Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timmeh 2

Timmeh

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (28/3/4); Scheduled to end 15:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Timmeh (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, it's a very long time since Timmeh's previous RFA in 2007, and I think it high time that we reconsidered him for the mop. He is a civil and clueful editor with a nicely diverse set of contributions, and according to soxred an impressively high 65% of these are to article space, plus a healthy amount of of communication edits. Timmeh is active at AFD (see User:Timmeh/AFD) and in GA and GA reviewing (see User:Timmeh/GA); So has a nice mix of needing the tools and building the 'pedia. I first noticed Timmeh a while ago as making some sensible WT posts, and took part in his editor review before deciding that IMHO he is ready for the mop. Thus I commend him to the community, and humbly request your support for his adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you very much for the nomination, WereSpielChequers. I of course accept. I would just like to say that I am very grateful to WSC for considering me worthy of the tools, and although my last RfA failed based on experience concerns, I believe a year and a half was plenty of time for me to build experience in various areas of Wikipedia. Although nobody may have known it, I was under 18 during my last RfA, and although a difference of 18 months is not a very long time, I am now over 18 and feel sufficiently ready to take on the extra responsibilities. I ask that !voters do not hold my age against me, and decide how to !vote based on my past actions and the answers to the questions, rather than an age line that is higher than my age in some countries. Lastly, I'd like to thank WereSpielChequers again for all the very helpful advice he has given me since his editor review nearly two weeks ago, and for the surprise nomination that he so graciously put forth. Timmeh 15:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: At first, I intend to partake in the activities and the administrative areas that are most familiar to me. These include closing WP:AFDs and protecting pages per WP:RPP. I have participated in dozens of AfD discussions, doing non-admin closures on several others, and successfully requested page protection numerous times. Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files also seems to have a fairly large backlog, and that seems to be another easy area in which to start my admin work. A bit later on, after I get more used to the tools, I will also begin, slowly and cautiously, to deal with reported vandals, edit wars, sock puppet investigations, and other issues brought up on the administrators' noticeboard. I do have some experience in those areas, but not as much as I would like; therefore, I will begin working in those areas when I become more comfortable with their processes and policies. I admit I do need more experience with WP:CSD; I had some incorrect taggings a few months ago. Accordingly, I will not perform any administrative tasks in that area until I am confident I know the CSD policy like the back of my hand.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think that all my contributions have benefited the encyclopedia in some way, but there are those that I am fond of and which have come to define the best part of my tenure here on Wikipedia. Those include, first and foremost, my GAs. I have significantly contributed to four good articles, one of which is now part of a good topic, with which I helped out. Right now, I have 21st Century Breakdown listed at WP:GAN, and once it becomes a good article, I hope to eventually make it my first featured article. I have also significantly contributed to United States presidential election, 2008, but I have yet to bring the very lengthy article to GA quality. Most of my other edits to articles are solely copyediting, so that they comply with WP:MOS, and reverting vandalism. One last contribution I am fond of is my help, albeit small, to shrink the backlog at WP:GAN, where I have reviewed 11 articles, 10 of which are now good articles.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been in several editing...I suppose you could call them disputes. Each time, civil discussion took place, and the dispute was resolved according to consensus. I have always tried to find peaceful methods (not resulting in administrative intervention) of resolving disagreements here, and I will continue to do so if the community decides to grant me the admin tools. I am now in good standing with all of those with whom I have disagreed, provided they are still in good standing with the community. My edit history shows that any conflicts I have had since my first RfA have shown my ability to stay civil and to peacefully attempt to resolve conflicts.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

4. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: This question has often been a tough one for me. In fact, I anticipated the question and reworked the answer a couple of times after further thought and before being satisfied. I believe Wikipedians do have rights, including the right to privacy, due process, and the right to be free from personal attacks and other incivility. These rights are very difficult to rescind, except in extreme cases. Regarding what some claim as a right to edit, I tend to think of this as more of a privilege, as it is much more easily revoked than the other "rights". If someone is causing disruption to the encyclopedia, they have broken the terms of their automatic agreement, as I like to call it, with the Wikipedia community. Therefore, their privilege of editing Wikipedia can be rightly revoked, either for a short time or indefinitely. To uphold these rights and privilege, I would of course warn and then block any editors who continually infringe on them. Deleting articles, such as attack pages, would also be an option in appropriate cases.

