User:Radiant!/RFA

This is an archive of all talk page discussions related to my RFA.

• 71 support votes (of which 5 strong, 1 weak, and 7 "I thought he already was one")
• 9 oppose votes (of which 1 strong and 1 weak)
• 2 neutral votes
• 5 votes changed positively after discussion
• See also User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records.

The beginning

Sjakalle

Hi Radiant!

I have been impressed with your contributions to forming consensus, most recently on the Wikipedia:Schools debate. If I were to nominate you for adminship now, would you accept? Sjakkalle 07:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Radiant! A request for adminship will be going up for you in 90 minutes unless you give a "red light" for it. Sjakkalle 06:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The RFA has been set up for you. Please accept and answer the questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Radiant!. Good luck! Sjakkalle 08:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Congratulations Radiant! A downtime is coming up in two minutes however, so you'll need to wait a few hours before using the block buttons ;-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The conclusion

Cecropia

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The commentary

Alkivar

Hi there! While I respect your opinion of me, I'd like to say that I've changed since we've first met. I admit to having been somewhat trigger-happy in the past, but I've become convinced that organizing (or adding to) existing content is far more beneficial to the 'pedia than getting rid of sub-par articles that most people wouldn't notice in the first place. Thus I'd consider myself a strong mergist, and please realize that I contributed heavily to WP:FICT (which basically calls for including any and all articles on fiction) and I even wrote a rule of thumb "Do not nominate schools for deletion". Of course that may or may not matter to you, but since we haven't spoken much recently I thought I'd mention it. Oh btw, I presently have about 1700 article edits. Yours, Radiant_* 10:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• (changed from oppose to neutral)
• 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™File:Radioactive.svg 10:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Whichever way the nomination turns out, I'll promise to do my best. Radiant_* 11:31, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Android79

After voting on another round of RfAs, I suddenly thought to myself, "Crap, I bet I forgot to support Radiant's administratorship!" and looking back through the archives, indeed I did. Oops. Consider this a retroactive vote of emphatic support. Template:Mono AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks :) that was months ago, wasn't it? Radiant_>|< 14:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it wasn't quite months ago (early June); a while ago, but I just remembered now that I forgot to vote then. Funny how memory works, eh? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Aphaia

Okay, the next time I have a meta issue I'll create an account first. Yours, Radiant_* 08:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf

Congrats! --BaronLarf 12:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Bluemoose

Hi there! You expressed some concern about my miscategorization of dead end pages. While that is indeed true, I feel obliged to point out that the mistakes you've seen are my 'earlier' work. While I was doing that, some people from WP:WSS pointed me to the list of stub templates, and I've made far less mistakes since I've studied that. Before that it was rather easy to get confused between the plethora of tags. Yours, Radiant_* 15:15, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

CalJW

I'm not impressed. I think it was an attempt to create a means of deleting school articles by the back door after a string of nominations for deletion had failed. CalJW 15:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well, then maybe you should read it before judging me. Radiant_* 16:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking

Hi there! Could you please explain why you would consider me a source of controversial deletes and blocks? Let me assure you that I don't presently have the intention of doing any, let alone doing controversial ones. I'm rather baffled where you got this opinion; since I don't recall stating anything along those lines, it almost seems as if you're confusing me with someone else. Just wondering if we could clear this up. Yours, Radiant_* 12:10, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Hello? I would appreciate it if you were to answer the above. Radiant_* 12:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps in voting my comment was too harsh. Nevertheless I've seen you defend a lot of sysop actions that I consider abusive to our volunteers. If you would agree that a sysop should not be bold when it comes to controversial actions, and should ideally put any such matter forward for other sysops' consideration before acting, then I might change my vote. Everyking 12:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That goes without saying. Note that I already participate in such discussions on AN/I, and that I have no intention to go blocking users or deleting pages any time soon (and that would be the main areas of controversy, afaik). I do expect that my opinion will rarely coincide with yours in such discussions - but I can name several people here that I get along with just fine even if I often disagree with them. Radiant_* 15:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fawcett5

