Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tinkleheimer


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

Tinkleheimer
Final (15/16/8); withdrawn by candidate

- Hi there everyone, my name is Trevor, or Tinkleheimer. I am requesting adminship on myself because I am/or at least try to potray a level-headed user, which I feel there should be more of. I have been with Wikipedia for 2 years, but first actively edited starting in December 2006, but I took a Wikibreak that summer. I started again in August, and after 2 months of little editing thanks to school, I am back full time now. But I feel I've made some great contributions, some great friends, and have proven myself to be a good user. I try to look out for the best interest in everyone involved.

The reason I am requesting adminship is I would like to participate in areas could use another set of hands WP:DYK is something I recently got into with the Did You Know of Project Runway Australia. I would help there by checking all the proposed hooks on T:TDYK and possibly updating when need be.

WP:AIV is another area which I would like to participate in. Not much else to say here, I would give blocks to those who need blocking (Have continued vandalism past a level 4 warning and is currently active) and I would remove those who do not need blocking (Insufficiently warned, etc.)

WP:AN/I is an area I have been participating in recently, offering my 2 cents in where I think opinions are needed. I will not be able to fix every problem a user has, but I sure can try.

And lastly, WP:OVERSIGHT, even though I do not have Oversight, I still have the ability to email oversight of personal information. I would be able to delete diffs which show compromising information and send email with deleted diffs.

I do not feel an administrator is someone who is above anyone else on this project. I believe an administrator is like a team leader or a manager. Everyone directs their complaints to them, and it is their responsibility to fix it or make it better. In fact, it's their responsibility to not make the CEO angry. =D  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  04:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

'''I would like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks everyone for pointing out what I am good at, and what I need work on. I plan on writing each person individually with a response. Thanks again. &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!! ''' 18:19, 9 June 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: After taking a little bit to get used to everything, I would start being active in WP:DYK, WP:AIV, and WP:AN/I. I could possibly venture into WP:RFPP or WP:AFD, but I currently have no intentions to. :)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: It is hard to point out specific contributions, because I feel I am spread out all over the place. Often times I contribute to reality show articles, such as Project Runway, Project Runway Australia, Top Design, Shear Genius, etc. A lot of my other areas are just random articles I've come across, including video games, anime, actors/actresses, movie, etc. I guess the one(s) I am currently most proud of are Cozy Dog Drive-in and Project Runway Australia. I particularly did a lot of work for Cozy Dog, learning how to use Google Books for the first time.


 * 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 try to avoid conflicts, but at times I will voice my opinions. Whenever voicing my opinion, I try to keep a level head and a Neutral Point of View (wait, is that possible?) Whenever you talk about a user or make fun of someone, remember that there is someone on the other side of that screen, and it could really hurt. WP:AGF

Additional question from SWik78:


 * 4.There are numerous reports by tabloid-type publications that Lindsay Lohan was killed in a car crash the night before. Several sources that would traditionally be considered reliable (eg, New York Times, CNN, etc) have reported that "tabloids are reporting that" Lohan was killed. Lohan's article is edited heavily by anon IPs adding that she is dead and the death has been confirmed. An established editor removes the report of death from the article 4 times citing lack of reliable sources while an anon IP re-inserts the same info 4 times claiming that numerous reports can't all be wrong. What do you do with respect to (a) the article, (b) the established editor, (c) anon IP?

General comments

 * See Tinkleheimer's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Tinkleheimer:

