Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uncle G

[edit]

final (45/22/2) ending 10:05 18 April 2005 (UTC)

A discussion of the outcome of the vote is underway at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Uncle G

Very knowledgeable 'pedian, and has been doing a lot of excellent organizational work to the Wiki, particularly with the Transwiki-to-Wiktionary process. Also has been friendly with explaining the relevant processes to new users. (4982 edits) Radiant_* 10:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
  • My goodness, look what has happened whilst I've been busy elsewhere! As I said on Wiktionary, if I had been nominated earlier, I would have declined, on the grounds that you simply wouldn't have had enough edit history to look at. I think that there's enough for that to be no longer a consideration. I therefore accept. Uncle G (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Support

  1. Sometimes, I find User G's comments on his talk page elliptical enough that they could end in "Grasshopper", but...everyone needs a friendly uncle. Grutness|hello? 10:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. In the interactions I've had with Uncle G, I can't remember a single instance where I've thought his conduct less than exemplary. Thryduulf 11:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fine. JuntungWu 11:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, good contributor who works well with others. Userpage doesn't bother me in the least. Rje 14:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  5. RickK 22:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC). Good editor, manages to proceed through the minefields of VfD without becoming sullied. RickK 22:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Very Very Strong Support - I've recently worked pretty closely with Uncle G on tranwikification of articles to Wiktionary, and he's very level headed and a great contributor to Wikipedia. People who oppose Uncle G because he doesn't have a user page need to "...un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages...". Kevin Rector 03:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. a careful user. all this "get a user-page" mumbo-jumbo is silly. Kingturtle 05:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. User pages are nice trivialities, not anything essential. - RedWordSmith 06:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support - lack of a userpage is irrelevant Tuf-Kat 06:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  10. I'd go neutral because of the lack of a userpage, but Uncle G is a very hard worker. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. I have seen Uncle G's work and it seems like he is a hard worker. I think the lack of a userpage is irrelevant because he can slap something on in less than a few seconds. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Surely, there are more useful reasons for opposition than lacking a userpage? ugen64 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Strong support. I thought he was already an admin. --Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. ditto -- BrokenSegue 02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
  16. Support, hey, it's my nomination. I'd create a redirect from his userpage to his talk page if people think that'd help. Radiant_* 11:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support — MikeX (talk) 16:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  18. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Userpage objections are nonsense. — Dan | Talk 22:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. He's not evil, my requirements are met. --Bjarki 00:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. I have accepted his reason for having no userpage. Uncle G is level headed and helpful, and we need more such administrators. Sjakkalle 06:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Affirming vote. Sjakkalle 07:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Good user.--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. utcursch | talk 12:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Would be a shame for this nomination to fail for reasons as trivial as someone not having a user page. Phils 19:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. It would be nice to use minor edit checkbox sometimes (the one on the left, single click is enough, really) to give hint to people on RC check. Pavel Vozenilek 00:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support (if I've enough contrib's to vote here:) A user who reminds us all that one should not judge a contributor from the colo(u)r of hir user page link. This red link is a "face to the community" - albeit not a standard one. Who said it had to be? \Mike(z) 10:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Although I mostly know this editor through Wikinews, from what I've seen over there he'd make a great admin here. Not having a user page is of no practical consequence. Dan100 11:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Xezbeth 19:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support - Good contributions and there is nothing wrong with not having a user page. - SimonP 20:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support Boatloads of good work, and the lack of a user page (until forced) was more than fine, suggesting that vanity doesn't override decisions. (and nice workaround to the "problem" now that I look closer :) --iMb~Meow 05:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support -- Good editor, knowledgeable of policies, already involved in various areas of cleanup. I would feel comfortable handing him the keys to the janitor closet. SWAdair | Talk 05:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Trollslayer extrordinaire who is a vital part of VfD. Also, he's left one of the most eloquent and even-handed statements I've