Radiant!, I was astonished to find out that you were not already an admin, its long overdue. Thanks also for your vote of confidence on my RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Filiocht

Well deserved. Actually, it's really good when people recognise the merits of those whose views they do not share. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Grutness

Congratulations! And no probleems with the support (of course, it means you have to agree with me on everything for the next few weeks... ;) Grutness...wha? 08:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jdforrester

And my congratulations, too. James F. (talk) 10:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jguk

Hi there! You wrote that you oppose my RFA because I haven't helped with a featured article. Well, I can't argue with that; it's a reasonably fair criterion, and while I've written a Signpost story and part of official policy, I haven't done anything related to FAC. However, may I ask you something - I've noticed there are presently about a dozen nominations for adminship, and you've voted on three of them. Does that mean you haven't seen the others yet? Or is there a meta-criterion to when your criterion applies? Or am I missing something? This is not meant as criticism, it's just that I don't understand it, and I'd like to. Yours, Radiant_* 17:03, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• It's a fair question. First, may I say for the avoidance of doubt, that it's nothing personal - when I vote I apply my admin criterion exactly, without any wavering. I believe WP is an encyclopaedia and admins should have solid editing skills together with good liaison on our practices. Second, I don't vote on every candidacy. Sometimes it's because I just don't look on RfA, sometimes it is because it is overwhelmingly clear which way the RfA is going when I come to see it - eg if it is 10-nil or nil-10, I am unlikely to vote. This leaves me voting because: (1) By the time I come to see the RfA it could go either way - in this case whether someone has demonstrated the skills necessary to create a FA is IMO a fair tie-breaker; (2) Because the person up for RfA asks me to (presumably because they meet the criterion); (3) Just because I happen to feel like it. For the currently active RfAs (1) and (2) apply, and (3) doesn't. Please also bear in mind that whilst I am quite public on what my admin criterion is, I am not arguing that everyone should base their RfA votes on the same criterion. If you'd like me to vote for the others I will (as on reflection I can see why you are puzzled and may erroneously think I have something against you, and I suppose I ought to vote for either all active RfAs when I cast one vote, or none). Kind regards and all the best, jguk 17:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up, and it's an opinion I can respect. However, I would appreciate it if you were to vote on all open nominations, out of a general feeling of fairness. Unless that would be a lot of extra work for you, that is. Yours, Radiant_* 18:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to reiterate what Radiant just said; your admin criterion seems to be rather selectively applied, unless I too am missing something. I'd also like to state for the record that I deeply disagree with the entire concept of it, as being about as orthogonal as it'd be possible to get from a sensible measure of someone's suitability for adminship (if you were inviting comment on that, too, as opposed to whether it'd been "correctly applied" in each case). Alai 18:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I've now voted in all open RfAs. I'll try to remember to vote in either all or none going forward - just so it's clear that I am applying it rigidly rather than making personal comments. Kind regards, jguk 19:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JYolkowski

• I'd like to add my congratulations as well. P.S. Thanks for your support on my RfA, much appreciated. JYolkowski // talk 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kbdank71

Congrats as well! --Kbdank71 19:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kim Bruning

Hi there! Regarding your comment on being bold and potential cardiac arrest, I thought I'd give a few examples of what I'd consider bold. What I usually mean is either start something that some people are already talking about but not doing(such as this); or taking a bunch of stub articles and combining them into a list (Category:SI_derived_units_of_length is next on my list). But I'd be happy to discuss my actions if people disagree. HTH! En groetjes uit Rotterdam :) Radiant_* 15:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• ==The Last BOLD Editor==

• I thought it was REALLY cool to see you BEing BOLD all over the place. Like WOW! An example to follow :-)

• Just that, in a number of cases your act was to prevent other people from being bold after you, or suggest that boldness was no longer welcome.

• For instance, you switched out templates "this is a suggested policy" to "this is policy please don't edit it but go to the talk page" (on a policy page with BE BOLD as its first line no less, IIRC ;-) ) , removed a perpetual poll and replaced it with one that "closes in 2 weeks", that kind of thing.

