Discussion reconstructed from User talk:UninvitedCompany
(The discussion was interrupted at various stages by being deleted)
At the end of the second paragraph of this edit on my talk page you claimed to be the same person as User:Kat. I think you should mention this on this user page and on the User:Kat page, and also perhaps explain why you feel the need to have two different user names. GrahamN 23:55, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, since you studiously ignored that, I'll pose some direct questions. Am I correct to interpret your remarks as meaning that you are the same person as User:Kat? If so, why do you have more than one user name? How many other names do you use here? How many of them, like this one, have administrator status? GrahamN 23:47, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Not attempting to speak on behalf of UninvitedCompany, but this WAS all brought up at the time of UC's vote for adminship. Go look at the history there. You're making this out to be some big dark secret, which it is not, anymore at least. If you'll look at User:Kat's edit history, they have edited no articles since, I believe, before the creation of User:UninvitedCompany, and thus it is inaccurate to state that this is the case of someone using more than one username. I am aware of no policy that states that a user cannot stop using one username and start using another; indeed, having multiple simultaneous accounts is allowed, so long as one does not abuse Wikipedia process thereby (e.g. double voting, protecting a page the same person's other username is edit-warring on, and the like). —Morven 00:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I believe that Morven is correct on all the salient points. UninvitedCompany 01:27, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- I've just read the discussion that Morven refers to.. So, your "double life" is no dark secret, but since there is no reference to it on either of your user pages, how is anybody supposed to know about it? The practice of having multiple user names may not be technically against the rules (why on earth not?), but I can think of no legitimate reason for doing it. It's hardly a thing that inspires trust. You would appear less duplicitous if you were to make a clear and open statement about it on both (all?) of your user pages. Which was my original point, if you remember. GrahamN 02:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Please demonstrate that you really are the same person as User:Kat, as you have claimed, by making an edit using that name. GrahamN 18:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- I fail to see any good reason why this user should do so, if I may stick my oar in again. Why is this issue so important to you, GrahamN? Why should it matter whether or not User:Kat is or is not the same person as User:UninvitedCompany? I note that you were all about insinuating impropriety in one direction until shown that there had been none; now you seem to be insinuating impropriety in another direction (implication of untruth, implication that you believe they are NOT the same person). That the two are indeed the same is widely accepted as true (see this WikiEN-L post back in December) and I see no reason to doubt it. Nor do I really see the relevance; the User:Kat account is not in use anymore. If you have issues with User:UninvitedCompany, I personally (and probably anyone else watching) would rather you brought up substantive issues of recent behavior, rather than trying to beat this dead horse any further. —Morven 18:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- Graham - do you believe that user:Kat and user:UninvitedCompany are not in fact the same person? Martin 19:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
No. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm merely asking for substantiation. GrahamN 19:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- Why? —Morven 19:35, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
What business is it of yours? Please let UC speak for themselves. UC, Please demonstrate that you really are the same person as User:Kat, as you have claimed, by making an edit using that name. GrahamN 19:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- Curiousity as to your motives. Since you're posting your question in a public place, you cannot expect people to not comment if they wish. You are free, of course, not to answer. UC is also free not to answer. And any of us are free (yourself, UC, me, or anyone else reading) to draw any conclusions we wish from anything said - or not said. —Morven 19:52, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
GrahamN, I find your line of inquiry both tiresome and puzzling. I have nothing more to say and instead refer you to the historical record if you should like more historical data. UninvitedCompany 20:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
What I find puzzling is your reluctance to back up your claim that you are the same person as User:Kat. It would only take a second, and then you'd get me off your back. Equally puzzling is the readiness of the Wikipedia establishment to accept your claim at face value without, as far as I know, any solid evidence. A third puzzling thing is the apparent "road to damascus" change you have undergone, from being a perceptive and thoughtful critic of the authoritarian regime here to being one of its stormtroopers. A fourth puzzle is one the one hand your evident desire to keep your putative past a kind of secret (why not be open about it on your user pages, or even go back to using your original, snappier name?), and on the other hand your insistence that it is not a secret at all and no big deal. What I find tiresome is your willingness to make very specific statements and damaging allegations about another user in the context of a fallacious ad hominem argument about the deletion of an obscure page, but your refusal to stand by the same statements in the only context where they would have any worth - the page allocated for discussions about the ongoing ban on that user. GrahamN 17:43, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- While "road to Damascus" was long, one of the key steps was the realization that Wikipedia's most articulate critic, in all his various guises, was merely another self-righteous iconoclast with nothing constructive to contribute. I was fooled for a while. You still are. I don't have the power to make the scales fall from your eyes. Only you can do that. The true measure of a person's character is their actions upon departing from that which they loved. The weak tear down, the strong build up. I'll let you make your own comparisons among Zoe, JHK, Wik, and EofT in this regard.