ever read over on SamuraiClinton's RfC page. Just get a user page. Become the "blue Uncle" we know you can be. - Lucky 6.9 03:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. Strong support. I say this with all due respect to those who oppose the nomination. The nominee is clearly not an opportunist: Despite knowing that much of the opposition will cease if he creates a user page, he continues not to have one. This behavior indicates that Uncle G would probably not change his personal view merely to obtain more votes. -- Emsworth 02:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. Uncle G comes across as patient, fair-minded and good at explaining things. I think he'll be good with a mop. FreplySpang (talk) 04:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Will he misuse admin powers? I strongly doubt it based on what I've seen of him and on the endorsements above, and that's good enough for me. Isomorphic 05:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support, I don't think the user page is a big deal, and that seems to be the only oposition to his promotion, he is a good editor--nixie 06:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. I note that many of the oppose votes are caused by the lack of a user page; while this is unusual, it is not grounds to decline adminship. Uncle G's enabling of his email shows he is responsive to fair comment.-gadfium 08:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  38. Uncle G has now linked to his explanation below from the top of his talk page, which is good enough for me. —Korath (Talk) 09:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Frankly, I'm stunned that so many people are opposing simply because Uncle G doesn't have the equivalent of "Hi! My name is: Uncle G" --Kbdank71 14:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  40. Andre (talk) 15:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. The lack of a user page is quirky, and probably an error in judgement, but I don't see any other evidence that Uncle G would be anything other than a good and helpful administrator. I actually admire the fact that Uncle G has not created one, given the obvious fact that he could create one, assuage the discomfort of those opposing him solely because of this, be made an administrator, and then delete his user page. Good sense of both independence and honor there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps you should read back what you just wrote: "he could create one, assuage the discomfort of those opposing him solely because of this, be made an administrator, and then delete his user page." I doubt he thinks that way. I couldn't imagine a greater expression of bad faith. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Neither can I -- in other words, he's showing good faith (or at least an absence of bad faith) by not doing that (unlike, say, another failed candidate for adminship, who, after having announced his conclusion that he should replace his bad attitude with hypocrisy, changed his name to a smarmy one, always prepending it with a smiley face, apparently of the opinion that RfA voters are WAY stupid.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  42. I'll support him for the same reason others were opposing me :) brian0918™ 19:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  43. SupportThe quality of one's edits and work here on the Wikipedia should determine if one should be an admin, not just a simple user page. Maybe he likes the color red? Bratschetalk random 20:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  44. SupportUncle G exceeds all material requirements for an admin. We do not expect nor do we require admins to be yesmen, or to toe the party line for matters unrelated to their ability to function as an admin. That a missing userpage complicates RC monitoring is a sign we need to improve our software and not a reason to punish valuable contributors.--Gmaxwell 00:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. I don't feel that the issue of a lack of a userpage should make or break Uncle G's adminship. Slac speak up! 04:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. An administrator should present a "face" to the community by having a user page. If this user creates one, I will almost certainly change my vote. Jonathunder 17:06, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC) Or create at least a redirect to the talk page. For an admin to have no user page at all would be confusing to new users, and I respectfully don't agree that is a trivial thing. Jonathunder 19:24, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) The main reason I now strongly oppose is not the user page but the whole pattern and style of communication. See the comments below. Jonathunder 04:20, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. My experience with this user at Category talk:Move to Wiktionary was disappointing, to put it mildy. It seemed he purposely took comments out of context to make himself look right, and his stubborness to continually delete his user page is pathetic. If Uncle G wants to be independant/special/wild card/free spirit/whatever, then great; he can continue being that way as a regular editor. The contributions he selected for the answer section below are underwhelming. His edit summaries of "Rewritten from sources" (Albert Mackey,Emmett Ashford) lead me to believe he rewrote sections from sources, not that what he was removing stuff because it was copied from sources. Frankly, from the way he handled the issues with his user page (by CSDing it) and the examples he selected from his contributions, I don't think this person really cares if he's admin or not. We have enough admins as it is, we don't need to force it on people who are hemming and hawwing about it. --jag123 02:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The edit summary at [24] reads "Entirely rewritten from sources", and yes, they were rewrites from sources. Hence the "References" sections, citing sources, that appear in both rewrites. Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  3. To me not having a user page marks you as someone who has been on for a week or a vandal with a user name. I patrol the new pages list a lot, and I mostly check the pages of people with no user page of no user name. Howabout1 01:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for now. I originally thought that the lack of a user page wasn't a big deal, but it's starting to bug me. Though I don't like to support broad generalizations, it is useful to distinguish between red names and blue names when going through my Watchlist or "Recent Changes". While I don't expect that EVERY user create a user page, our admins should definitely be expected to support the best practices on wikipedia, and I believe that a user page is one of those practices. His refusal to even create a nominal user page is troubling, indicates a stubbornness to a degree that is inadvisable when dealing with admin powers, and seems almost like a disruption of wikipedia to prove a point. I hate to do it but i'm going to have to oppose. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. No user page. --Lst27 (talk) 21:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I hate to do this, but the more I think about it the more it bothers me. Administrators must interact with the community and a user page is part of the face one presents. It need not be complex (mine was two short sentences for months), but administrators are trusted members with additional abilities and I feel they should make some effort to connect with the community by posting something. Not to do somehow doesn't seem in the spirit of openness and transparency that I feel administrators should promote, especially regarding themselves. And it seems unprofessional. I also am concerned that Uncle G made no effort here to address this concern or even to explain why he thought it was irrelevant. Administrators should be sensitive to concerns regarding their behavior. However, I understand his lack of comment, as from his answer to question 1 and his comment on Radiant's talk page, it appears that adminship is not something he strongly wants nor is it very helpful to the types of activities he normally does. Of course, some would argue that the best administrators are those who aren't crazy about pursuing adminship, but between my perceived lack of benefit to him and the lack of a user page, it's enough to push me to oppose. If Uncle G wishes to stand out from everyone else, he is free to make his signature red or whatever he likes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. The lack of a user page troubles me. There isn't of course a rule that having one is mandatory for an admin, but at the same time, that this user lacks one gives me enough pause to oppose this nomination. Moncrief 19:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. With great sadness I feel I have to oppose this nomination, which also means I will not decide on this nomination, leaving it to another bureaucrat's discretion. I say "with great sadness" because Uncle G seems like a fine, decent and principled editor. However, I feel that it sets a bad precedent for an Administrator not to have a User Page as opposed to an Editor not to have one. That is because admins are the public face of Wikipedia and where others turn for help and advice. It is not a good thing for an admin to not have a user page that at least announces that he/she is an admin and expresses the admin's commitment (or lack thereof) to engaging the community and perhaps state those areas where s/he feels s/he can be most helpful. Therefore, I oppose this nomination. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. I am afraid that the only interaction I have had with this user resulted in his descending into a rant at me for not having read through several long discussion pages. I am not certain he is of sufficient mentality to have this distinction. Smoddy (tgeck) 14:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Having an empty user page is not good. I find the explanation for that below unsatisfactory. Oleg Alexandrov 04:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Lack of a userpage is inconsiderate for anyone given the time it wastes for people on RC patrol. If someone doesn't want to be an admin, that's their choice. For an admin, a voluntary postion to be part of the visible face of Wikipedia, its unnaceptable. - Taxman 00:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  12. VERY strongly oppose. Clearly Uncle G doesn't accept community consensus, because he still refuses to create a userpage. To me, the arrogance of not listening to the community is worse than not having a userpage. And, in turn, it's not the lack of a userpage that bothers me as much as the red link and its implications on Recent Changes, votes, polls, and other such things. It's disruptive and it wastes everyone's time. We're here to build an encylopedia and be part of a wiki community, not to make an ideological point. If Uncle G simply redirects his userpage to his user talk page, then I would support. Neutralitytalk 04:05, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose for now, and I do so reluctantly. From what I've seen of Uncle G's edits he's a good contributor an' all, but it's hard enough to form an impression of the people we're working with when we are all interacting pseudonymously over the internet even when they have user pages. Admins, I feel, should present a face to the community. Even if he were to create a fairly uninformative or out of date user page like mine or countless others' it would at least be an improvement on a red link. — Trilobite (Talk) 04:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. I read Uncle G's lengthy explanation below and it, by itself, is enough for me to vote no. I can appreciate the fight against the stigma of a blank user page, but the fact of the matter is that it does make things easier for other people. CryptoDerk 04:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. It's fine for editors to contribute without a user page, but it's not fine for admins. It rather seems like a policeman or any other official insisting on performing the job without wearing a uniform to identify himself properly. Uncle G needs neither user page nor adminship to continue his great work. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Similarly, I'm concerned by the lack of a user page. Well, not so much concerned, as he certainly has the right not to have one, and doesn't seems in any way to have sought adminship; but nontheless, I would be uncomfortable with an admin without one (as it'd preclude identifying himself as one, which I feel ought to be if not a formal requirement, then at least a general expectation). I'd also be in any event disinclined to actively support without some stronger statement on performing admin tasks (again, understandable in an "unsought" nomination, and not a reflection on him as an editor in any respect). Alai 06:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose due to lack of user page. I respect Uncle G's right not to have a user page and his desire to be judged on his contributions alone, but when weighing up whether users should be given admin powers I need to know more about the candidate. I would extend that to those who deliberately have obscure userpages. Perhaps it should be a requirement for Admins to have user pages. Dbiv 10:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. Great contributor, but I have to oppose. A simple redirect to his talk would take care of a very annoying red link. I echo Neutrality's comments especially, as well as Dbiv's. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. He does not have a user page; also please see his comments on "Teenybopper"'s talk page. тəzєті 20:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose on the grounds that I cannot agree with the following comment made by Radiant! as part of the nomination - "Also has been friendly with explaining the relevant processes to new users.". When I was a new user who was trying to do the right thing by speedying certain articles, he made comments that came across as curt and a little condescending. I won't debate whether his comments were correct, but I still feel that his approach was inconsistent with the attitude I would expect to see from an Admin (such behaviour greatly increases the risk of bad reactions from both valid contributors and vandals). If he could prove that this flaw no longer exists, then in all other aspects he seems fine. TigerShark 20:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Dwain 22:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. The lack of userpage is no big deal for me, but Uncle G is being quite rebarbative and quick to take offense in some of his responses on this very page. I do like to see admins ready to assume good faith, and to work towards defusing rather than escalating or even initiating quarrels, especially on their RfA page (considering that that is the one time and place people are likely to be as nice as they know how). Bishonen | talk 00:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Always level-headed in my experience (my main admin criterion), and a sadly uncommon voice of sanity on VfD. Uncle G, however, has no user page, which looks unprofessional for an administrator. I will change to support if this is rectified, even with so little as a redirect to his talk page. —Korath (Talk) 12:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am sure Uncle G could become a fine administrator, but I would like to see him get a userpage first. Sjakkalle 13:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Although his contributions are very good, I, too, am a little thrown by the lack of a user page. Red names are usually red flags for new users, which is not an association one wants made with administrators. – ClockworkSoul 13:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Would like to see the user get a user page, and answer the questions before deciding. Hedley 18:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Uncle G currently has 4989 total edits: 2946/150 to articles/talk, 1698/35 to Wikipedia/talk, 19/84 to User/talk, 26/16 to Template/talk, 10/4 to Category/talk, and 1 to Image. —Korath (Talk) 12:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: since when is user page more important than one's work? Pavel Vozenilek 00:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not understand how people can immediately vote 'delete when, a) he has not yet indicated if he even accepts the nomination, b) he has not yet completed the Questions for the candidate, below, and c) therefore, has not yet considered about making a user page yet. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • He can essentially slap on a userpage in less than a few seconds. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Why is his User page on CAT:CSD now? He mentions "as explained before" but I don't see a record of this previous indication. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, After slogging through his talk archives, I'm piecing together that he has a personal philosophy about people's preconceived notions about people without user pages. However, in this case, they were true. It was extremely inconvenient for me not to see a User page, and I had to go through all of your old discussions to figure out why you don't have one. At the very least, if you love that red link so much, just create a note at the top of your talk page explaining why you don't have a user page. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • For your information: Here is what Uncle G wrote on his talk page about a major reason why he does not have a user page: "The correct solution to what you describe is for people to un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages, just as they should un-learn the similar false inference that they make about contributions from anonymous users. (Some people falsely infer that anonymity brings bad faith, but anonymous users make thousands of good-faith edits to Wikipedia every day.)" Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • And what about the new users who want to find out who this admin is, are are confused by a blank page? Jonathunder 22:16, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