• If you're going to BE BOLD like that, well, then you'd end up as The Last BOLD Editor. Because there'd be nothing left to BE BOLD over! ;-)

• Instead, how about cleverly thinking up clear ways for others to follow in your footsteps. :-) If you can give me some idea that you're going to do that, I'll switch to support on your RFA. (These RFA's are SO useful sometimes O:-) ). Oh eh what? *innocent look*.

• Kim Bruning 08:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • well, how about this?
  • Template:Guideline now reads, "Feel free to update the page as needed". I initially thought that was a bad idea (because new users might misunderstand, and existing users would already do that), but I'm now convinced that it should stand as such so that guidelines can stay updated.
  • Regarding perpetual polls... I thought I was doing the exact opposite. If a poll is limited, then when it's finished we can draw a conclusion and make it actionable. If a poll is perpetual, people will keep debating the issue forever and not actually do anything. Thus I felt that by putting in a time limit, I was encouraging boldness (though in retrospect I admit that calling the vote on WP:POINT was a bad idea)
  • Doei, Radiant_* 09:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. In the case of perpetual polls, the idea is that something can become or unbecome a rule over time. See WP:IAR. I think it's kinda purdy to see such things evolve over time, and it gives a good measure of the wiki. :) I particularly remembered you sticking "Do Not Edit" templates on simplified policy pages, while I was working on those at the time, hence the impression you left :-)
    • It's since been changed, possibly by you too? :-) In that case I'd better support! Kim Bruning 09:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • (changed from neutral to support)
      • Thank you for your very inspiring support message ! Radiant_* 11:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus

Hi there! While I respect your opinion of me, I'd like to say that I've changed since we've first met. I admit to having been somewhat trigger-happy in the past, but I've become convinced that organizing (or adding to) existing content is far more beneficial to the 'pedia than getting rid of sub-par articles that most people wouldn't notice in the first place. Thus I'd consider myself a strong mergist, and please realize that I contributed heavily to WP:FICT (which basically calls for including any and all articles on fiction) and I even wrote a rule of thumb "Do not nominate schools for deletion". Of course that may or may not matter to you, but since we haven't spoken much recently I thought I'd mention it.

As a side point, I don't accuse you of being a sockpuppet. I did once asked the question whether you were one, but that's far from the same (my exact words, "This may well be a coincidence, but could someone please check the IP address to see what's going on here?"). And in that case, it was quickly cleared up that you weren't, and I haven't brought up the matter since. We all make mistakes sometimes, don't we? Yours, Radiant_* 08:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I see you're willing to strengthen your argumentation against my RFA, but then why are you unwilling to respond to me? Also, are you aware of the fact that User:GRider in fact is a proven sockpuppet, and that User:G Rider (whose only contributions are nominating schools for deletion) is in fact the same person? Radiant_* 09:51, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • This taking things personally is one of the reasons I don't think you'd be a good admin. I think you are good person, and a good editor, but I think that you lack certain personal qualities needed insomeone who is capable of pulling the trigger. I.e you are too ideological, and tend to take things personally.
    • Well, I'll respect that; your first response at RFA looked like you held a grudge against me because you thought I accued you of sockpuppetry quite a long time ago. I'm glad that's not the case. Radiant_* 10:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:GRider isn't a sockpuppet of anyone, he's done some foolish things, and suffered a harsh ArbCom injunction. I would really appreiate it if people could clue me to anything GRider has done post ArbCom that is bad, because from my personal communications with him, he's a good person. Klonimus 10:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Check Special:ipblocklist, and you will find that GRider is permanently blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet. This was also mentioned on VFD/talk. The main thing he's done wrong after the ArbCom decision is ignoring it. Radiant_* 10:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Do you have a link? I've had some emails with GRider, and he seemed a nice a person. Although to an extent I think he was too ideological, and not willing to work within the system. However, I still think he wasn't that disruptive and some other arrangemnt could have been done. To me he exposed the problem of VfD, which is alot of it depends on who closes the VfD discussion. The Islamofascism VfD showed me just how unrelaiable and subject o manipulation VfD can be so I guess I'm a bit sensitive to concerns of that. Klonimus 10:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, [1]. I'm afraid that being unwilling to work within the system is a serious problem. It is quite possible to change the system (been there, done that :) ) but simply going against it serves little purpose other than to antagonize people (e.g. see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes). I agree that VFD is far from perfect (in fact, there's an ongoing discussion on revising it), but it is necessary to have a system to get rid of our daily bunch of junk. While GRider has shown the problem to some extent (by which I mean that some people were already aware, and others still don't get it) he has never shown a solution. I'm afraid that Socrates is dead. Radiant_* 11:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
          • (changed from oppose to weak oppose)

