Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G 2

Uncle G
final (62/9/3) ending 21:44 12 July 2005 (UTC)

See the previous nomination here.

Uncle G is one of the most all-around knowledgeable, helpful, and virtuous Wikipedians around. He can be seen helping out WP at VfD and with transwiki-stuff. In fact, he's an admin at Wikinews and Wiktionary already. We have no need to fear the admin tools being in his hands! And in case you're wondering about his user page (yes, Uncle G is blue!), recently he came up with a suitable alternative, that "he is his contribution history." (and if you take a look at the previous nom page, that user page issue was really the only reason he didn't pass). He's been around for-ever and he has a million edits (I don't really see the point in looking those up for this one, :). Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 21:44 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

This is the second time that this has happened whilst my back has been turned. ☺ For those of you who are curious, I've been slightly busy at Wikinews. There was a small matter of a bombing in London to be reported (and just prior to that some matters entirely outside of the WikiMedia projects). Wikinews now has 16 17 separate news articles on the London bombing, all of which have needed a close eye kept upon them. If you check my Wikinews contributions history you see that I've made just over 250 edits in 2 days, tidying up, linking, fixing double redirects, and removing vandalism. (You can even see an instance of me with my administrator hat on. At one point I had to exercise my Wikinews administrator powers to protect the main article for 4 minutes in order to undo a section duplication.)  As you can see, all that I've had time for at Wikipedia is to revise one opinion and nominate teabag sucking for deletion.

I didn't seek this nomination, note. I had been trialling a multiple-project version of Radiant!'s Solution at Wikinews, prompted by the Ass Pus vandal giving me a user page ("Oh dear. Uncle G is here."). When, more recently, Lucky 6.9 gave me a user page here, I simply decided to implement Radiant!'s Solution here too, as well as at Wiktionary. It wasn't intended to be a cue for a second nomination for administratorship. I had intended to get around to Dmcdevit's enquiry about nomination, but I had given it a lower priority than the CSD proposals and the situation with the broken transwiki 'bots. Then someone set off some bombs. However, a nomination has been made in the interim. I therefore accept it.

