Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Radiant!: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GK (talk | contribs)
2,004 edits
GK (talk | contribs)
2,004 edits
Line 187: Line 187:
#'''Weak Oppose'''. —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Oppose'''. —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per jossi, FT2, and Kafziel, as well as a recent (this week) [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability|ArbCom ruling]] where Radiant's behavior was described as "aggressive"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Radiant.21] and "increased the intensity of the dispute rather than cooled it down, something that could have been anticipated by [an] experienced administrator."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Removal_of_poll_by_administrators_exacerbated_the_dispute] I am also concerned by Radiant's summary description above, where he gave only a partial story of some controversial actions. For example, he says he attempted to defuse the situation, and removed a controversial poll at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)]], but he fails to mention that it was his own initial usage of a personally-targeted and controversial term ("filibuster")[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=88529053&oldid=88527466] which caused that poll to be started in the first place, as his language caused other less-experienced users to follow his example. Radiant also failed to mention that he also deleted other attempts at ''valid'' polls [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=88775440&oldid=88775129][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=88781963&oldid=88781524], which actions, just as they had done in the above ArbCom case, further escalated this new conflict (which is still ongoing, and is probably heading for ArbCom itself). Admins are supposed to set a standard of civil behavior, to help de-escalate conflicts, and to be good rolemodels. ArbCom members in particular are subjected to close scrutiny. Radiant has done many good things around Wikipedia, but I would not be comfortable supporting him for this position. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per jossi, FT2, and Kafziel, as well as a recent (this week) [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability|ArbCom ruling]] where Radiant's behavior was described as "aggressive"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Radiant.21] and "increased the intensity of the dispute rather than cooled it down, something that could have been anticipated by [an] experienced administrator."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Removal_of_poll_by_administrators_exacerbated_the_dispute] I am also concerned by Radiant's summary description above, where he gave only a partial story of some controversial actions. For example, he says he attempted to defuse the situation, and removed a controversial poll at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)]], but he fails to mention that it was his own initial usage of a personally-targeted and controversial term ("filibuster")[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=88529053&oldid=88527466] which caused that poll to be started in the first place, as his language caused other less-experienced users to follow his example. Radiant also failed to mention that he also deleted other attempts at ''valid'' polls [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=88775440&oldid=88775129][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=88781963&oldid=88781524], which actions, just as they had done in the above ArbCom case, further escalated this new conflict (which is still ongoing, and is probably heading for ArbCom itself). Admins are supposed to set a standard of civil behavior, to help de-escalate conflicts, and to be good rolemodels. ArbCom members in particular are subjected to close scrutiny. Radiant has done many good things around Wikipedia, but I would not be comfortable supporting him for this position. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. For ALL the reasons listed by the other oppose votes. 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) [[User:GK|gK]]
#'''Oppose'''. For ALL the reasons listed by the other oppose votes. 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) [[User:GK|gK]]

Revision as of 06:39, 7 December 2006

Statement

I’ve been active since December 2004, registered after a few months, and have been an admin since June 2005. My motto is that Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. Thus, I have done my best to make Wikipedia run more smoothly. I have never shied away from examining controversial issues, and use careful reasoning to cut to the heart of them. Indeed, I have been called a voice of reason and progress many times, even by those who disagree with me.

I've written an essay on my wikiphilosophy, or how Wikipedia should work. In my view, the ArbCom walks a fine line between guarding the encyclopedia by being lenient to good contributors, and guarding the morale of our volunteer editors by being even-handed. The aim is to be stern where necessary, fair where possible.

Together with a variety of other editors, I have been instrumental in solving or alleviating a number of issues in Wikipedia. The most well-known of these solutions is probably Proposed Deletion. Other frequently-cited ones include the present definition of policy and guideline, Centralized Discussion, Wikipedia is Not a Bureaucracy, and   n u m e r o u s   others.

Problematic users I have dealt with include Zen-master, Gabrichidze, and to some extent, Willy on Wheels. I've given my thoughts on the Giano case; a recent dispute I have dealt with is TV episode naming, which I looked into after a request for neutral opinion. I have attempted to defuse the situation, mainly using debate, but I felt it necessary to remove an inappropriate poll about one editor's personality, and to temporarily protect the page to stop a revert war over the disputedpolicy tag. I believe there is now a consensus with still some opposition, with the compromise of redirecting the minority name to the consensual name.

I believe I would make a capable arbiter, and if the community so desires I will aid the ArbCom to the best of my abilities.