Additional optional question from Off2riorob

5 Would you be prepared to reveal the usernames of any other accounts that you are editing from, or have edited from? Thanks.

A: Yes. There is only one, Timmeh37, which was automatically created, and which I used here only by accident.

Additional question from User:Wizardman

6. When should no consensus closed on AFDs default to keep, and when should they default to delete, and why?

A: For almost all AFDs, if there is no clear consensus, the article is kept, but of course it is closed as "no consensus", not "keep". In that case the article is left alone; no action is taken because there was no consensus to do anything. BLPs are usually a bit more complicated. Depending on the neutrality and verifiability, certain BLP AFDs with no consensus could default to delete. This mainly only happens if there is a lot of unsourced and damaging text in the article that may also infringe on that individual's right to privacy and lead to legal issues and other complications. For BLPs about relatively unknown people, no consensus AFDs should default to delete if the subject has requested deletion.

Questions from Tony1

7. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?

A: I believe the idea is a good one, which would help users make admins more accountable for their actions. There could be users who abuse the system, but the safeguards put in requiring diffs and specific policy breaches seem to mostly eliminate that chance. Overall, I think it's a very good idea that looks good in theory. Also, since it does not "issue binding decisions, enforcement or judgements on any Wikipedian", I see no problem with having it. I would support such an initiative.

8. Forgive my directness: you are on the young side. In terms of dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?

A: Cool down blocks should never be used, so blocking would not be an option in this case. I believe that a firm strike through and apology request would be a viable alternative, and probably the best one. Unless the situation is resulting in disruption to Wikipedia's processes and the building of the encyclopedia, I think the alternative shown is the correct course of action. If the situation and rude remarks are repeated soon after, a topic ban, or even a short block, for the uncivil editor may be appropriate, in order to prevent the other editor's rights (which I mentioned in the answer to Q4) from being continually infringed upon.

Additional optional questions from Triplestop

9. Consider the following situation: A user commits highly offensive and egregious vandalism, however they only do it once a week and blank the warnings from their talk page. You notice that this activity has been going on for months. Between their vandalism acts they have good contributions. What would you do?

A: The account looks like it could be compromised in this case, with a hacker or someone else using it only once a week. In such a situation, it is not improbable that the owner would not know of the vandalism being committed. In that case, I'd send an email if possible, making sure the owner is aware of the once-a-week vandalism and explaining how it is hurting the project. If I received no response or if email wasn't enabled and the vandalism continued, I would have no choice but to block the account to prevent further vandalism and disruption. A second block would be indefinite, accompanied by another email letting the owner know of the indefinite block and that he would be able to create another account if the first account was in fact compromised.

10. What is your favorite color and why?

A: Actually, I don't really have a favorite color. I do like dark red and blue, but I don't have an absolute favorite. Sorry to disappoint you.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Timmeh
• Requests for adminship/Timmeh 2
• Requests for adminship/Timmeh 3

