Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScudLee

ScudLee
(14/10/2) ending 00:00 03:02, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

ScudLee was nominated awhile back, but declined the nomination. Some concerns were voiced about lack of experience. He's been an editor since January now, and is now quite experienced. He has always been a reasonable participant, and I would trust his maturity to follow the rules of adminship. Some concerns were voiced last time that his lack of a userpage was unusual and perhap undesirably. I tend to agree that it is unusual, and also undesirable (if only because it draws my attention on recent changes when I'm looking for possible vandalism). I don't think it's a big deal though, and don't think it should impact his adminship. (note: he has a userpage at the moment, but it is currently filled with a message that was meant for talk) Tuf-Kat 03:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure. - 11:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lee  (talk)

Support
 * 1) Tuf-Kat 03:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Acegikmo1 04:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC). ScudLee is a meticulous and driven contributor whose work has been vital in the success of WikiProject Albums.
 * 3) Ok. But you really should consider making a userpage, even if it's just a redirect to your talk page or something similar. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:57, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * 4) ugen64 00:25, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) - Three oppositions because the user doesn't have a user page... and I thought I'd seen everything...
 * 5) Great work! I will support you after you create a user page. --Lst27 21:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) I support.
 * 6) Ejrrjs 23:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Well I think you should create a user page, but I'm not going to oppose you because of it. That's kind of silly. Andre ( talk )A| 04:31, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) I am considering blanking my user page in protest over the opposing votes.... func(talk) 18:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Goobergunch 20:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) CryptoDerk 02:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Don't consider not having a user page to be a reason against adminship... Cyp  2004年10月25日 (月) 11:44 (UTC)
 * 12) I don't see such a mild eccentricity as reason to oppose, since it does not in any way suggest that ScudLee would abuse his capabilities. I've never had any problem with the edits of his that I've seen. Isomorphic 22:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. What Cyp said above. - RedWordSmith 02:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) While I would prefer Lee to have a userpage just cos the red link looks weird, I respect his reasoning below. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 19:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Won't support users without a user page. I don't like being forced to look twice if it is a newbie or not. Anárion 11:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *Yeah, that irked me too. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 12:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Will support if user creates a user page (even if it's just a redirect to his talk page or something similar). BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 21:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I find this nomination, at a time when there was no user page, as either significant of a lack of respect for fellow wikipedians or of a lack of understanding for the workings and social codes of wikipedia that after all is one of the most basic requirements for an administrator. A later construction of a user page won't change this perception. There might be other reasons to oppose this candidacy too, but I see no reason to investigate further. /Tuomas 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Opposing, for the same reason as the above three. Ambi 14:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Adminship is as much a social issue as anything else, imho. User pages are useful for finding out about someone's habits and beliefs on Wikipedia, and for someone with admin responsibilities, there should at least be a few words on it.  &mdash; siro  χ  o  02:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose --fvw 12:02, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
 * 8) Same reasoning as Anárion, above.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   07:51, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) I know nothing about him, and after looking at the deletion history of his userpage I see I never will. Oppose. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Wikipedia works because its contributors mostly respect its social norms and "soft" limits.  While there is a place and time to challenge the status quo, this isn't it, and I am singularly unimpressed that in the comments below, ScudLee considers the relatively low-content user pages of certain other pseudonymous low-profile contributors to be disingenuous.  uc 13:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Same as three. I've simply never head of him. -- user:zanimum

Neutral
 * Neutral, pending a more thorough examination of edits. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 03:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1) Didn't he have the vote go on for a while last time, only to have it turn out he had no intention of accepting the nomination? Everyking 10:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * See here for the old nomination. Tuf-Kat 19:34, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Obsession w/ pop culture trivia shows a lack of judgement. Otoh I think ScudLee rocks for not having a user page. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7086 edits since 19 January 2004, for those interested. In the interests of full disclosure I am obliged to mention that the overwhelming majority of his edits are minor ones.  <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 03:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to make sure that the matter is perfectly clear: Are all 6 oppose votes over nothing more than the user page issue? No one has had any problems with this user, it's just the user page, is that right? Very strange criteria we have.... <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">func(talk) 20:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This whole "no user page" thing

