 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...
RadioKirktalk to me12:46, 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
Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Contribution Breakdown:
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:
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.
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.)
RadioKirktalk to me02:09, 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.