• Links for Timmeh: Timmeh (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Timmeh can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Timmeh before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. – (iMatthew • talk) at 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat the nom Per Q1 and experience.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator ϢereSpielChequers 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
3. An excellent candidate. Majorly talk 16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I have seen this editor around quite a lot, and have been happy with what I have seen. The problem with DT was complex, and I am still uncertain if any of us got it right. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Support I have seen Timmeh's name frequently and I have yet to have reason for wincing upon seeing his participation. Timmeh's overall input has been highly commendable and I am happy to support this RfA. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Support; seen him around, does good work. There are a few issues, but I'm confident he'll learn on the job. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Weakish Support Some concerns around CSD, some concerns I can't quantify (no disrespect - just some nagging doubts for some reason). A review of contributions (indeed back to your earliest ones) seems good. Totally positive prior interaction. Net Positive with the tools. Damn good answer to Q4 by the way. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Per previous interaction which was extremely positive. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
9. You've been around long enough to have opposed and moved to neutral on my RfA, and although you were the only non-support, I won't hold a grudge. You are a knowledgeable editor who will be a benefit to the encyclopedia if given the tools. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. I've seen very good work from this editor, and I have no doubt I'll see the same if and when he becomes an administrator. — Σxplicit 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Nice content work, and I see nothing wrong with your comments in the thread linked by Skinwalker. I sort of agree with Mazca that you use "per above" or similar a lot in AfD, but I haven't found any serious mistakes from you in that area so it's not really a reason to oppose. Jafeluv (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. I was on the fence; Skinwalker and CoM put me over the edge into support. Defense of Dougstech is laughable at best. Decent contributions, good experience. My misgivings are your tendency to enter frays seemingly for the sake of doing so; I encourage you to try to pick and choose your battles more carefully. Take it from a guy who doesn't follow his own advice all the time. Net positive, has Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Tan | 39 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - Thoroughly unconvinced of the opposition. T is a net positive through and through. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - I think I can trust you. :) – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Support No reason you couldn'e be trusted, and your answer to Q4 was superb. MacMed^talk_stalk 01:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - Per excellent answer to Q4. (X! · talk)  · @115  ·  01:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Support, candidate seems fine. Wizardman 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I don't see any major problems that are big enough. Triplestop (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Support as a net positive, any negatives for this person are extremely minor. Tavix |  Talk  04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support --Xavexgoem (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Support as net positive. The opposition does not highlight any major issues to me. --Taelus (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Seen him around and trust him. MBisanz ^talk 09:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - per Timmeh's good response to my neutral !vote, his sensible question answers, and his overall record of good contributions, I'm now sufficiently comfortable that he'd be a definite net positive with admin tools. There are issues, but they are minor. Think before you act, avoid unnecessary arguments, and you'll be a great admin. Best of luck. ~ mazca ^talk 10:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Support The DougsTech stuff seems to be an isolated chain of incidents, and RfA especially gets people especially stressed out whether they are in the ring or are commenting. I don't view it as an issue because of which Timmeh shouldn't be an administrator because of those circumstances. Maxim_(talk) 12:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Support tempered, weakened, and saddened by the DougsTech issues. One must hope that that was an aberration or a flaw the candidate has grown beyond.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support No concerns. I've seen him around, and worked in a few areas with him and never had a problem. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
27. Weak support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has four barnstars on userpage and no blocks on the log; however, User:David Fuchs raises a serious concern below with regards to WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
28. Support, can see no reason to oppose. --Aqwis (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Timmeh was a primary contributor to the massive troll-feeding regarding DougsTech. I do not trust his judgement or his independence from groupthink, and I think the admin corps will suffer from his "me too" attitude. Adminship is a big deal, per my comments made here, in response to Timmeh. Skinwalker (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Not yet. I do appreciate this candidate's GA work, and I do trust this candidate to close AfDs in accordance with the consensus, but I agree that his CSD tagging has not always been up to snuff, including relatively recent taggings. To me, this suggests his knowledge around deletion is lacking for the moment, and that makes me very reluctant to support his access to the tools as of today.