Rhymeless

Hi there! You've expressed concern against my admin nomination, so I was wondering what it is. Since I don't recall having a discussion with you earlier, could you please show me what you mean so that I can change this behavior in the future? Thanks, Radiant_* 15:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Although the point is somewhat moot now, I'd still like to hear your answer. Radiant_>|< 07:42, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

RickK

Congratulations! Wear it wisely. RickK 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sarg

Grats from me too. I'm sure you'll do it great. Sarg 12:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

Hi there! You expressed concern about how I would react to my critics on RFA. In general, I've contacted them on their talk page to see what they find wrong about my behavior, and see what I can do to change that. In particular, some people fear I might do controversial deletes, so I have decided to stay away from CSD and VFD closure for the forseeable future.

For instance, see User_talk:Everyking#Controversy?, User_talk:Bluemoose#Deadend sorting, User_talk:Unfocused#Edit summaries, User_talk:Alkivar#A change and User_talk:TheCustomOfLife#Boldness.

Yours, Radiant_* 07:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

SebastianHelm

Hi there! I'm not sure if I understood this... you've opposed my adminship because I archived my user page? I wasn't even thinking of Neto when I did that, it was simply a matter of cleaning up the lengthy page. Besides, I'm sure you've read it by now and it isn't evidence of any of Neto's allegations. I should hope Wikipedia is not a court of law. Radiant_* 19:20, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for asking! I take this as a sign that you're willing to learn, and it's always the best in these situations, which actually alleviates some of my concerns.

• Of course, Wikipedia is not a court of law, and I am sure nothing you did warrants any punishment or penalty. This is not what VfA is about. Someone who's on VfA has to meet different standards than someone tried at court.

• "Different" can mean "higher": An admin needs certain qualities. The most neglected admin quality IMHO is conflict resolution skills. The case Neto cites was a case of, let's say, "suboptimal" conflict resolution.

• Other important qualities are integrity and conscientiousness. I don't know what you thought when you did your "cleanup", but if you were indeed not aware that much of what you deleted pertained to the VfA discussion then it doesn't give a very conscientious impression, either. It doesn't improve the impression that you described the change as "rm old stuff" when in fact it included even the most recent contributions.

• Anyway, I hope that you will learn to become a fair and levelheaded administrator and that you will have and give others lots of fun with Wikipedia. Sebastian (talk) 08:24, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• As one of the few who opposed Radiant's VfA, I have to say that he has come a long way. He put a lot of time and dedication into the CSD Amendment. Last I checked, we were all asked to assume good faith. While his change of the wording wasn't optimal, there can be no doubt that he was doing it in good faith, notifying everyone who might have been affected. This is further evidenced by the fact that he sought a fair solution in a constructive discussion with Phil and implemented it immediately, although it must have been quite a bunch of work. — Sebastian (talk) July 6, 2005 03:51 (UTC)

Silversmith

Well done, and good luck! --Silversmith Hewwo 09:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spangineer

Great to see that you made it! Be wise with the new capabilities, but don't stop being bold. We need more go get 'em editors like you! --Spangineer (háblame) 12:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

SWAdair

Radiant!, I would like to add my congratulations. As Cecropia said, just about anything can be undone, so don't worry too much about making mistakes. Be bold. Oh, umm... yeah, right.  ;-) SWAdair | Talk 02:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TheCustomOfLife