The timing has been unfortunate here. Even now, I have to get some sleep, and deal with some matters outside of the WikiMedia projects, before I can compose sensible answers to the questions below. Pending those answers, you can always read my answers to the same questions from the last time. (Some of them still holds. I still haven't got back to Talk:Walton Summit motorway. ☺)  9 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Only half-heartedly support (Just kidding. What do you think I vote?) --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 21:46 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I really though he was one! humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 5 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, of course. (assuming acceptance) - I'd thought he got through last time. Hmm. Shimgray 5 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. The only reason I opposed him last time was the user page. I guess what he has now will work, and I've seen him around more. Howabout1 Talk to me! July 5, 2005 22:02 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, of course. He should had been made an admin way long ago. --cesarb 5 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. The user page question seems academic, really. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 22:41 (UTC)
 * 7) The userpage flap was silly then and it's silly now. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 5 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)
 * 8) Previous nom says it all. —Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. As I said last time, I have seen Uncle G's work and it seems like he is a hard worker and janitor. He has also been a diligent admin on Wiktionary and Wikinews and I think being an admin here too would be a huge benefit for all of us. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - red link issue is gone, therefore absolutely no reason to object. Ambi 6 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
 * 11) Andre ( talk ) July 6, 2005 00:53 (UTC)
 * 12) Support red link issue is gone, and it wasn't a reason to object last time anyway. Grutness...  wha?  6 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
 * 13) Support: A good user, active on vfd, and has a lot of good contibutions. Falphin 6 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, just as before.   [ +t, +c, +m ] July 6, 2005 01:41 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - I count his experience on sister projects as a major plus for Wikipedia! -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 02:49 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. One of the top Wikipedians. &mdash; Phil Welch 6 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)
 * 17) I like the way this man thinks. I happily support now that the pesky red link of yore has been fixed. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 6 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 06:11 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong support, excellent contributor, both level-headed and patient. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 6, 2005 09:09 (UTC)
 * 20) Support -- the wub  "?/!"  6 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Wile E. Heresiarch 6 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. PedanticallySpeaking July 6, 2005 17:30 (UTC)
 * 23) Support although ~7500 edits (~4000 in the articlespace) just barely squeaks by for me. Just kidding. Uncle G has a huge amount of knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and contributes to many areas. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. If he doesn't accept, force him into servitude. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 6 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Excellent editor, intelligent and patient.  Will undoubtedly put admin abilities to good use. Jayjg (talk)  6 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. A great contributor that should have passed the previous nomination --Neigel von Teighen 6 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Should have passed the first time. – ABCD 7 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Postdlf 7 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
 * 29) I am satisfied that Uncle G is probably not an axe-murderer. Isomorphic 7 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
 * 30) Support as I did last time. --nixie 7 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
 * 31) Support.  Grue  7 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
 * 32) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) July 7, 2005 09:01 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - active in areas that benefit from adminship. Bluemoose 7 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
 * 34) Emphatic Support, assuming he accepts the nomination. Level-headed with a great knowledge of Wikipedia procedure, that of sister projects, and of stuff in general. A и D я 01D TALK EMAIL July 7, 2005 12:47 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Stewart Adcock 8 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
 * 36) Strong Support a strong candidate with plenty of solid contributions, especially to VfD. Uncle G has contributed some of the all-time great VfD votes, such as, which was so good it was later preserved on BJAODN.  I'm a bit concerned that Uncle G hasn't accepted his nomination yet, but I see no reason not to vote (an non-acceptance will obviously void all votes anyway). Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  July 8, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
 * 37) Support; excellent contributor and likely to be an equally excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 9 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Thorough, knowledgeable source whom I also thought was already an admin! Xoloz 9 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
 * 39) Benefit of the doubt. JuntungWu 9 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)
 * 40) Support, as before.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 9 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)
 * 41) Support. - Mailer Diablo 9 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. Excellent wikipedian. We need more like him. -R. fiend 9 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
 * 43) Duh. -- Rick Block (talk) July 9, 2005 17:00 (UTC)
 * 44) Support. Pavel Vozenilek 9 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