      • There aren't any "archives" to "slog through". I haven't archived my talk page. It's all there, right back to the beginning (minus conversations moved to other talk pages and modulo a failed idea in refactoring). Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • I don't really see the problem here. People have all sorts of funky signatures, and Uncle G's happens to be a redlink. People have all sorts of funky user pages, including jokes, medals, pictures and whatever, and while most have some relevant content, this is not a prerequisite; Uncle G's happens to be blank (which does give an air of mystery). I do believe actions speak louder than words. Radiant_* 22:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Alright, I'm not going to make a crusade out of this or anything, I just want to explain my vote. While I understand Uncle G's burning need to establish some unique sense of identity on this big confusing wiki, a blank user page is not the appropriate way to do it. Like it or not, a blank user page has connotations of "new"-ness. Uncle G is more than welcome to make his signature a red, non-working link if he likes, but it is still useful to browse the Special pages with the color-- not as a sole qualification of quality, but as an extra indicator. However, if it were just for the blank page, I would have abstained for the vote; it is really Uncle G's intransigence and lack of transparency in this matter that leads me to believe that he is not currently suited to be a good Administrator. At the very least, Uncle G should make this philosophy clear at the top of his talk page, as it has come up as a question several times (with several people "mistakenly" creating a page for him, requiring him to list it on CAT:CSD, disrupting operations further). I see Uncle G's lack of a page as an operational nuisance, it has caused confusion and all of this commotion on the Wikipedia... all so that Uncle G can feel special. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • What commotion? I haven't seen any commotion. And this is already addressed on my talk page. Twice. It was also addressed on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions the first time that it came up diff. You talk of "intransigence" and "stubbornness" because I have requested the pages that others have written to be deleted. I suspect that you haven't borne in mind what you would do if someone came along and edited User:DropDeadGorgias, your user page, for you. If other people edited it to contain something that you didn't want, would you change it back to how you wanted it? How strong would your resistance be? Would that be "stubborn" and "intransigent"? I note that you recently reverted it here. I also note that it is currently protected, in response to that one edit. Does your protecting your user page qualify as "stubborn" and "intransigent"? Are you saying that the act of keeping their user page they way that they want it to be, just as you have, should prohibit someone from being an administrator because administrators shouldn't be "stubborn" and "intransigent" like that? Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
    • I don't really have a problem with his signature having a red link; he could do that with font tags as far as I'm concerned. It is precisely because the lack of a user page gives an air of mystery that I am opposed to it for an administrator. For typical users, no problem—if they wish to stay mysterious, that's fine with me. But I feel administrators should be a bit more forthcoming. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Any relation to Uncle Ed? -- Viajero 17:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, this nomination is obviously going to fail now, and from the looks of it, any subsequent nominations will probably fail too. A real shame if you ask me. Especially considering most user pages (whether they belong to admins or not) are nothing but an annotated version of the contributions page or a collection of random buffooneries... Phils 09:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see that this nomination will "obviously" fail. It is on the low end of the "gray zone" and awaiting one of the other bureaucrats to return to make a decision. I don't see the point in criticizing other users who do have user pages. The User Page reveals something about the user whether it is a scholarly dissertation or an embarassment. I don't see what the problem is in Uncle G creating a user page for the purpose of letting those who visit if he were an admin know who they're talking to without having to read through all his Wikiworks. It seems to be that his verbose explanations of why he doesn't have a user page are as self-absorbed and self-revealing as all of us who do. And, as I said, it sets a bad precedent. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe I haven't been around long enough, but it was my experience that usually bureaucrats don't take it on themselves to promote a user with a 30:10 oppose ratio. Also, I mean buffoonery in a rather broad sense, non pejorative; I love when users have witty and original personal pages, but I still consider "most user pages" to be quite trivial, when you look at it objectively. Phils 08:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Uncle G has responded here (finally) to the user page question, and I have to say, sadly, I now strongly oppose. It isn't the user page--that's just one tool to communicate with other editors. It's the whole pattern of communication here. He has still not responded to my specific concern, stated twice above, that new users will be confused when they click on an admin's name and see the page creation screen. As I said above, I think even having just a redirect to the talk page would help avoid confusion on the part of new users. I even indicated that though I prefer an admin have a user page, I would have quite likely changed my vote if he had just made it a redirect to his talk page. Instead of acknowledging what I said, he chose to respond as you see below. Jonathunder 04:54, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
