Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UninvitedCompany

UninvitedCompany
~500 edits, been here for over six months, under this account. Thoughtful and considerate contributor, not prone to rash judgements. Ex-arbitrator. Worthy admin. Martin 18:56, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Martin. I would be happy to accept.  UninvitedCompany 03:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Martin
 * 2) SweetLittleFluffyThing
 * 3) Support, slightly tentatively, but I think he can be trusted with admin powers. Angela
 * 4) I find it amazing that he isn't already one, and it would be one of the many examples of a bad decision by majority rule if he isn't promptly voted in. Sam Spade 07:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 12:22, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC). Will make an excellent admin, And in any case, people are free to exercise their "right to leave," take a break, and to come back, or to change user names.
 * 6) sannse (talk) 22:08, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) --Daeron 06:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) User:Kat was an excellent contributor who discussed pages before editing other people careful work. UninvitedCompany also seems to be honest and provide constructive feedback.
 * 8) Kingturtle 13:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Jwrosenzweig 15:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) Agreed with Daeron, especially as UC has never made any efforts to hide or confuse previous identities.  And yes, Louis Kyu Won Ryu was pretty transparent. :-)
 * 10) Cautiously support. L UDRAMAN  | T 16:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support.  His comments below seem reasonable, and what I've seen from him was good.  And I trust the judgement of those who voted in support before me. Isomorphic 18:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) UninvitedCompany's comments are good enough for me. I'll add that I think admin status should depend on length of stay and quality of contributions, but not on frequency of visits. Cribcage 05:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Gentgeen 00:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) ugen64 01:22, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Although, I'm against the use of multiple accounts, I still feel that UC would make a good admin. Therefore, I support. Maximus Rex 06:59, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Low activity levels are not a reason to withold administrator status. - Fennec 14:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. I don't see any problem with the change of user name, and I don't see any problem with the activity level. Comments below and elsewhere seem to indicate UninvitedCompany is a thoughtful, reasonable person. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Uncle Ed 18:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 1) Not active enough. 500 edits in over six months? That's less than 3 per day. And what does Martin mean with "under this account" - does he have another? --Wik 19:20, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found out that this is a reincarnation of User:Kat, who left in September 2003 only to come right back under this different name. Such behaviour should not be rewarded. --Wik 00:20, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * People aren't allowed to change usernames? &rarr;Raul654 00:24, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * He didn't just change username. He pretended to leave, and then returned pretending to be a new user. --Wik 00:32, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, not nearly active enough. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) I opposed Aplank on the grounds that his maintaining multiple accounts that didn't clearly say they all related to the same person was dishonest. It would be hypocritical of me to fail to oppose this user, who also has multiple undeclared personae. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 01:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Concerned about activity levels. jengod 19:28, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Three voters oppose based on activity levels. The admin page explains that admin status imbues no authority and "should be no big deal...just indicate[s] Wikipedia users who have had performance- and security-based restrictions on a couple of features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks." If an experienced user has contributed worthwhile edits, can someone explain why activity levels should factor in conferring admin status? Cribcage 01:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
 * 1) T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 03:38, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Other:
 * I'd like to hear what UninvitedCompany has to say about the nomination. Maximus Rex 04:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear what UninvitedCompany has to say about Wik's revelation of previous username. - Gaz 07:58, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It has been something of an open secret for some time that I edited, previously, as User:Kat. Subsequently, I left the project (of my own volition), and returned about a month later with a different attitude.  As such, I did not see any reason to continue as User:Kat.  For what it's worth, my return predated the creation of the Sock puppet policy.  In any case, I'm here to help write an encyclopedia.  My prior user name has become known as a direct result of my being forthright about it in my dealings with Jimbo and the arbitration committee, not as a result of any technical investigation.  And yes, before someone asks, I did make a number of edits as User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu -- an alter ego really -- mainly making policy suggestions.  I quit four months ago, when the arbitration committee started its work in earnest and I felt a certain compulsion to become a model Wikipedian; in any case, I doubt if anyone was fooled.  UninvitedCompany 03:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to hear the basis for Angela's hesitation. I'd tend to support, pending acceptance of nomination, but Angela's remark gives me pause. What's the deal? Cribcage 22:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Objection seems to stem from some discussion dealing with arbitration - see talk page for Uninvited Company. Snowspinner
 * I wasn't sure if I was supposed to say, but now that Wik has done so anyway, my hesitation was based on the multiple names issue. It had nothing to do with arbitration. Angela. 23:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, just goes to show you sometimes careful research doesn't pay off. =) Snowspinner 23:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Uninvitedcompany, I see that you have gone through some changes in your attitude toward Wikipedia and the power structure herein. What is your current position on your 2 Sep 2003 comment about the alleged "hegemony of Wales and the Cabal, and their systematic efforts to paper over matters with a false consensus"? Kingturtle 06:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am pleased that Jimbo has started to DevolvePower. The creation of the Wikimedia foundation and the creation of the arbitration committee are important steps in this direction.  While each of these groups will take time to mature and become effective in the community, their presence and Jimbo's support for them speaks volumes.  I am also pleased that policy discussions are taking place here rather than on the mailing list.  Further, I am pleased to see that steps are being taken to separate technical authority from decisionmaking authority through the creation of the "steward" and "bureaucrat" roles.  While there are some countertrends that are unsettling, overall the project governance is much improved, IMO, since September.  UninvitedCompany 12:27, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Is this the same user as Aplank/Alexandros? If so, then I would have to oppose.  Can someone figure this out for me?
 * No, they are not the same person. Maximus Rex 23:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)