Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Radiant!

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radiant!

[edit]

final (71/9/2) ending 08:05, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

Radiant has an outstanding record of service to Wikipedia, and has shown a great deal of effort in policy questions and consensus. Examples of policy discussions he has conducted out has been WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Schools, the first one being a commonly cited result on many a VfD debate. I think he would be a great administrator. Sjakkalle 08:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
  • Thank you. I never really expected to become an admin (since I have a tendency to try to resolve controversial issues, it seems that people tend to associate me with controversy). But if people would like my help with a variety of admin tasks, I'd be more than willing to join. Radiant_* 11:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Edit count

  • Kate's tool says, 7906 edits.
  • Of which 1719 are to article namespace; the other 6187 are to talk, templates, categories or wikipedia.

Support

  1. Support, among other things because I'm the nominator. Sjakkalle 08:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. All together now: I thought he was already one!. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  4. El_C 08:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support with the greatest pleasure. Would have nominated him myself if I hadn't thought he already was... Grutness...wha? 09:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Radiant! is a valuable Wikipedian who I feel deserves being entrusted with the provebial mop and bucket. Thryduulf 09:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very Strong Support Great work all around, relating to VfD in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. A very impressive amount of work in a short space of time. —Xezbeth 12:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Very Strong Support. Radiant! is a very sensible user who will will make a great admin. utcursch | talk 13:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. A strong choice, in my opinion. --Scimitar 14:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Looks good, and I think we need admins who aren't afraid to deal with controversial issues. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:44, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Seems like a good chap. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Radiant! takes part in policy discussions, and seems a generally trustworthy sort. Joyous 17:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Everyking's endorsement convinced me. --Carnildo 18:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support -- Some of Radiant!'s edits are unpopular, sure, but that's part of being bold. --Spangineer ∞ 18:59, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. -- Viajero | Talk 19:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Emphatically support. --Kbdank71 20:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support- Awww... I got here late again. The oppose votes surprise me; in my experience he's always made a good-faith effort in contributing. --Dmcdevit 20:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support CDC (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Admins will necessarily become involved in controversial topics on occasion. Radiant! has had some practice in advance. :-) On a more serious note, I do not foresee him (mis)using the admin tools to further any argument, so there isn't a problem with giving him the keys to the mop closet. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, will make a good admin. :) - Mailer Diablo 22:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Definitely. Anybody who Everyking hates must be a good guy.  :) RickK 22:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  24. "I thought you were already an admin!" ☺ Support. --cesarb 22:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Ditto the above. -- BD2412 talk 01:22, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  26. Support. Heart-clutchingly bold, indeed, but we need a few people like that. (Just a few, though!) I don't agree with everything he does, but I believe Radiant! will continue to be bold, admin or not, and won't abuse the extra powers to further his position. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 05:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Knowledgeable in cleanup and deletion related matters. jni 06:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  29. Strong support. Ambi 06:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support.-gadfium 08:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Has addressed my concerns below. Thanks! --Unfocused 11:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Very good at bringing the dregs of Wikipedia into a coherent whole. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. We've disagreed on some issues but Radiant! is unquestionably a very valuable contributor. - SimonP 18:43, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  34. support Kingturtle 18:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support, good user, good contributions to policy discussions. JYolkowski // talk 20:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  36. Not sure. Perhaps a little too far into the "pushy" beyond the "bold" stage, and too quick to jump to decisions, but does some great work, too. James F. (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Having see Radiant!'s recent amazing efforts on Wikipedia:Schools, I've decided to vote in favour. Support. James F. (talk) 20:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support...didn't I already do this? :S -Frazzydee|✍ 21:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support - BanyanTree 23:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support - Highly commendable for working hard to resolve differences with certain people. --Jondel 00:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. --Idont Havaname 02:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. I thought I voted yesterday. Getting absent... uh, oh yeah, minded. SWAdair | Talk 02:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. My experience is that R has bent over backwards to accomodate others rather than "rushing to judgement". Entirely sensible. Votes against are quite instructive. Slac speak up! 05:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. All persons with known cardiac condition, people with pacemakers, pregnant women and small children are advised to edit with caution! BOLD EDITOR coming through! The first of a new, improved breed, Radiant lights our path into the future! :-) (And he's a decent editor too.) Kim Bruning 09:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support this fine fellow. -- Hoary 13:30, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  45. Gamaliel 15:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  46. David Gerard 16:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. Though we had somewhat different viewpoints on the school issue, Radiant, I and others worked together towards a compromise, which Radiant very diplomatically outlined at WP:SCH. Though he is bold in asserting his mergist principles, I've found that he's willing to discuss differences of opinion, and I would hope this would continue when he becomes an admin. --BaronLarf 17:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  48. Weak Support, although it may be a concern that hes a strong deletionist and may be too quick to delete articles. Hedley 17:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. Fawcett5 17:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support. Jonathunder 18:00, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  51. Support. We need strong leaders, iron men with iron wills.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support - strong editor. Johntex 23:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. – ugen64 04:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support--Duk 16:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support.  