  • I wish to point out, with all due respect, that I find most of the objections above to be rather trivial. Firstly, it is argued that the lack of a user page will "confuse" newer users. I feel constrained to ask how this would happen. All new users presumably begin with blank user pages; I fail to see how they would be confused if another user had one. Secondly, it has been suggested that the administrator must present a "face" to the community. I find that having a user page saying "Hi!" is hardly better than having no user page at all. Consider the user pages of present administrators, for example. In fact, let us only consider those administrators whose usernames start with "A." User:Ams80 and User:Arminius have blank or redirecting user pages. User:Andres, User:Andrew Yong, User:Andris, User:Aris Katsaris, and User:Arvindn all have effectively empty userpages, except for lists of contributions. Certainly, there seems to be no problem with these individuals presenting or not presenting "faces." Thirdly, there is the objection that the RC patrol will be harmed. Presumably, those who regularly patrol Recent Changes will quickly get accustomed to the regular users: and they will certainly soon know that Uncle G would not vandalize. Consequently, I do not find that their efforts would be forced to endure any obstacles at all. Not having a user page can hardly constitute disruption. Fourthly, it has been suggested that Uncle G is not respecting "community consensus" by failing to obtain a user page. This point is absurd: there is no clear consensus that he should get a user page, as 2/3 of the voters have supported him so far. Finally, I wish to note that having or not having a user page is no reflection at all on fitness to be an administrator. The failure of one individual to have a user page will not ultimately lead to organizational paralysis or administrative atrophy. It hardly has any effect at all. Thus, I implore the users who object, with all the earnestness at my command, not to object, at least on the grounds of a lack of a user page. -- Emsworth 01:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well put. Phils 05:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I note that this vote is out of the gray zone, at 45/22/2. JuntungWu 14:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

I was originally going to add this along with my other answers, but decided not to. I've largely left this discussion alone, because, as I've said before, I think that it's up to the rest of you to make this decision. However, I think that some things need addressing.
0. Why do you not have a user page?
A. I don't have a user page very probably for the same reasons that you do.
I have long held that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day. Indeed, I was exactly such an anonymous user for quite a while. I only became pseudonymous largely because of the convenience of not having my edits confused with other customers of my ISP.
I also similarly hold that it is a false inference to assume that someone without a user page is someone who has "been on for a week" or is "a vandal with a user name". I disprove that latter hypothesis by my existence, as do many other editors who also do not have user pages. This heuristic is faulty, and I invite those who use it to (for example) do Recent Changes patrol on Wiktionary (Wiktionary can always use more RC patrollers.), where many users even of long standing have no user pages. I further ask those people to stop requesting that the world change to match their faulty heuristic, rather than the other way around.
DropDeadGorgias puts forward the rather bizarre notion that the act of not creating a page is "disruption of wikipedia to prove a point". If that were the case, then there are hundreds of millions of people not creating web pages on Wikipedia every day, all of whom are "disrupting" it. The notion that not creating something here is disruption is patently silly.
Xe also talks of "establish[ing] some unique sense of identity". But that is precisely what I'm not doing. "Uncle G" is, quite obviously, a pseudonym — just like DropDeadGorgias is — and a lack of a user page is precisely the opposite of attempting to establish an identity, as is the fact that, this page and its special circumstances aside, I use the default signature with no customization. If I wanted to "establish an identity", connecting my edits here to a real world person that you could throw tomatoes at, I would use an account in my actual name.
But like many of you I use a a pseudonym. Just as DropDeadGorgias and Jonathunder both choose not to tell you what their actual names are, so too do I. My "identity" to these WikiMedia projects is my contribution history, and can only be my contribution history. I want it to be my contribution history. (Note that Jonathunder, whilst asking here how other users can determine who I am, on his own user page answers that question of himself by pointing to his contribution history, a rather marked double standard.) It's the only identity that truly matters when it comes to making decisions about whether and how I can do things here. I thank both Pavel Vozenilek and jag123 for judging me upon it.