   This is a concern about experience and knowledge rather than temparament, so I feel confident that I would be able to support in future.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   Could you be so kind as to elaborate on misapplied CSD tags? Perhaps you could cut and paste some examples on the talk page? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   See his editor review linked above.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, I read it, but it doesn't sufficiently answer my question. If the extent of his errors were a few misapplied no-context tags back in March, I hardly see this as a red flag. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose Timmeh was an active participant in the hounding of DougsTech and the edit warring over his user pages. I understand Timmed disagreed with that editor's approach, lots of us did, but to do battle over their userspace [1] and engage in borderline trolling and other dramatics was utterly unhelpful [2] . Someone can check just how many times Timmeh felt the need to post on DougsTech’s talk page despite DT making it clear he wanted to be left in peace, but it’s certainly in the double digits and it’s the kind of activity that causes time wasting disruption and tension. Timmeh generally makes good contributions, but self control, judgment, and an ability to defuse conflict instead of instigating it are basic Admin qualifications. Another flamethrowing admin who doesn't yet possess adequate maturity is not what Wikipedia needs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   Just so it is clear, the whitespace removal was a misunderstanding. I only removed it as a courtesy and only before I realized DougsTech wanted it there. Timmeh 00:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose the Dougstech issue does bother me, per CoM above. Looking through the candidate's AfD contributions, I see a frightening number of nominations where he either didn't look for sources, or the discussion veered towards a merge; AfD is not cleanup, and editors should propose merges, et al before taking them to AfD. It's a waste of everyone's time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per Skinwalker and ChildofMidnight. Your GA work is good, but I believe your actions in the DougsTech fiasco were immature and unhelpful at best. Adminship requires a nuanced touch, a high degree of situational cluefulness and the ability to minimize disruption and drama by de-escalating conflict as much as possible. At this time, I do not believe you have sufficiently demonstrated these abilities. Bullzeye ^contribs 15:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Per much of the above. Also by his own admission he's still a kid, so he should be scrutinized for kid-like behavior. There seems to be plenty of evidence of kid-like behavior in the above opposes. Just to head off possible objections: Yes, I understand that he says he's over 18. I don't care much about how politicians in some particular country define adulthood- I care more about what science says on the issue. There is lots of evidence that the "adult brain" develops closer to the age of 25 than the age of 18. So, those in that in-between group should still be scrutinized to see whether they behave more like a kid or more like an adult. Friday (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, based on my observations of his interactions with other editors. Jonathunder (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Undecided at the moment. This may change. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - I'm kind of on the fence here. Your GA review work is excellent, your AFD work less so. On picking through a sample of your AfD participation, I see an enormous number of "per nom" or "per editor X" !votes, along with vague "fails WP:N" style arguments that generally add very little to the discussion. Also, from your contributions to various bilateral relations AfDs(example) I wonder if you understand why we can't merge and delete things under Wikipedia's licenses. Overall from your AfD participation I've unfortunately come away with a bit of a feeling that you've been emphasising "quantity over quality" and racking up a lot of participation for the sake of it, without taking a lot of time to evaluate things. Don't get me wrong - overall I think you're an excellent contributor who's done some great stuff - but I'm a little hesitant to support right now. ~ mazca ^talk 16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for your concerns. I shall avoid any bilateral relations AFDs when closing AFDs. I understand now why the content can't be merged and the redirect deleted, mainly because of the GFDL and author attribution. While mainly understanding copyright, I had not read the GFDL in full before, and I don't believe I have come across the WP:MAD essay. I hope you can trust that I would of course as a closing admin not merge and delete an article, but instead just merge, creating a redirect and preserving the page history. Timmeh 16:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   Switching to support. ~ mazca ^talk 10:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral I think you've done really good work, but I don't think you're quite ready. -download ׀ sign! 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral A few issues leave me undecided. I'll sit on it for a little while. – (iMatthew • talk) at 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Moved to support.

3. I told you, too many boxes. I don't have time for a proper examination of your record, thus neutral. NVO (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   You are commenting on the fact that he has too many userboxes? Do all admins have to have minimalist userpages in order to garner support for RfA? At least this wasn't an oppose, or there would be about 50 other comments under this... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral: although I am leaning towards oppose and may change as the RfA progresses. I accept that there are a lot of positive points to Timmeh's editing, but I have some concerns regarding his approach and temperament. I know it seems silly, but I very much dislike "My Wikipedia pet peeves" on Timmeh's userpage. In my opinion, it displays a juvenile, short-sighted, and hypocritical attitude, and if Timmeh would like, I would be more than happy to send him an email or a message on his talk page explaining why I think so. I realise those three adjectives are considered excessively negative, and I'm not suggesting that Timmeh is any of those three things . . . I just think it is a poor choice of content for a user page and it makes me less optimistic about his attitude in general. Maedin\^talk 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   I hope you aren't thinking I would take actions against policy simply because someone did something listed under my pet peeves. I would never block editors who don't provide an edit summary, make a few spelling errors, or repeat recent vandalism warnings. I would simply leave them a civil, informative talk page message. I just dislike these actions; I never directly say or imply that I would do anything against policy to prevent the actions from happening. I really hope you aren't assuming that either, and if the wording currently there comes off as juvenile, short-sighted, and hypocritical, I would be glad to reword it or even remove it if it is causing problems. Timmeh 16:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Oh absolutely not, I wouldn't suggest that at all. I have no doubt that you would follow policy and never do anything out of process on account of a few pet peeves. I'm sorry if that is how I made it sound, I was trying to not write an essay and probably missed out something important! I don't want to clutter your RfA, so I'll give you some more background at your talk page or by email, if that's ok. Maedin\^talk 16:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   That's fine. This RFA's talk page would be good too. Timmeh 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)