Hi there! I'm sorry if I offended you by being pushy and combative; please be assured that it wasn't intended as such. Since I don't recall having a discussion with you earlier, could you please show me what you mean so that I can change this behavior in the future? Thanks, Radiant_* 09:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• It wasn't any one thing; I had noticed your attitude toward others in the past and it didn't seem the nicest. Since you did come to me and were very understanding, I will pull my oppose vote. Mike H 18:32, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • (changed from oppose to neutral)
  • Thank you for your support. I'll also stay away from controversial deletions and blocks for the forseeable future. Yours, Radiant_* 08:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sideway

I'm pleased to see you listed for administrator. I would probably have nominated you myself pretty soon. I've found you a pleasure to work with. If you get a bumpy ride, don't worry, I got a very bumpy ride too but once you make it things cool down somewhat. My RFA was something of an epic as these things go because I'd managed to upset precisely 20% of everybody I'd ever met on Wikipedia, and delighted the other 80%. It so happens that the minimum figure to hit for a promotion to admin is 80%... :)

The bureaucrats had a discussion afterwards. It was all very controversial. Hard to remember what all the fuss was about, now.

Cheers! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your remarks! I'm happy to see that we can disagree about a lot and still be productive together. Hm, and I'm presently at exactly 80% :) Yours, Radiant_* 10:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Unfocused

Hi there! You expressed some concern regarding my usage (or lack thereof) of edit summaries... so far I've been mainly using them for big changes in articles (re-categorization, merging, stuff like that). However, since people find it useful, I'd be happy to use them universally (although most will probably read something like "add a line about Mr.Burns" or "response to Kappa"). (I've never done RC before, maybe I should do that for a while to get a feeling for edit summs). Hope that helps!

As a side point, I don't intend to do deletion or userblocking any time soon (unless there's a really big backlog); the main adminning thing I'd like to help with is renaming categories (CFD is pretty big these days). Yours, Radiant_* 09:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response you left on my talk page regarding your RFA. As you can see, I changed my vote to support. I spend half of my time on dialup, and half on broadband (dialup at work), so switching back and forth really brings home the value of a simple edit summary. It saves a lot of time to get an idea if I'm going to be interested in the edit before opening it. Although we've been opposite each other sometimes, I'm glad to see you getting the admin tools. --Unfocused 18:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (changed from oppose to support)
  • Thank you for your support. We may hold different opinions at times, but I'm happy to work with you. Radiant_* 18:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Xiong

Regarding "I find it significant he has felt compelled to defend himself here; ideal admins do not seek the office."... FYI, everybody against whom concerns are raised on RFA would address those concerns then and there; it's the polite thing to do. And note that I never sought the office; I state as much at the top of the RFA page, and it was not a self-nom.

(and I realize I am creating a fragmented discussion here which you don't like, but it would be paradoxical if I 'defended' against this on the RFA page). Yours, Radiant_* 08:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Neither you nor I should be admins; that is an office for those without agendas. Suggest you recognize that essential truth and recuse yourself. — Xiong熊talk* 16:12, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Your persistent claims that I and other people may have ulterior motives are your POV and not backed by evidence. Also, the suggestion that admins may not have agendas is your POV and not backed by policy, guideline, or existing admins. Radiant_* 08:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

POV is a local acronym for "point of view" and is very poor use of the language. The noun you want is "opinion" or "bias"; the adjective is "opinionated" or "biased". You have an agenda; that's a fact, not an opinion. It is evident from your edits and from your talk. -- So do I. Admins are tasked to carry out the will of the community; that is a fact, not an opinion. It is stated in many places and broadly understood.

That said, insistence that a statement is fact does not make it so -- any more than insistence that it is opinion makes it that. I assert; I am prepared to back my statements with references. You rebut; you are not. — Xiong熊talk* 16:36, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

• I have moved the comment you added to the Oppose section to the Comments section, since it did not look like a vote and your oppose vote was already there. If I was wrong in doing that, feel free to move your comment back. --cesarb 19:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zzyzx11

Congratulations as well. Looks like I have to include you on this subpage of mine. Good luck with the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)