 * 45) Support     20:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Support of course. (I'd merely be waiting for Uncle to say yes.) -- Hoary 21:41, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Support - Strong contributions to the community. --FCYTravis 09:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Support - My objections have been assuaged. Tomer TALK  16:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Support - Good contributor, even if he dislikes Bible verses. - SimonP 20:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Support, but I'd really prefer it if he'd find the few minutes to answer the questions. I'd also express some concern over some recent VfD examples (e.g. citing www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com as an encyclopedic source), but the overwhelming majority of what Uncle G does is impressively thorough, good work. And I'm sure his administries on other Wikis will be of use here, too. -Splash 21:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. My only concern prior was having an admin with no user page, but I am impressed that Uncle G was willing to listen to a large segment of the community who was bothered by this and create one, despite his personal feelings about it, demonstrating his collaborative good will. -- M P er el ( talk 22:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) After accepting the nomination, I support wholeheartedly Lectonar 06:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Support, moved my vote from Neutral following Uncle G's acceptance of nom. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Support. Thue | talk 15:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) If/When Since Uncle G has now accept s ed I will be am more than happy to vote support adminship for a valuable Wikipedian that puts principals before power (now, if only this was a request for presidency of a large nation in the western hemisphere...). Thryduulf 8 July 2005 11:04 (UTC) 16:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Support- changed vote from neutral. Seems like he would make a valuable admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Support now that this excellent contributor has a user page. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 21:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Support. He's done great work on Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal.  Acegikmo1 22:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) Support. --JamesTeterenko 02:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) Moved from neutral. I am satisfied with his answers below.   Ingoolemo   talk 03:09, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
 * 61) Support, moved from neutral, since he does he indeed accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 10:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) El_C 11:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Far too concerned with deletion, rather than contribution.  His user page is as useless as the previous red link, so I don't see any improvement in that regard, considering the feedback he got before. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but how is your userpage (or mine for that matter) any less "useless" than a list of Uncle G's contributions on the wikis he contributes to? Phil s 6 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Nomination is three months premature. <font color=#ba0000>Denelson83  6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
 * Um, what happens in three months? --Dmcdevit July 7, 2005 05:15 (UTC)
 * This user follows a personal practice where he opposes adminship for anyone who's been here for less than nine months.   [ +t, +c, +m ] July 7, 2005 09:57 (UTC)
 * Is that the actual gestation period for an admin? -R. fiend 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
 * I get it. It's because what happens in three months is that Uncle G will wake up and be magically admin-worthy because he'll have changed so much in that time. (Maybe I should withdraw my nomination now that I've seen the light...) --Dmcdevit July 7, 2005 21:13 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly Everyking 6 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: too short-tempered in many dealings with many editors. CDThieme 6 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.  His not accepting or rejecting the nomination, nor answering the questions, after three days just pushes me (somewhat reluctantly) over from neutral to weak oppose.  It's no good saying that he's busy writing an encyclopædia &mdash; if he wants to stay busy doing that, he doesn't need to be an admin. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 8 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)
 * Isn't it still possible that he just missed the talk-page notice somehow? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd July 8, 2005 22:13 (UTC)
 * 1) My only interaction was extremely negative, so I must oppose, not having seen anything to change my mind. smoddy 9 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
 * 2) Too many negative interactions with too many good contributors. Jonathunder 15:15, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose overly prone to using VFD; concerning Bible verses-group VFD, I would say abuses it. freestylefrappe 21:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * He didn't nominate those for VfD, he came up with a popular compromise proposal to merge them. -R. fiend 23:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As someone on the opposite side of this issue from Uncle G I feel you are quite mistaken. Uncle G has been thoroughly reasonable and level headed. He has not participated at all in the latest round at Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses. - SimonP 18:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. 00:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. A bully. Grace Note 01:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence, to enable others to assess whether their own votes require adjusting, or are suitable.     21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not on trial here and I do not have to present evidence for my impression of this user. I note that you do not harass supporters. -- Grace Note
 * The opposition last time focused a lot on the fact that Uncle G's userpage did not exist. All he would have needed to do to deflate this argument was a simple redirect to his talkpage, but he apparently refused, not creating a userpage until more than a month after the end of his candidacy.  I know that Uncle G is a good user, but that kind of stubborness worries me, especially given how trivial the creation of a redirect would be.   Ingoolemo   talk 2005 July 5 22:37 (UTC)  Will likely support pending acceptance of nomination and answering of questions below.   Ingoolemo   talk 2005 July 6 15:15 (UTC) Moved to support
 * Would you rather have someone who is willing to forgo his own principles, or one that is not stubborn? If adminship is really "not a big deal," why is it worth changing your ways over? And besides, Uncle G should not be punished for the fact that there were so many stubborn oppose voters. Look at the votes, he was in the clear majority, so was Uncle G the stubborn one (for not giving in to a minority), or were the opposers? --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 22:54 (UTC)
 * Will support when Uncle G accepts the nomination and answers the questions (assuming there is nothing aggregious in his answers, which I am certain there will not be). -R. fiend 6 July 2005 02:18 (UTC) Switching to support now that he has accepted and pointed us to his last answers as still valid. -R. fiend 9 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
 * I'll switch to support the moment he accepts the nom and answers the standard questions. I think he's an excellent candidate. He has accepted the nomination so I now support.  Antandrus  (talk) 6 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)