- Mind you, I still believe that the project has plenty of room for improvement, and in particular I still wish I could change the present culture's inability to grapple with policy matters with any sort of effectiveness. Nipping at the heels of people who are trying to clean up one mess or another is not an effective means of facilitating change, however. All it does is betray a lack of understanding of the difficulty of doing good.
- Kindest regards,
You wrote "Equally puzzling is the readiness of the Wikipedia establishment to accept your claim at face value without, as far as I know, any solid evidence".
Let me reassure you in this regard by stating that I have seen evidence, involving edits on a number of places, coupled with private emails. Much of it is private, much of it would be next to impossible to reconstruct now, so long after the time in question. Along with a desire to assume good faith, the similarity in style, the lack of any counter-evidence, and the low level of risk from an error, I consider the matter well beyond need of discussion.
The "Wikipedia establishment" has a great number of things to worry about, as Wikipedia continues to expand, so I don't think our readiness to accept things on face value is particularly surprising. Martin 22:31, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- I refer you to the answer Uninvited Company gave you some moments ago. Martin 18:10, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Nobody has given me an answer. Several people have intervened to try to change the subject, but nobody has explained why UninvitedCompany cannot or should not do what I ask. UninvitedCompany, if you really are User:Kat, it will only take a moment for you to log in under that name and make an edit. The longer you refuse to do that simple thing, the more suspicious you appear. GrahamN 01:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the reason UC does not need to do what you ask is that whether he or she is or is not Kat is of absolutely no importance whatsoever. Kat was not a controversial user, UC is not a controversial user, the two accounts have not been used at the same time, what's the problem? --Camembert
If you really can't understand what the problem would be with a user who fraudulently passed themselves off as a reincarnation of another user, then I'm at a loss to know how to explain it to you. (I'm not alleging that that is what is happening here. There may be an innocent explanation. I hope so. But UninvitedCompany's refusal to spend the few seconds it would take to substantiate the claim beyond doubt is puzzling. We need to get to the bottom of it.) UninvitedCompany, please swallow your pride and take those few seconds to allay my mounting suspicions. GrahamN 02:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- The thing I can't understand, Graham, is that you're acting as if this is something terribly sinister. UC doesn't have any special authority by virtue of previously being Kat (or not, as you please), so why does it matter if he or she is Kat or not? I can understand people being uncomfortable with people using mutiple usernames, but I really think you're making too big a deal of this. User:Camembert
Like I said, if you really don't understand how big a deal integrity, honesty and trust are, then it will be a major job to explain these concepts to you. Somebody should try, for your sake, but this is neither the time nor the place. UninvitedCompany, it will only take a moment for you to log in as User:Kat and make an edit. Please swallow your pride and do that simple thing to prove my fears wrong. GrahamN 03:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- nobody has explained why UninvitedCompany cannot or should not do what I ask
- Because there's no need or benefit for him to do so, from the point of view of creating an encyclopedia, and he doesn't want to. Alternatively, because he is unable to do so (lost password, old computer, etc). The key word here is ask. You've asked. Uninvited has said "no". Take whatever conclusions from that that you wish to, but nagging is unlikely to be productive. Since you agree that trust is a big deal, you could always try taking it on trust. Just a thought. Martin 14:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Martin here GrahamN. You are talking of trust, requesting yourself "facts" to be able to "trust". Trust does not build upon facts. If you can't trust UC, then please try trusting us. There is nothing wrong in editing under two or more names, as long as you do not do abuse, such as voting twice or co-supporting your self, and the community accepts name changes if the editor feels more confortable. If Kat does not want to prove it, or can not prove it, that is his business, what only matters is the quality of his implication. So, please trust the community and move on to another topic of interest please. SweetLittleFluffyThing 15:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- There is an important difference between trust and credulity. GrahamN 16:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)