Grue  05:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  56. SupportMy contact with him has always been positive. His handling of others is always for the good of wikipedia. Giano | talk 08:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support. I thought he was one already. I think he certainly will be able to handle the increased responsibility. Sarg 12:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support! the wub (talk) 14:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support. Neutralitytalk 08:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support. User:Acela Expresstalk08:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support. I thought he'd been hard-banned? (Well, not really, but it beats "I thought he was one already"). --W(t) 08:39, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  62. Support. I was put off by one or two support votes (especially Ashley Pomeroy's), but they were balanced by some of the oppose votes, and Everyking pushed me into support (actually it's at least as much a matter of his contributions record, etc., but that would have been boring). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support: There was a little naivette in the past, but Radiant's views seem judicious in general, and I fully support. Geogre 14:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  64. When voting, I rarely take into consideration who supports or opposes a candidate. However, this is one of those rare instances. Carbonite | Talk 17:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  65. Support Flcelloguy 21:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  66. Support. I'm going to use the overused: I thought he already was one! humblefool® 05:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support.-JCarriker 07:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  68. Support (my first ever vote on RFA). The oppose list makes me more inclined to vote here. -R. fiend 22:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  69. Support. Postdlf 22:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  70. Support. Sensible, reliable, good communicator. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  71. Andre (talk) 22:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose Radiant is a nice guy but he is at times too quick to rush into judgement, and take things personally, and has overly strong deletionist tendancies. I am also not impressed by the hounding of User:GRider, who in my mind embodies the wikispirit. While in do think Radiant would be a good admin, I worry about his judgement in relation to VfD, which is one of the most visible roles of an admin. Too me the fear information loss outwieghs any concerns of an avalanche of cruft.Klonimus 15:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    One note: GRider was in fact a sockpuppet, one of a string of sockpuppet accounts; "hounding" may well have been entirely appropriate - David Gerard 16:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Emphatically oppose—attitude completely unsuitable for adminship. Based on what I've seen this user say I think we could expect controversial deletes and blocks on a daily basis. Everyking 09:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you ever support anyone for Rfa, Everyking? Seems like when a vote is 40-1 in favour, the one vote against will usually be yours. Grutness...wha? 09:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I think I support maybe 2/3rds of the time...look down the page yourself, there's a few support votes. Everyking 09:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure where that came from; I do not presently intend to do VfD or CSD cleanup or closure (unless there's a huge backlog; heck, most of my votes these days are to merge) and I don't recall ever having called for a user block, except possibly for a sockpuppet or two. Radiant_* 11:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Although I think that Radiant! has been a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia, I have also seen an inclination to rush to judgement on some issues. For the time being, I am not ready to hand him the keys to the Wikipedia mop closet. BlankVerse ∅ 13:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've seen too much where this person has acted against common practice, performed major actions without explaination or regard for requests to slow down/hold back, and is quite prone to edit warring. If adminship is about trust, I would have to see some major improvements. I would suggest he spend a considerable amount of time working back on the main encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 14:52, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
    You have every right to your opinion, but allegations that I would be prone to edit warring are simply not true. I've never even come close to the 3RR. I do admit to having opposed your edits a couple of times lately, but that has only happened when you reverted people's good-faith changes and didn't respond when asked why (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment). And note that in all such cases I have quickly dropped the issue in the hopes of getting a third party's opinion. Radiant_* 15:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    I believe this recent example (User_talk:Radiant#relisting TFD votes) shows much of what I've said - plus an inexplicable deletion by you of one of my Talk page comments. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
    It strikes me as odd that you should complain about a relisting of one TFD vote that clearly had no consensus either way (6 keep/5 del), since you had no problems with two relistings that happened a couple days earlier. Also, why haven't you responded to the matters at RFC/talk or your own talk page? Radiant_* 18:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose -- This user frequently edits policy and process without consensus (and in my opinion, to further an agenda). This is a gray area, and I admit I sometimes do the same. But I wouldn't support myself for admin, and I can't support this user, either. I find it significant he has felt compelled to defend himself here; ideal admins do not seek the office. We need cooler heads to hold the keys. — Xiong熊talk* 01:08, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - a while ago i was noticing this user tagging/redirecting a lot over at Wikipedia:Deadend pages, which is fine, but unfortunately a lot were done incorrectly, such as adding multiple stub tags and for example redirecting Guardian's Office to Scientology, when scientology made no mention of the redirected topic. i know these are fairly pathetic examples, but i remember encountering a lot of them. I would never hold anything against anyone, but it frustrates me to see any recklessness. Bluemoose 15:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Although this user is a good contributor, but am not sure that I can support him as an admin at this point. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Does not meet my admin criterion, jguk 12:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose because Radiant deleted the discussion of TFD votes after Netoholic cited it as an exhibit. Sebastian (talk) 06:22, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Retracted

# Being bold is one thing, but I think many times he crosses the line into "pushy," and I don't think we need another admin that is so combative. Mike H 15:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
# Radiant! is good at seeking consensus, but has been far too stingy with edit summaries, especially in Wikipedia space. Edit summaries are at the core of simple courtesy to other editors and I oppose adminship for anyone who doesn't make them a personal habit. I also believe Radiant! is frequently on the verge of being too bold, especially in policy matters, but respect that WP needs someone pushing hard to really nail the issues down. A sincere promise to use admin tools far more cautiously than regular edit tools, and a promise to use edit summaries buys my vote. --Unfocused 00:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

