Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:44, 22 June 2009

Timmeh

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (12/3/4); 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages community. Therefore, their privilege of editing Misplaced Pages 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.

General comments

• 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

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

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 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 |  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 Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart. Tan | 39 00:44, 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 /_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 / )} 20:23, 21 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 and engage in borderline trolling and other dramatics was utterly unhelpful . 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Neutral

1. Undecided at the moment. This may change. Meetare Shappy 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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)

3. 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)
4. 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)