I wasn't going to bother explaining my lack of user page unless directly asked why, but I'm slightly disturbed by the assumption of bad faith being made by some people. I'm not doing it to irritate people. I'm not trying to pretend to be a newbie. I'm not doing it because I'm unaware of the social norms on Wikipedia, I'm well aware of these. I'm just a private person who doesn't particularly want to reveal any details about himself. So why not just have something else on my user page, like admins Tuf-Kat, Docu or Kate (all three of whom I respect greatly)? Because, and I mean this as no offence to those users, to my mind it's a form of lying, deception. Your user page should contain information about you! A person who sees a live link to someone else's user page should reasonably expect to find out something about the person who made that edit, who made that comment. I don't want someone winding up on my page and finding nonsense, or finding themselves redirected to my talk page and thinking "Hey, what gives?". I would rather have them know from the outset that there is nothing there. I don't like lying, I don't like feeling like I'm lying. So, no user page. If people can't trust me because of that, fair enough.

Oh, and even if I were to create a user page, I would still have to wait until after the nomination period, because otherwise it would give the impression that I'm doing it solely to secure votes. I'm not going to change my behavior or beliefs just to become an admin. - 16:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lee  (talk)
 * I understand you sentiments. And I see how some could construe this a petty objection.  But because you don't have a user page, your username always shows up as a red-link.  Besides being annoying, it's distracting.  If you're a very private person, what's wrong with just creating a user page that reads, "I am a very private person, so you won't find information about me here", or something of the like?  blankfaze . (что??) 18:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The point is a person who looks at a live link to my user page would reasonably expect to find something more than "I am a very private person, so you won't find information about me here", by not providing it I am in effect deceiving that person. I just can't do it and I know it probably sounds silly, but I really can't.  The only honest option is to have it as a red link. - 18:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lee   (talk)
 * While I understand your sentiments, I stand behind my decision to oppose your nomination based on the lack of a user page. The greater majority of userpages in the Wikipedia I have seen has little or no real info on the editor (mine lacks much info), but unwillingness to write a short text on oneself is no reason not have a userpage. I will change my vote to support if any userpage is made and kept, even if it is just a period or a redirect. The red link just irks me too much. Anárion 02:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nobody will think you're dishonest, ScudLee, if you just redirect your user page to your talk page, as many users do. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk )A| 04:31, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm sure I wouldn't see it as pandering for votes.  Really though, opposition based on the lack of a userpage seems silly to me.  It's an incredibly minor annoyance on Recentchanges, and doesn't otherwise matter.  Scudlee's userpage is no less informative than mine, among others.  Despite concerns having been raised, Scudlee has been a fully functioning member of the Wikipedia community for months even without a userpage, and has been an integral part of the evolution of WikiProject:Albums, proving that the lack of a userpage does not significantly impede the pedia's progress, nor his ability to participate in it. Also, it's significantly less intrusive and annoying than people with weird characters or images for signatures. Tuf-Kat 21:07, Oct 24, 2004 (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. Probably just the Recent Changes stuff, reverting vandalism, speedy deletes, warning/blocking persistant vandals. I usually keep a weather eye on recentchanges and my watchlist, even if I'm not actively editing. I could probably be persuaded to help with clearing backlogs on deletion pages, particularly WP:VFD/Old, but I wouldn't want to make promises to that regard.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Ah, err, yes, as even a cursory glance at my contributions would show, I'm not a big content provider. I did for some strange reason write Cognoscenti Vs. Intelligentsia... I forget why.  I also wrote a fair chunk of The Delgados, which I should get around to finishing someday.  Outside the article namespace, I guess the most rewarding is answering questions on the help desk, including one time I helped an anonymous user track down his forgotten username, for which I was particularly smug about.  And of course, most of my time and effort has been at WikiProject Albums.
 * 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. We're a pretty easygoing bunch on WikiProject Albums, so I can't think of any conflict I've gotten into relating to my contributions there.  I did have a rather silly and regrettable run-in with Mr-Natural-Health at Wikipedia talk:Article series boxes policy (proposed) (this was pre-1.3), which was embarrassing if only for it's triviality.  As for how I would deal with more serious conflicts, I'm not sure.  One thing I dislike is the impatience edit-warriors show, if someone reverted an edit I made, even if I felt strongly enough about it, I'd still be more inclined to go to the talk page first and get agreement before reverting back.  It strikes me as dumb to think that Wikipedia will be seriously harmed if the "wrong version" of a page stays up for longer than a minute.