I almost thought he already was an admin! ;-) Extreme boldness makes me somewhat nervous, I'm not sure weather I should vote strong support (because BE BOLD! is an important wikipedia rule which I support with my head :-) ) or strong oppose (because bold people still make me clutch my heart :-/ ). Let me ponder this. Or drop me a line! :-) Kim Bruning 13:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you already thought Radiant was an admin, and you didn't try to get him/her desysoped, then what's the prob? ;)
  1. Currently I oppose Radiant! for admin 1) doesnt have enough constructive content creation under his belt IMO. Talk pages, vfd and the like (which are very good for community spirit/togetherness) just isnt enough to make an admin. 2) I dont think another avowed deletionist as an admin is what we need. Of course feel free to take this opinion with a grain of salt, since Radiant! and I do regularly oppose each other on VfD issues. 3) I just dont think he has the right attitude overall to be an admin. Of course everyone said that about me too... so *shrugs*.  ALKIVAR™ 09:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    more research into his recent history has pushed me back to neutral, but i'm still not sure he'd make a good admin.  ALKIVAR™ 10:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. I believe Radiant is a thoughtful worthwhile contributor. He works through issues with people and there have been occasions I've opposed his efforts and other times I've helped. I'd like to see some genuine reflection into the honest and (mostly) true criticisms made in the oppose votes rather than hasty defenses before I could cast a support vote. SchmuckyTheCat 16:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Recently I deleted twice "User:Radiant!" on meta, because there was no account under this name. Assumingly the page was created under assumption there was single account policy, or not. I don't know this editor personally but I'm skeptical if the editor is familiar with system & technical side of our project, if this page was created by the user under the same name on English Wikipedia. --Aphaea* 11:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that would be me, and I apologize if that was out of order. I rarely visit meta, but have given comments on a discussion or two in the past. Since it turned out my signature wasn't pointing anywhere useful, I figured it would be easiest to direct it to en:User:Radiant! So no, I'm not fully familiar with the system of meta (or, indeed, of any other language wikipedia, or of wiktionary, but am presently familiarizing myself with the latter thanks to DMCdevit) but I'm happy to learn. Radiant_* 11:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. It would be nice if you sign with a link to your wiki in this case, I suppose, but I recommende you to create an account there ;-) --Aphaea* 05:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Since my last posting here, this user has engaged in a protracted debate on my talk page over the subject of whether my comments are factual and appropriate. This relentless effort to nullify all opposition is indicative of character. I believe this project is best served by neutral, calm admins who display the ability to ignore personal attacks on themselves and not dish out as good as they get, but instead are resilient, flexible, and non-confrontational. Adminship is a position held in trust for the benefit of the Community and the Project as a whole. Candidates should be prepared to withstand intense scrutiny and frequent criticism of their actions without overreacting. — Xiong熊talk* 16:48, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
    Moved from the Oppose section to here --cesarb 19:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Are you voting...twice? Mike H 17:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
    I've read what he wrote on your talk page. Where do you get that he is confrontational? You say repeatedly that he has an agenda, yet you don't back it up with evidence. Do you in fact have any evidence of this? --Kbdank71 17:07, 3 Jun 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. In particular, category reorganization (per WP:CFD). Also, I periodically clean up WP:VFU (and also RFC and TFD, but that doesn't require admin rights); this morning I wanted to close Altar Q but realized I couldn't, since majority says to undelete. Since I'm currently the one who closes and unlists WP:TFD discussions, it probably wouldn't be appropriate if I deleted those templates. Finally, I was under the impression that WP:RPP requests do not always get a response; I'd like to give that a hand since it is about distilling rational debate from non-constructive reverting.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I believe I'm mostly known in Wikipedia namespace... I was happily surprised by the amount of constructive response at Wikipedia:Schools. Also I'm rather proud of both WP:FICT and the speedy renaming procedure at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies. While both were the product of ideas and feedback from a large group of users, I do feel responsible for both starting and realizing the proposals.
In article namespace, my main contributions are to areas of pop culture including The Simpsons, Monty Python and some webcomics, notably Megatokyo. I'm not the main author of any of those, but have done a bunch of miscellaneous additions, fixes and reorganization. Recent articles that I wrote include Jomanda and Martian Dreams. Basically, I tend to browse sections of the 'pedia that I know something about, and add things I know that aren't already there.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I recently had an argument with User:Xiong about the scope of TFD. While this started as a simple I'm wrong/you're wrong exchange, after we'd both made our points we decided it would be worthwhile to discuss some kind of compromise, that may some day turn into a wiki proposal. In other words, since we both kept explaining ourselves we turned an argument into a workable solution.
I know I have a reputation for being bold, but I only do that when I think most people would agree (which usually turns out to be the case). When someone does disagree or revert me, my response would be to enter the talk page and explain it (e.g. [1]) or in the case of opposing opinions, ask for a third party ([2]).
Radiant_* 11:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Radiant!&oldid=1251192600"