Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ugen64 2

ugen64
final (40/2/2) ending 02:25 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I should probably have predicted this would happen... I was going through a rather large period of stress when I asked Anthere to be desysopped. It's just not the same, though - it's as if I've lost my right arm. I mean, I don't understand how you RC patrollers can survive without the rollback or delete buttons... so I shall re-nominate myself. Cheers. – ugen64 02:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Kate's tools, I have 8,603 edits. Of these, I have 5,149 article edits; 640 talk page edits; 438 user page edits; 796 user talk page edits; 1,157 Wikipedia namespace edits; 129 Wikipedia talk page edits; 147 image page edits; 5 image talk page edits; 5 mediawiki namespace edits (two of which were, uh, a mistake on my part); 1 mediawiki talk namespace edit; 62 template edits; 19 template talk edits; no help or help talk edits; 40 category edits; and 16 category talk edits. I also have 351 entries in Special:Log. :) Phew. There's a reason, Mr. Cryptoderk, that I scored such a high score in narcissism... :) – ugen64 02:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) You robbed me of the honor of nominating you and thus completing the circle. Oh well. CryptoDerk 02:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Of course. &mdash; Dan | Talk 02:34, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Good job, kid. Mike H 02:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 02:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Jondel 02:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Would be glad to have you back. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 03:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - How can one so young have such maturity when many older than him do not? One of the mysteries of Wikipedia. - Mark 03:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * * blush* Well, thanks... :P – ugen64 03:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support-gadfium 05:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, looks good to me. --W(t) 05:32, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * 3) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 05:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Sjakkalle 06:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutralitytalk 06:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Of course. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 06:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support-JCarriker 11:37, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Warofdreams 14:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Was a fine admin in the past, nothing has changed. Rje 16:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Meelar (talk) 16:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - thoughtful and reasonable whenever I've encountered him. FreplySpang (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support 100% Great person to work with Tony the Marine
 * 14) David Gerard 23:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Was wondering when you'd finally give in! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 12:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. PedanticallySpeaking 19:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, of course, but as Raul says, it's standard to let people take up their status again if they requested it be taken away in the first place. James F. (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Emsworth 21:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) I'm kinda pissed off that he's not still beaurocrat... Sam Spade 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I thought I had already voted support for him. I guess not. Support! Linuxbeak | Desk 01:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) SUPPORT. Kingturtle 02:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) →Iñgōlemo←   talk  06:26, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Andre ( talk ) 18:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Cool. JuntungWu 13:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Great contributor, IMO --Neigel von Teighen 22:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. jni 10:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Squash 03:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Of course. Hedley 17:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Fire Star 18:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Stewart Adcock 19:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Of course.  SWAdair | Talk  02:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * I oppose this self-nomination at this time. I would rather no one commented on my vote except for the nominee himself, if he chooses to do so, that is. El_C 08:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC) &mdash; I no longer oppose this nomination, though FM's concerns trouble me. El_C 11:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have arguments against Ugen64 being an admin, please share them with us so we can consider them and vote accordingly. --W(t) 10:15, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * Déjà Vu! El_C 10:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That was a pretty elaborate setup, but I suppose it payed off nicely. Still, why are you opposing? Because he opposed you or because he didn't respond to the question why? It's very likely he never saw it, these things are easy to miss. And I don't see anyone asking for clarification on his talk page. It seems a little over the top to object to adminship over just that anyway. --W(t) 11:07, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * While I confess to being relatively uninterested with your suppositions, User:Weyes, who says it's just that? At the event, it is far from just that, and I am entitled to reserve my answer as stated in my vote comment. And while you seem hasty in giving me so much credit for being discreditable, I really –did– hope people would respect my request and not comment on my vote (unless their name is ugen64, and they care). El_C 11:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Mostly we're curious about why you're opposing the adminship because it might help the rest of us make up our minds. If you have some specific concerns about the candidate, the rest of the community would like to know.  