Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RadioKirk

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

[edit] RadioKirk

Final (6/8/5) ended 19:17 26 December 2005 (UTC)

RadioKirk (talk • contribs) – RadioKirk is a hard working member of the Wikipedia community who has been strongly involved in reverting vandalism and helping to make articles better. I think by making him a SysOp, it will allow him to better protect Wikipedia from vandalism Azathar 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I've given this a lot of thought and, while my participation has been brief and would remain fairly narrow in the grand scheme of things, I believe I can contribute as an admin. Therefore, I humbly and gratefully accept Azathar's nomination. RadioKirk 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - RadioKirk is a hard working member of the Wikipedia community who has been strongly involved in reverting vandalism and helping to make articles better. I think by making him a SysOp, it will allow him to better protect Wikipedia from vandalism.--Azathar 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support admin is supposed to be no big deal so I support him/her.Gator (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support - He'll be a great sysop. Jbamb 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - We need more vandal-exterminators with admin powers. This user seems to have a good feel for what's vandalism, whats NPOV and seems to know the difference between vandalism and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
5. TacoDeposit 03:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support --Bonaparte talk 16:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not enough experience, sorry. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Not nearly enough experiece or time on Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose, for now. You make good use of edit summaries, decent vandalism-spotting, and demonstrated a good sense of what's notable (and what's not). Having a narrow focus on articles isn't a problem, but you need some more experience before being made an admin: I suggest that you participate a little more in the Wikipedia-space, and continue doing what you've been doing. --Deathphoenix 19:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose Few wiki namespace edits. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose Lacking experience in project related areas such as categories, templates, and policies. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose RadioKirk does indeed do good work on a collection of articles, but it is a fairly narrow set of articles (as he says himself), relatively few edits (around 500 in total) and there's not much in the Wikipedia namespace either: http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=RadioKirk&site=en.wikipedia.org Perhaps better to wait for a while, get more under your belt? Thanks/wangi 21:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose This user seems to be an excellent editor, who, I am sure, will eventually make an great admin. I see from his response below, that he is taking the opposition in the spirit it is intended. Please continue to do good work here, as being a good editor is more important than being an admin. I too had my RfA rejected 3 months ago and am striving to continue to contribute to the article namespace as well as participating in the Wikipedia namespace. --rogerd 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above. freestylefrappe 00:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• (pending listing) I was unsure if to put this under oppose or here, but here will do for now! Anyway RadioKirk does indeed do good work on a collection of articles, but it is a fairly narrow set of articles (as he says himself), relatively few edits (around 500 in total) and there's not much in the Wikipedia namespace either: http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=RadioKirk&site=en.wikipedia.org Perhaps better to wait for a while, get more under your belt? Thanks/wangi 11:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Neutral: Nothing in the Wikipedia namespace, sorry. Seems like a good editor in all other respects. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Despite my initial reservations about this user when (in one of his earliest edits) he used profanity in an edit summary to express his opinions at the time about one of Wikipedia's style guidelines, I think that he has since developed into a solid editor and has demonstrated a firm understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I particularly admire his contributions to the Lindsay Lohan article, making sure that it is NPOV, factually accurate and succinct; both he and Yamla (talk • contribs) are assets to that article, and Wikipedia as a whole. Once RadioKirk has notched up a little more experience and some more edits in the Wikipedia namespace, I would be happy to wholeheartedly endorse his adminship. Extraordinary Machine 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral for the above reasons. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
4. King of All the Franks 07:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral --Terence Ong ^Talk 18:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I've noticed that alot of people (and not just for this nomination) base their decisions on the number of edits one has made so far, but where in the guidelines for nomination does it say that one needs to have X number of edits before they can be an Admin? The guidelines suggest that you have a lot of edits, but it isn't required, so, is it just personal preference that Admins have lots of edits, or is their some bias to low number of edits? I thought wikipedia's policy was to be liberal in making ppl Admins? Is basing decisions on number of edits fair? --Azathar 21:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. These are general rules of thumb that many users go by. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Azathar, once again, my thanks for the nomination. If indeed it turns out the consensus is that I need more experience, then I do not disagree, nor do I take it personally—and nor should you. I remain humbled and honored and, again, my thanks :) RadioKirk 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not that I am taking it personally, its just something I noticed in regards to how people vote for Admins, alot seem to base it solely on number of edits, so, I figured I would ask.--Azathar 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I see many fewer comments above on edit counts that appear on other candidacies. Notably, many refer to experience. In some senses this refers to edit counts, but this more refers to interacting in the various facets of Wikipedia, IMO. Some, though, do have edit count standards. jnothman ^talk 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Go Kirk! Go! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.31.223.249 (talk • contribs). (Removed from supports above: Anons cannot vote.) —BorgHunter (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Short-term, I would probably limit my privileges to removal of nonsensical (or offensive) image revisions (to make their reversion more difficult) and the temporary blocking of vandals, within guidelines and probably after discussion. I would not expect to impose an immediate block unless I caught someone in the middle of vandalism en masse.

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

A. While researching Julie Andrews' page, I noticed there was no page for actress Karen Dotrice, so I researched and wrote it. Immediately afterwards, I researched and expanded the article for her co-star, Matthew Garber. Previously, I had done the same for Scott Weinger and Dakota Fanning (I tend to do these as I spot them). I've also researched and added (or, in some cases, purged) data for William Shatner, Lindsay Lohan, Emma Watson, Johnny Carson and a handful of others.

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. I've discussed disagreements in style or data, but no conflicts of which I'm aware. Should it happen, I would make every effort to be civil; however, I'm not above the occasional pejorative phrase [grin].

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.