Everything else — pictures of me, an autobiography of my life, information about where I went to school and where I live, lists of my hobbies and interests — is autobiography, and by its nature self-professed. I have my own web sites out in the Big Wide World (It seems rather ironic to be referring to the World Wide Web like that, given that there is a Big Wide World outside of it, too. ☺), where I publish my own articles, with no Wikipedia restrictions, and could have reams of autobiography to my heart's content. I don't have such personal data on those, either. (Having been around on Internet for ... cough ... a little while now, I know not to publish such things, not on my own web sites, let alone on here.)
People know me out in the Big Wide World through my published works and what I do, not through what I merely tell them about myself. (They do know me - I've been cited here and there.) The same applies here, in the microcosms that are Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and so forth. You know me through my editing record; which speaks more accurately than I could in any case. (The automatic record is always going to be equal to or better than any manual record.) The "face that I present" to the world from these WikiMedia projects is an article on Microsoft Pascal or a sentence in chav, and as such is entirely egoless. The "face that I present" to other Wikipedia editors within these projects is through discussions and edit histories. To see why a user page is irrelevant to that latter "face" consider that I could have the spiffiest user page in the world, and it wouldn't help improve my image if I had widespread and uniformly negative contributions elsewhere. (If you still don't get the point, go and look at the pretty user pages of some of the users that are currently banned. I'm not going to be specific, as per the provoking banned users rule, but there are several banned users whose user pages meet the criteria for adminstratorship that some have espoused over the past week.)
You may of course come to a consensus that having a user page is a requirement for administrators. In which case, I suggest that you list that requirement on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Rules and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards (which currently sport no indication whatever of such a rule or such a standard) so that we don't waste effort in the future.
Such a requirement would, of course, not be on technical grounds. There is a technical requirement that administrators have working electronic mailboxes, pointed out to me by Wiktionary:User:SemperBlotto, that I didn't fulfil. Absence of mailbox causes procedural problems, since it prevents blocked users from contacting the blocking administrator. As such, I've un-checked the "Disable e-mail from other users" checkbox in my preferences to fulfil that requirement. (As at Wiktionary, I ask you to please use User talk:Uncle G rather than electronic mail for contacting me.) Absence of a user page causes no such procedural problems.
Finally: For those who are referring to "professionalism", I simply point out that I do this as a hobby. I'm not a professional encyclopaedist. (I suspect that if I were, I'd probably be contractually prohibited from being here in the first place.)
Uncle G (talk · contribs) 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
A brilliant and thoughtful answer. Reason in itself to confer a distinction that is "no big deal". This attitude should be rewarded, not punished. How the place has gone wrong that it is not! Grace Note 02:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. Well, to be honest, I haven't anticipated anything, not having planned for this. As I said to Radiant! when xe brought this up, the only time in the past that I can think of where administrator tools would have been a benefit was when the backlog built up at WP:CP. I'd have been able to muck in and help. I suspect that I would probably continue largely as I have been, and simply chip in as and when similar such situations arise. Uncle G (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I don't keep lists of things that I've contributed to because I believe that the edit histories are adequate, and indeed better, for that. And I'm not sure that I can give you a list of things that I've been "pleased" about. However, if what you actually want is a set of examples of where I've edited articles, then I can supply a few picked pretty much arbitrarily, in no particular order and with no particular implications. I've not included any articles that I've touched as part of New Page Patrol. You're better off looking at Special:Contributions/Uncle G to get a feel for that.
These articles, although outside of Wikipedia, might also be informative as corroboration:
That's enough time spent on that. ☺ Uncle G (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
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. Oh gosh, yes. I doubt that anyone reaching this number of contributions will not have. It's not exactly dealing with it, per se, but having so much to do does mean that I cannot sit all day inching towards the 3 Revert Rule on a single article. ☺ I still haven't yet found the time to get back to Talk:Bishop of Durham or Talk:Walton Summit motorway, for example. Uncle G (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Uncle_G&oldid=1142572483"