Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/UninvitedCompany

UninvitedCompany

 * (24/2/1) ends 16:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I actually believe that we have plenty of bureaucrats, and that the ones we have are doing an excellent job. Others disagree, and since the community would appear to wish to enlarge the pool, and since nominations of others (I can think of several good candidates) are discouraged, I offer my self-nomination. I've been with the project about a year and a half, and an admin since last April. I edit occasionally at meta, read the mailing list (though I rarely post), have submitted a PHP patch or two, and follow IRC at times. uc 16:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Good user. Support. --Lst27 20:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I note that unlike admin status, bureaucrat status has nothing to do with articles; it relates purely to community issues. Accordingly, I fail to see how the shortage of recent article-editing activity is relevant to the qualifications for the position. Also, I am disturbed to see people oppose various candidates on this page simply for having specialized in a particular area of Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is too large for everyone to be everywhere at once or be an expert in everything, and insisting on overly generalist editors will only push people's contributions in the direction of their own incompetence. There is nothing wrong with a degree of self-selected specialization. --Michael Snow 20:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Definitely. ugen64 20:50, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I would post a long argument, but Michael S. has preceded me with a better clarification of my position than I could have done.  If UC isn't a good judge of community consensus and an editor who has demonstrated commitment to fair play, I can't think of any who are. Jwrosenzweig 20:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ...and Michael S. and Jwrosenzweig have preceded me. UC is indeed a good judge of community consensus and an editor who has demonstrated commitment to fair play. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 21:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) SweetLittleFluffyThing 22:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC), no argument. This is just so.
 * 7) Excellent user. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:03, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 02:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) In addition to echoing the comments made by Michael Snow and Jwrosenzweig, I would like to add that I believe UC is particularly well-suited for this position.  His understanding of policy, commitment to fairness and the obvious degree of careful thought he gives issues elicits nothing but trust.  SWAdair | Talk  04:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Works well with other users; agrees to disagree with other users rather than try to force them to do something. -JCarriker 05:32, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 09:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12)  &#8475; yan! |  Talk  11:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13)  – Andre ( talk )  14:09, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) UC is the perfect bureaucrat. JFW |  T@lk  17:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) I am impressed with Uninvited Company, and I feel that we do need more bureucrats (many have not made on promotion, if I'm correct). So, definitely promote.   &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  04:15, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Being active on Wikipedia: namespace suggests ample capability for the role. Warofdreams
 * 17) Support. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 23:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) 172 09:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) David Cannon 23:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC). A worthy candidate.
 * 21) I am sufficiently impressed to support (previously neutral). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:25, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
 * 22) Ambi 04:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) +sj +  08:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) AndyL 19:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) I don't know if we have enough bureaucrats or not, but UC looks good for the job. (Actually, I think I would prefer Cecropia to always perform the bureaucratic duties, but I suppose that would be impractical). func(talk) 16:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Netoholic @ 17:55, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC) -- Well spoken and toughtful, but at 1723 edits, doesn't meet my minimum standards for even adminship.  Seems to be a "meta-editor" – almost exclusively works on Wikipedia: namespace lately. Before voting, I reviewed their history, and am confused by their first few non-article edits, which seem to indicate this was not their original (only) identity. I hope I am misinterpreting, and would welcome any correction on that, but still the contributions since then don't really show readiness to me.
 * 2) This is what I would call a non-editor. You have to go through pages and pages of his contributions to a find a few actual article edits between all the activity in the Wikipedia namespace. As I said in opposition to Snowspinner before, I prefer real editors to do the administrative work on the side, not professional administrators who may edit the occasional article on the side. Gzornenplatz 19:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral


 * 1) Acegikmo1 18:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC). On one hand, editing almost exclusively in the Wikipedia: namespace for the last six months means that UninvitedCompany is very familiar with Wikipedia policy.  On the other hand, lack of activity in the main article namespace means that the user is a bit out of touch with the majority of Wikipedia users.  I see this as a problem for a bureaucrat, but as my experience with UninvitedCompany has been nothing but positive, it's not enough to make me oppose.
 * Have only heard of you in the past two weeks or so, and then not in depth. Will be looking into your past edit history before making a true vote. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:33, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Comments
 * For Netoholic's information: UninvitedCompany has acknowledged previously using the accounts Kat and Louis Kyu Won Ryu. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with maintaining multiple accounts, it's my understanding that since returning with this account, he has decided to use only one identity exclusively. In any case, I have never observed any of these accounts used in a way that would be prohibited by our sockpuppet policy. Also, I would caution you against other misinterpretations - UninvitedCompany is an intelligent writer who has considerable familiarity with Wikipedia history and actively participated in some of those historical discussions. If you read this and other statements of his without awareness of their context, you may well find them cryptic and miss the allusions to events that were happening at the time. I would recommend that you ask him for an explanation first if you find things you don't understand - he is generally willing to respond to polite questions. --Michael Snow 20:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Michael, thank you for the information. I hope you know I didn't imply any "wrong-doing" with the multiple accounts and I'm glad you acknowledged in might seem strange to someone who didn't know.  After reviewing this UC's contributions, and those of the other accounts, I'm going to keep my vote as is.  I think this user has been tool "embroiled" in the non-article space, such that I think any decisions made in the course of the bureaucrat role might be reasonably challenged, and would impact their effectiveness. -- Netoholic @ 01:09, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)


 * Several users have asked questions or made comments about the extent of my article contributions as compared to the stuff I've contributed in the Wikipedia namespace. I thought I'd reply.  In general, I'm not a copy editor.  I'm not good at it and don't enjoy it.  I've gone to a library and actually done research for Cult and Surrealism, and made contributions to these articles based on that.  I operate a farm, and have contributed to and fact-checked a number of agriculture-oriented articles, like silo and cattle.  And I've contributed some history about localities I know well, such as the articles on Rice County, Minnesota and the communities within it.  I have also contributed a number of photographs, though these are officially anonymous since the copyright bears my real name.  My professional expertise is in physics and computer science, both areas of the project that are already well developed.  I feel at this point that I have contributed most of what I already know, and so my choices are to a) defend my watchlist, b) reasearch stuff and contributed based on that, c) copyedit, or d) contribute to the community aspects of the project.


 * I believe that (a) is unhelpful, (c) is not something I'm especially good at, and while I do carry out (b) it is labor intensive for the few edits that result. That leaves (d), and since I have an ongoing interest in group dynamics, as well as a good deal of experience with online collaboration, that is where I am most active.


 * Finally, as the project has grown, I find myself outclassed on subjects that I care deeply about but lack expertise in, such as music. I find that it is best to leave such articles to others, though I do contribute a few tidbits when I'm sure of myself.


 * As others have said, I believe that this sort of specialization is a product of the project's maturity. As the project continues to mature, the number of articles where any one person can contribute effectively is bound to shrink as the baseline general-interest knowledge becomes complete.  I do believe, though, that at least for the time being, there is a shortage of interest in communtiy issues, and I hope others see value in the contributions I make in this area.  uc 02:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. To be honest, though, this seems more like you're simply bored with work here, and doesn't put forth any reason why you are a better candidate than anyone else.  Can you explain why you deserve this promotion in light of the efforts that other people put in on the article space?   Your answers to the "Bureaucratic Questions" below are notably short.  What qualities, ideas, or philosophies do you bring to the position? -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Bureaucratic Questions

Q1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A1. Yup, I've read them, edited them, and reread them, and observed their action in practice. In theory, it's consensus. In practice, of the supporting and opposing votes, 80% must be supporting. Sometimes the threshold is lowered to 75%, particularly when the opposition appears to be ill-considered rather than well-reasoned. In doubtful cases, one tries to discount sock puppets.

Q2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A2. I do not plan to become involved in contentious nominations until weathering a fair number of blissful ones. In time, I would, and I would try to deal with them fairly and consistently, according to the rules, in accord with the community's sentiment, and in particularly troublesome cases, after consultation with other "bureaucrats."