Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timl2k4


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Timl2k4
Final (4/9/2); ended 08:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)  Scheduled to end 03:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination
– self-nomination. I am a niche editor. I have not made a boatload of edits, but I've been around for quite some time. I prefer cooperation to conflagration. Even if that means giving up ground. However, I believe Wikipedia has built up a lot of workable guidelines and policies over the years, and I'd like people to keep those in mind.

If accepted I look forward to a process of self-education, learning and cooperation. I hate splitting hairs (once I realize I'm doing that :-) ) I nominate myself not for my ego, but to patiently give back to a resource that has given so much.

I nominate myself because I know this will be challenging, try my patience, and despite that it may be very mundane.

I also see this has an opportunity for growth. I've seen a lot grown up admins acting like children. I'd like to set a different example.

Finally, and this is a little obscure, I pick my edits carefully. I don't bite off more than I can chew (generally) and I give up a sense of ownership some people seem to have over there contributions. I have realized many times that Wikipedia is an incredible test of one's ability to cooperate, to 'let go' so to speak, and to reign in one's emotions. I'm here to offer my help. That's about it. I hope I can learn at least a little bit from whatever feedback I get from this request. If I'm summarily passed over, so be it. I am after all, a pretty obscure Wikipedian. In fact, I think that is the best thing I have to offer! Thank you. TimL (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Whatever I can wrap my head around. I've been a contributor since 2004, for me this is to be a learning experience a both a lesson in, and opportunity for, giving.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I particularly like my contributions to the saros article. It was confusing merely due to bad grammar, not for lack of citations or poor scientific perspective. Just bad grammar. It used to be called 'Saros Cycle', a saros, by definition, is a cycle. The Lunar eclipse article was a mess and I think I made non-controversial edits to clean it up measurably. I am keen on avoiding and resolving controversy. This is why I tend to stay away from controversial articles I have a strong opinion on, like Global warming or Evolution. I like to find niches I am knowledgeable about and stick to those. The few articles I have created are mostly obscure, Dvorak Technique, Eclipse season, but I made them because I believe I can make valuable contributions. I also like to be bold. At Thunderbolt (interface), I removed the USB comparison based on article feedback on the discussion page. The discussion pages are valuable resources for improving articles. Moreso if you value the input of IP users, rather than dismissing them as non-constructive input from 'newbies'.


 * 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: E.g. Tornadoes of 2011. See the edit summary was yeah, that news article is full of shit; it's pretty much accepted that it was a single tornado." See this entry as my response and the  resulting discussion. I'm a little abrasive when I see people pushing in facts with vague citations, but it worked out in the end. I am faith neutral. I'd like to assume good faith, but you need to be cognizant of both simultaneously. Sometimes people rely on there credentials/experience alone, leading to articles that are absolutely correct, but unverifiable.


 * Additional questions from Monty845
 * 4. As an admin you come across a page marked for speedy deletion under criteria G1, the text of the page is "John Doe (born 1999), from Small Town NY, is an actor an musician who started playing the guitar 3 years ago and is really going places" The only edits to the page are the creation and the tagging for G1, there are no references. What do you do?
 * A:
 * 5. As an admin, someone contacts you (lets call them A) requesting you intervene to try to calm down a dispute. The editors have been going back and forth rapid fire on a talk page for about an hour. It looks like the other editor (lets call them B)is getting really angry, and the latest responses are borderline personal attacks. A requests that you block B for a few hours to serve as a cooling off period so that B doesn't say anything they will regret once they cool down. What do you do?
 * A:


 * Additional questions from User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz
 * 6. Please briefly criticize the article Denial of Death, which you started, in the state you left it (and optionally in its present state). Then improve the article so that it is at least at C-status, thus demonstrating an understanding of the goals and standards of Wikipedia.
 * A:

General comments



 * Links for Timl2k4:
 * Edit summary usage for Timl2k4 can be found here.
 * Stats on talk. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Moral Support Although I applaud your enthusiasm, RfA standards have changed substantially since 2004, and at th is time you just aren't up to the generally accepted standards for adminship. This, of course brings up the question as to whether these standards are "correct" per se, but that's another issue. Although I don't feel you're ready at this time, I'd be willing to fully if you had another 3-4 thousand edits with a larger breadth of experience. Your heart is in the right place, but you don't have the experience to pass an RfA. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Tentative actual support - I do not suffer from editcountitis. This editor has been here for seven years. A single erroneous CSD tag is not enough to cause me to withold my support. I don't see any reason in principle why a person could not read the whole of a policy from start to finish immediately before applying it, so I am not going to absolutely insist that an administrator knows all the relevant policies back to front ("Vita brevis est ars longa, our life is short and full of calamities, and learning is a long time in getting"). It has not been alleged that the candidate is incapable of doing that. James500 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I would like to see this candidate given the opportunity to answer some sensible questions about the use of sysop tools, instead of being dismissed off-hand.James500 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of being willing to do boring tasks in order to help the community. Adminship is not a big deal, and he is willing to learn. He behaves like a nice person, edits like a nice person, and responds to feedback like a nice person so he probably is a nice person. Wasbeer 05:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong moral support for nominee who has seen 'grown up admins acting like children' and would 'like to set a different example'.  – Athaenara  ✉  07:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm sorry, but your general lack of activity does not give me much trust in you. Perhaps you'd like to pick up your editing a bit more, including in the project (Wikipedia) namespace, before trying again in a few months? There's simply too little to be able to judge you on. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of activity are you looking for. It's true I don't have a great level of activity. I try to aim for quality over quantity. I guess this comment gives me the feeling I need to be spending a lot of time everyday editing Wikipedia. I aim for a light amount. I guess "general lack of activity" doesn't seem quite right. However thanks for the feedback. I'm also concerned about the high bar set for activity. It would seem to select for a certain type of user. I'm not a Wikipedia fanatic. Then again I knew this (lots of edits) was pretty much the standard going in. --TimL (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be that as close as May you were averaging less than an edit each day. You had a long spurt of no edits at all.  It is impossible to judge your qualities as an administrator until you have some more edits. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, have taken some extended sabbatical. So there is too little quantity to judge quality. --TimL (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I don't believe you have been active enough in recent months. Wait until you have been actively editing for a year.  In addition, you stated that this will be a learning experience.  Admins should have the knowledge before they become admins, not the other way around. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can certainly sympathize with the sentiment vis-a-vis my learning experience comment. I guess I figure that goes for everyone. Based on the opposition so far, and I suppose the focus on number of edits over length of time spent in the community somewhat concerns me. It seems very reflexive. Of course I knew of this expectation going in. Again, thanks for taking the time to vote. I've learned two things already. --TimL (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have a problem with the speedy deletion tag you had overturned here. The page had already passed a deletion discussion.  In addition, I believe it was misplaced anyways. Criteria G11 states that it only applies to "pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." (emphasis in original)  If you believed the page was not written with a neutral point of view, it would have been more appropriate to add POV-check. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see a little more AFD participation. Currently, you only have participated in 4.  Participating in AFD would help prove to users that you have knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I have no problem with your (recent) activity level, but I'm seeing a lot of uses of the minor tag in recent times, and I think most don't comply with WP:MINOR - minor tag should be used for formatting, not content. I see language being adjusted and even a "personal observation" addition which is marked minor . Understanding the little rules is a signal for how well you understand the more important ones.  II  | (t - c) 03:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with this point. WP:MINOR is ambiguous wrt rearranging conent. I don't think the first link you gave changed the meaning of the article in any way. It was the refactoring of a paragraph. WP:MINOR is clear not to use minor when "adding content" or "removing content". It is silent on rearranging paragraphs to make them clearer. So edit number one seems to conform with WP:MINOR as far as I can tell. Link number 2 defintely should not have been marked minor. And if I'm guilty of more examples like that than I've been sloppy. Your interpretation of WP:MINOR is diffrent then mine, certainly. I do not see anything that suggest 'm' is only for formatting. Nevertheless I must assume you are describing the general consensus on the 'm' tag, however the official policy does not seem as cut and dry as you suggest. Definitely food for thought. An interesting point nonetheless. --TimL (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll grant you the first diff as legitimately minor since it does not really change the meaning - changing "solar eclipse" to "partial solar eclipse" does some meaningful on the surface, but is probably not really. I do think you've had several others recently, though, e.g. . Plus, you lack a lot of experience. But kudos for the cogent response! II  | (t - c) 04:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose I'm afraid 1600 edits isn't quite the number of edits that I would like to see for an admin-hopeful candidate. This editor does have good intentions, and s/he'll probably pass the next time round when s/he gets more experience. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 03:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - The answer to the first question is quite vague and the edit count is rather low for an admin candidate-- Groovy Sandwich  04:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - lack of experience. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 04:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Concerns with recent inactivity, experience, and breadth of exposure. Sorry,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Unfortunately too little activity, especially  in key housekeeping  areas to  apply  any  metrics for assessment, and my  criteria in  particular.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose To earn my support, the candidate should have cleaned up Denial of Death, which he started as an essay and which still reads like an essay (with phantasmic "explanation" of schizophrenia, which is at best a public nuisance). It appears that the candidate started the article "Magic Donkey", which was deleted because its usage was apparently limited to the commercial media company, Flickr  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 05:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral It looks to me as though you have not done much in admin related areas. For example there are very few (1?) articles that you nominated for deletion. However I am happy that you have used upload and move buttons! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral While I could see it proper to mitigate your low statistics against your long standing tenure, I do not see where you have enunciated a particular need for the extra tools. I agree with Graeme Bartlett that you should participate in "admin related areas" and perhaps return for an RfA2 within 6 months. My76Strat  talk  05:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.