 * 1) In light of the opposition, I really want to support, but there are some important unanswered questions...Uncle_G? are you interested in the nomination?  Do you plan to get by on a voice vote without putting forth a platform?  (I will grant that this is possible...I got nearly 40% of the vote for the Town Board once, and the only thing I ever did was collect 50 signatures so that my name would appear on the ballot...)...I think you could add a lot of legitimacy to your adminship, should it be granted, by giving a few straightforward answers to some simple (and old) questions.  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  July 6, 2005 08:06 (UTC)
 * changed to support. Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK 05:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * NO! Radiant can't vote support!  I call a revote!  :-p  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  July 6, 2005 09:59 (UTC)
 * I support your vote for a revote. Of course, that means you will have to revote on that as well <g> Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 6, 2005 13:25 (UTC)
 * Yippie! Let's vote on it!!! :-D  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  July 6, 2005 15:40 (UTC)


 * 1) I supported Uncle G last time, but there is one situation since then where I feel his conduct was more stubborn than I would like to see from an administrator. The situation was the deletion/undeletion saga of Mahajana High School. It was originally VFDed under the name Maha Jana High School, where there was a no consensus result, however Uncle G left a late vote that this school didn't exist and the closing admin, paying attention to this, decided to replace the article with a redirect which was deleted a few weeks later. During the undeletion debate and subsequent VFD debate, Uncle G got into some lively exchanges with Tony Sidaway where Uncle G continued to insist that the school didn't exist, in spite of evidence to the contrary (whether the school was named "Mahajana" or "Maha Jana" should have been beside the point.) The relevant debates are Votes for deletion/Maha Jana High School, the undeletion debate, and the second VFD debate. In light of this, I cannot support for now, but otherwise Uncle G's contributions are good and I am therefore not opposing either. Sjakkalle (Check!)  6 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)
 * 2) * Other than the disagreement over his user page during his last nomination, my interactions with Uncle G have been civil and he is definitely a dedicated contributor to the wikipedia. If he accepts his nomination, I will probably support. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 6, 2005 18:05 (UTC)
 * 3) * If he accepts, I will move to support this dedicated and knowledgeable editor. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 7 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I still wait for him to accept the nomination changed to supportLectonar 8 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutralitytalk July 8, 2005 19:45 (UTC)
 * 2) * Vote pending acceptance and answering of questions. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 8 July 2005 21:25 (UTC) Vote changed to support. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  21:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) When I've seen Uncle G around I've tended to be impressed, and I was planning to vote support, but his attitude doesn't inspire me with confidence. He was stubborn about creating a user page last time, and this time he appears to have ignored his RfA and not bothered to turn up and accept the nomination, despite having been notified of it and having edited extensively since. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)

Comments
 * Uncle G has 7472 edits: Articles: 4078, Talk: 238, User: 35, User talk: 231, Wikipedia: 2680, Wikipedia talk: 111, Image: 5, Image talk: 1, Template: 46, Template talk: 29, Help: 1, Category: 12, Category talk: 5. – ABCD 7 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else find it very amusing that this will be, in practice, the first adminship ever awarded in absentia? humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)
 * Surely if he doesn't indicate his acceptance adminship can't be awarded? &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
 * Tony Benn had to go to court to stop himself becoming a member of the House of Lords, so I think we can certainly make him an admin in absentia.     20:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually Tony Benn lost his court battle; he had to get the law changed to get rid of his peerage. Technically, I would think he was never a member of the House of Lords as he never applied for a writ of summons. David | Talk 22:45, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, so has he accepted the nomination? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 9 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)
 * Isn't the last sentence of his second paragraph I therefore accept it? -- Rick Block (talk) July 9, 2005 17:58 (UTC)
 * Quite right; I missed it. Almost wholly my fault, though I can't help feeling that buried in the middle of a long spiel wasn't the best place for it. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 9 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Matters outside of the WikiMedia projects permitting, I hope to be able to come back to these later today. 9 July 2005 17:54 (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. I hadn't planned for this this time any more than I planned for it the last time, and so haven't anticipated anything. However, I can now tell you how I do use administrator tools.  I use administrator tools as and when situations arise, and chip in where needed.  If I happen to be the first on the scene after one of the long-term recurrent vandals visits, I revert and block, for example.  When on New Page Patrol I delete user test pages and the like.  As I just did at Wikinews, I protect pages for short periods to undo section duplications.  I also protect pages that are targets for persistent vandalism.   05:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. As I said last time, I'm not sure that I can give you a list of things that I've been "pleased" about. Last time around I provided a set of examples of articles that I've edited, picked pretty much arbitrarily, in no particular order and with no particular implications, for those who wanted such examples.  I won't repeat that list, but will add a handful of more recent examples of articles that I've heavily edited to it:
 * Senior Cambridge (as with the examples from last time, my comment at Votes for deletion/Senior Cambridge upon my own rewrite should explain why "pleased" is not the best word)
 * Primacy of Simon Peter
 * tea-sucking
 * Edwin Bryant
 * Envision (see Votes for deletion/Envision for clarification)
 * Government Warehouse
 * Harvard-Yale-Princeton
 * Ladonia (micronation)
 * 05:12, 11 July 2005 (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 how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. My answer from the last time still stands.  05:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)