Does Ugen64 not leave enough edit summaries?  Is it a personal thing?  Are you tilting at windmills over a specific personal criterion for adminship?  Did Ugen64 abuse his admin powers before?  You never know; some people might agree with your reasoning.  By opposing his adminship, you're declaring that you don't trust him with the keys to the broom closet&mdash;presumably there is some reason why. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he has his reasons. I would like to hear them, at least, however... and yes, I know I'm being a bit hypocritical, but if he has his own private reasons, that's perfectly fine. – ugen64 18:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I was wandering, before I tell you what's on my mind, if you could please answer two questions for me: 1. why did you switch your vote on my RFA to oppose without explanation? 2. why did you fail to provide any reasons even after Trilobite asked you to do so? Thanks. Note that the main reasons for my opposition are entirely unrelated to my RFA. I do view my questions, however, to be in the interest of goodfaith. Also, note that this is the first time I ever oppposed an RFA (& I never voted neutral). El_C 22:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I don't remember these things for very long, but I believe it was after I took into account several of the opposition's arguments. And I do not normally support users with 25% of their edits in the article space... – ugen64 23:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am dissatisfied with your answers, I'm afraid, ugen64. I did not ask why you opposed my RFA, I asked why you failed to provide an explanation the first time, and then, once asked. I also find your 25% comment somewhat insulting, or at least, careless. Did you not read my acceptance comment where I stated  ? I have to get going now, but I hope to revisit this discussion soon. El_C 23:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You wrote "why did you switch your vote on my RFA to oppose without explanation?" I answered the first part ("why did you switch your vote on my RFA to oppose"), but as I am absent-minded, I forgot to answer the second part. Now, I can't remember why, but I have a habit of opposing (and supporting - surely we wouldn't be having this discussion if I had supported with no explanation) without explaining, and it is almost always because all of the reasons for my opposition are already mentioned by others. Perhaps I should have added "see above," although I cannot see why two words make so much difference in a vote that determines consensus. And as for my lack of response to Trilobite's request: it's probably because I either didn't see it or I meant to do it but forgot. And anyway, my rationale for opposition was almost identical to Kingturtle's. I don't know, maybe I was being careless. – ugen64 23:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ugen64. I am pressed for time at the moment, and as said, I'll revisit this discussion soon, but I still wanted to say that I appreciate your detailed response. 65.95.137.51 01:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC) Sorry. that was me – I seem to have difficulties login-in (argh, I hate IE!) from over here. 65.95.163.117 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC) &mdash; Heh, 3rd time the charm? El_C 01:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC) Back to FF, phew. I guess one of my concerns is that I feel you have a tendency to come across as intimidating, insensitive, and difficult to communicate with. And that you also have a tendency to become overly defensive which could not only be mistaken for arrogance, but also inadvertantly affect decision making. As well, I fear that you let personal loyalties, a product of affection, distort your judgment. *** I very much hope, though, that you will read my concerns in the constructive intent in which they were written. You can, of course, easily ignore them. After all, it dosen't really matter because, ultimately, you are going to win this nomination. El_C 12:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. Based on my past interactions with him, I have doubts that he can distinguish between actual bad behavior and the responses of those wronged, respond to it adequately, and remain neutral. FeloniousMonk 22:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling you would oppose this nomination, but I respect your opinion. – ugen64 16:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. See Requests for comment/RickK.  RickK 08:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand&mdash;you oppose ugen64's adminship because he endorsed an RfC against you? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 08:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. RickK 09:50, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks for explaining. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 17:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Often too lazy with the edit summaries to get my support, but looks good in other respects. Shanes 11:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems unlikely to cause harm; needs to write more edit summaries though. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * If memory serves, someone who voluntarily relinquishes their sysop powers does not need an RFA to get them back (that's what happened with PMA, at least). Unless someone gives me a reason not to, I'm going to promote Ugen tomorrow. →Raul654 02:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Raul, would you mind pointing out where it says this? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * We have no written policy at all regarding re-applicants (remember, not all of our policies are written down). I'm just pointing out precedent. →Raul654 02:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Raul, taking SlimVirgin's comments (including on my talk page) I feel we should let this renomination run its course, especially in view of TBSDY's withdrawal from what appeared a certain re-admining. If Ugen is restored to admin without completing the process, how can we not re-admin TBSDY? I think we may have to consider the "before" side before making a decision on the "after" side--i.e., when and how de-admining should be performed in the first place. I think maybe the Stewards should be asked to never remove an adminship without a process. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to cecropia on this one and let the nom run its course. →Raul654 18:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe User:Evercat and User:Ta bu shi da yu would both fall under that category, and their RFAs were carried out fully. – ugen64 03:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that really the policy? If that is true, that is extremely disconcerting. First, it would have saved everybody time and energy if Evercat and Ta bu shi da yu were promoted immediately. But more importantly, in the last 24 hours, Ta bu shi da yu made an error in judgement, which caused a number of users to switch their votes to oppose, and thus made Ta bu shi da yu withdraw from his RFA -- one that, as of this writing, still has an 82/9/7 vote count. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not read any of the comments, so I was not aware of Raul654's decision at the time of casting my oppose vote. El_C 08:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I agree with Raul's rememberance (and common sense, of course). James F. (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a question for Ugen. A few weeks after I'd started at WP, I deleted some material from an article too often, but didn't know at the time about partial reverts, and you warned me about 3RR on my talk page. I have no problem with that. But when I asked you what I had done, and whether you were an admin, you replied: "It doesn't matter whether or not I'm an admin. You can find out for yourself anyway." I feel this was a puzzling and confrontational response to a relatively new user, especially when you could just have said yes. Can you shed any light on it? I'm wondering whether you often refuse to answer editors' questions about your admin status. SlimVirgin (talk)  02:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do recall this specific incident: I interpreted your tone as being skeptical of my qualifications to warn you about the 3RR, and I wasn't trying to be hostile in my reply, but it came off that way, now that I look at it again. – ugen64 22:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And as for your other question: being an admin has little relevance other than removed restrictions; I find it highly unlikely that anyone would message me specifically to ask me to block, delete, protect, or unblock someone/something unless they already knew who I was. And being a sysop has become too much of a status symbol anyway. I prefer to use the janitorial abilities behind the scenes. – ugen64 22:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Ugen, I appreciate it. It wasn't scepticism you were hearing; I asked whether you were an admin in part because I didn't know whether I was being formally warned, and in part because I wanted to ask you something. I'd say that, even if we think an editor is being skeptical, or rude, we still have to tell them that we're admins if they ask; otherwise, it can come across as quite sinister to a new editor. However, I completely accept you had no hostile intention: the tone of posts is always easy to misunderstand. Thanks for explaining. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. What I helped with before: the vfd backlog, Special:Newpages patrol, RC patrol, occasional checking of the administrators' noticeboard, deletion of pages in the speedy deletion category, and the like.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Well, I liked Battle of Oudenarde when I wrote it - I will have to go back and make it a featured article someday. I'm also proud of my rather pedestrian contributions to WikiProject Peerage and WikiProject British Government - I created a bunch of relatively short articles in that area, such as Arthur Annesley, 1st Earl of Anglesey Thomas Wriothesley, 4th Earl of Southampton (the former was largely rewritten, it seems, by a better writer). I also worked on the whole Template:Succession box idea.
 * 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. Yes. I was involved in one edit war (not counting vandalism reversions) on a page related to Gdansk - that must have been a year and a half ago. Otherwise, I cannot remember any edit wars. I disliked Ta bu shi da yu, and I have opposed various Wikipedians' viewpoints, but I do not believe I have ever been involved in direct conflict with any (other than vandals, of course). I also, admittedly, used personal attacks in my block summary of a User:Neutrality page move vandal... *hangs head in shame*.