Questions

Support

  1. --Spangineerws (háblame) 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Titoxd(?!?) 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm Amarkov and I endorse this candidate! -00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jaco♫plane 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - MER-C 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Majorly 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alex Bakharev 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Ourai т с 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Salix alba (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jaranda wat's sup 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. - crz crztalk 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per answers to questions and what I've seen of this editor. Excellent candidate. --Coredesat 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per my interactions. --210physicq (c) 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. BhaiSaab talk 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Hello32020 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Khoikhoi 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Peta 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. SuperMachine 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Awolf002 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Dakota 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Dr Zak 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Just a natural arbitrator! I'm delighted to see him on the list. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  28. Mike Dillon 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. cohesion 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Húsönd 03:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Raven4x4x 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. —Mira 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Homestarmy 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Terence Ong 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support Radiant combines sound judgment and an inherent sense of fairness with a flair for innovative approaches to problem-solving. He's really quite close to the perfect ArbCom candidate. Xoloz 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. alteripse 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support the editor whose opinions in Wikipedia space I have learned to trust. --Irpen 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support --Riley 06:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Dylan Lake 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Nufy8 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support. Excellent candidate. --Alecmconroy 07:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. — CharlotteWebb 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Ah yes, Radiant!, the first person I nominated for adminship and one of my favorite admins. Like Nandesuka, Radiant is a tough candidate but I trust him to be fair and reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Thumb's up. —Doug Bell talk 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Radiant and I didnt always see eye to eye in the past... especially on AFD. But other than the deletionist/inclusionist debate I trust his judgement.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. The most trustworthy arbitrator I can imagine. Opposers should be ashamed. Support! --Ghirla -трёп- 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. SchmuckyTheCat 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support had only a brief view of Radiant!'s activities. Like what I've seen.--Zleitzen 09:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. --Interiot 10:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support --Van helsing 10:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support -- Ferkelparade π 11:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Kusma (討論) 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Charles Matthews 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support --Neigel von Teighen 12:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Nandesuka 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - I've disagreed with some recent actions which seemed like 'unnecessary strong-arming' to me, but have found him otherwise consistently well above par in all regards. --CBD 13:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Shyam (T/C) 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. From what I've seen, capable enough for the job. -Jeske (Yell at me) 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Tirronan He has my support. Tirronan 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support --Mcginnly | Natter 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Carom 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Radiant has been very involved in in many facets of Wikipedia and he is very familiar with how Wikipedia works. In my experience he is also very considerate and his comments are always constructive and insightful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support absolutely Dragomiloff 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --Conti|✉ 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Without hesitation--Docg 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Ehheh 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support a good user overall and has good insticts. I would trust him to arbitrate fairly. Eluchil404 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Working to make Wikipedia a more stremalined machine can only be a good thing! Wikiwoohoo 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support well qualified and familiar with administrative issues.-- danntm T C 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support -- ßottesiηi (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support David D. (Talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong Support - clearly spoken, level-headed and knowledgable, which are really all that matter. Badbilltucker 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support --CComMack (t–c) 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Demonstrates an interest in fairness that should be a model for all Wikipedians. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, would make a good arbitrator. JYolkowski // talk 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, strong candidate ... good judgement. Lincher 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, fair and balanced (no irony intended) --humblefool® 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support —JeremyA 04:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support --hydnjo talk 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Glen 05:31, December 5, 2006 (UTC)
  90. Strong Support. Understands policies well. utcursch | talk 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support hadn't run into him much, but from the brief amount of work I've seen of him, seems to be a knowledgeable candidate --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. A long history of positive interactions with Radiant! (though I still don't whether to say "he" or "she" in reference to him/her) lead to my support. —Angr 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. ABSOLUTELY. —Nightstallion (?) 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Suport Thε Halo Θ 14:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Bobet 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Yanksox 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. A bit surprised and concerned about some of the things mentioned below by users I trust especially given my long standing very good impression of Radiant and his level headedness. Overall the good outweighs the bad by a long ways. - Taxman Talk 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. W.marsh 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. I think he could bring a good voice to the Arbitration Committee. We shouldn't be electing a committee of drones who all think in lockstep. --Cyde Weys 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. pgk 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Outstanding editor, will make a great member of the ARBCOM. SkerHawx 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support down with bureacracy! -Drdisque 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. You're quite likely to either be the worst or the best of the arbitrators we select, and I'm leaning towards the best. Good luck. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Should be a good choice for ArbCom. Nishkid64 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. This user has shown leadership and general good sense in a number of areas. NatusRoma | Talk 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Chensiyuan 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. You shall go to the ball. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. Liked his answers to the questions. Has good experience. --Merlinme 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Jakew 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. ∴ here…♠ 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. —Ruud 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Jd2718 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. pschemp | talk 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interactions have left me with an impression of someone who likes to boss others around. Not one to have in a position of influence. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I didn't like some of his activities on the policy pages. ATren 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strangely, I agree with Samsara. Wrong temperament, too much of a warrior. Rebecca 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KPbIC 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Rebecca. KazakhPol 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. THB 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Too often involved with ArbCom level disputes which wears down on his reputation, but I think he's a really good user and admin other than that. semper fi — Moe 05:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- AuburnPilottalk 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Opposition by self-imposed standard regarding recent ArbCom case principles. No prejudice against future candidacy. Serpent's Choice 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 6SJ7 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Everyking 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. – Chacor 09:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. cj | talk 10:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose (based on answers to my questions). Shows no understanding that admins can abuse their power. Anomo 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose If I were to make a WP:Point I would delist this candidate with a claim of WP:SNOW --BostonMA talk 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Sorry Radiant, I'm concerned about the recent several-times reverting of long-standing content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. I would have expected a "silent period" during the arbCom elections. His recent interactions at policy pages worries me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Guettarda 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per recent dispute involvement RFerreira 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Michael Snow 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Anomo and SlimVirgin. bbx 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose I wish you luck, but I don't fully agree with your policies. WikieZach| talk 00:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. —Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --- RockMFR 01:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Yamaguchi先生 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Silensor 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose, per this user's recent edit warring at WP:CHILD. I would not call Radiant a "voice of reason" in that dispute. This prolific editor has made many excellent contributions to Wikipedia, but I do not believe this user is an arbitrator. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. GizzaChat © 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose 172 | Talk 09:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose--ragesoss 09:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - an arbitrator needs to have firmness, which he has, but also needs to see things from other people's viewpoints. He doesn't seem to be sufficiently open and tolerant to different views. Metamagician3000 09:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Andre (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Per this diff; a look at the associated talk page will reveal that the user decided to single-handedly, pre-emptively end the (STILL semi-active) debate and, <sarcasm>strangely</sarcasm>, also seems to have been opposed to the proposal. I therefore strongly agree with the "not open" assessment. Srose (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Bahn Mi 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose - similar reasons to Samsara, Rebecca, and several others, past interaction struck me as someone who has increased (rather than diffused) conflict or has seemed heavy handed/overcertain a little too often. Has not yet shown the level of respect under pressure which I would look for, nor inspired me with quiet certainty and trust in his assured neutral and fair interaction, which the best of the community show in all their work on Wikipedia. Needs to learn to listen a little more, be a little less self-assured, ask if others might have a point more often. If he hasn't achieved this off arbcom then arbcom membership is not the place to develop it. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. BlankVerse 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Reluctant oppose. Experienced and intelligent editor but also makes a lot of unilateral decisions about policies, guidelines, and essays. While bold decisions can sometimes be good for Wikipedia, I don't think they're compatible with ArbCom. Kafziel Talk 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose, the impression I have is that the candidate does not listen to the opinions of others. Mallanox 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Weak Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose per jossi, FT2, and Kafziel, as well as a recent (this week) ArbCom ruling where Radiant's behavior was described as "aggressive"[1] and "increased the intensity of the dispute rather than cooled it down, something that could have been anticipated by [an] experienced administrator."[2] I am also concerned by Radiant's summary description above, where he gave only a partial story of some controversial actions. For example, he says he attempted to defuse the situation, and removed a controversial poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), but he fails to mention that it was his own initial usage of a personally-targeted and controversial term ("filibuster")[3] which caused that poll to be started in the first place, as his language caused other less-experienced users to follow his example. Radiant also failed to mention that he also deleted other attempts at valid polls [4][5], which actions, just as they had done in the above ArbCom case, further escalated this new conflict (which is still ongoing, and is probably heading for ArbCom itself). Admins are supposed to set a standard of civil behavior, to help de-escalate conflicts, and to be good rolemodels. ArbCom members in particular are subjected to close scrutiny. Radiant has done many good things around Wikipedia, but I would not be comfortable supporting him for this position. --Elonka 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. For ALL the reasons listed by the other oppose votes. 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Radiant!&oldid=92647308"