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

Discussion

 * Regarding this edit summary, I know exactly how you feel. Useight (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tee hee glad you saw it cause I had to fix a mistake right after it :)  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  04:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Aww. Naerii - Talk 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support despite low edit count. What I saw showed me a low likelihood to abuse the tools. Talk page review raised no concerns. Dloh  cierekim  04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support User would make a good admin Juppiter (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, no reason to believe candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 05:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support For sure. I've talked with Tinkleheimer before, and I've seen him around WP:AN/I all the time. What I haven't seen is a reason to oppose. If I had any balls I'd have nommed him myself, but you know me. My balls are always busy somewhere else.-- Koji †  Dude  (C)  05:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear god! We don't want to know... :P &mdash;Dark talk 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the heck not? No reason to assume he might inadvertently misuse the tools, let alone intentionally. dorftrottel (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But dude, seven piercings? dorftrottel (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a one :). I only have my ear pierced right now, an Outer Conch Piercing. :D  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  05:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. Right. Incidentally, I had just noticed the support above, which gave me a pause... dorftrottel (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support. After reviewing your work, I thought it was pretty good. You only have just over 2000 edits, so you don't have a ton of experience, but from what I've seen so far, I couldn't find any reason not to entrust you with the tools. I did find one recent error, here in a mistaken request for page protection, but if editors were required to be perfect, we wouldn't have any at all. I was also somewhat miffed by this edit in which you reverted yourself citing "reverting good faith edit". I also enjoyed your recent edit here accidentally congratulating yourself (before sending the congratulations to its intended target, Xenocidic). P.S. - I noticed two errors on your userpage you may want to fix: 1) You have "of" instead of "off" in this section; and 2) You have the Nintendo WikiProject userbox twice. Useight (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Edit count seems a little low relative to usual RfA standards but it doesn't bother me too much. Tinkleheimer seems to have a great attitude towards the project and after a look through his contribs I think he'd make a great addition. ~ mazca  talk 06:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support After reading the Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions guidelines, it seems that Tinkleheimer fill the role of admin well. After reading the comments made by the other editors above, I was able to make my decision with more confidence. I only wish that those that didn't give their reasons would have. In the guidelines given in the afore mentioned  Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions page, editors are strongly encouraged to give their opinion in addition to their vote. If it weren't for those who gave good arguments in their vote, I would not have been able to properly weigh Tinkleheimer's ability to mesh with the Wikipedia community, an important attribute for an admin. Leeboyge (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support He's taller than I typically like a prospective admin to be, but he's also a Project Runway fan, so they pretty much cancel each other out. In all seriousness, I haven't been this torn over an RfA in a while, and am close to going neutral. The bare minimum of edits that I can support is 2000, so he just barely clears that. Also, his userpage and the diffs from Daniel seem to suggest that Tinkleheimer is susceptible to Wiki-drama (for instance, the Giggy userbox, even if I agree with you, strikes me as inappropriate and not becoming of an admin candidate). Those being the negatives, now for the positives; Tinklehammer seems to be an extremely well-intentioned editor who is highly unlikely to abuse the tools. The edits he has made (though few in number) don't give me any particularly strong concerns. I will just say this: if and when you are given the mop (and I do think it's a 'when' if not this time around then in a few months), please take things slowly! All new admins should heed those words, but I think it's particularly true in your case due to a relatively low edit count. Before becoming active in admin tasks, make sure you know the relevant policies in and out. tl;dr I trust this user. faithless   (speak)  08:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Assuming good faith.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
 * 6) Those that want to help at DYK get an auto-support from me, but I ask the candidate take the opposes to heart and gain some more experience. Wizardman  11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Maybe a slightly marginal candidate; shows good work, good attitude. Quite frankly "oppose rationales" are among the least compelling I've ever seen here. Wily D  13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Moral support, head is in the right place. Perhaps seek an admin coach? xenocidic (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I'm just echoing what's been said earlier: assume good faith. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Moral support, this user is definitely on the right track and does indeed have their head and heart in the right place. I feel that the net effect of granting this user the admin bit would be a positive one for the project.  The somewhat thin "resume", which is undoubtedly a point of concern for many, may mean that admin coaching is in order for a future run, but if this nomination does not pass I would simply suggest the user remain on the same track they are currently in, and a future nomination would likely pass without any difficulties. Shereth 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose per this and this. Revert-warring in userspace does not reflect very well on you at all. Even if you agree with what the userbox says, reverting multiple times while discussion is taking place over the issue (per your edit summary, you were aware of it) is not acceptable behaviour on your part. It only worsened the situation, given you were previously uninvolved, and you interjecting stalls discussion on the general issue of long-term inclusion/exclusion to deal with your reverts. This, coupled with this and this, which doesn't reflect too well on you per this, mean I cannot trust your judgement overall. You have not got terribly much experience here, especially in metaissues like the ones cited above, so the dubious-to-good ratio is not high enough to mitigate what I link to above. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * " [[WP:UP] is a guideline, not a policy. It is not illegal to have the bar, but more generally frowned upon"] suggests a lack of understanding about policies and guidelines, as well. Daniel (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel that Tinkleheimer has good intentions and I think he will be okay in the longterm so I don't wish to discourage him. However, some of the comments I've seen from him on the noticeboards have not inspired me with confidence and I think he is really lacking in general experience on Wikipedia. The diffs raised by Daniel are very problematic but again, I think it is a lack of experience rather than anything else. I'm really not at all confident in his understanding of or ability to apply policy and so must oppose this request. Sarah 08:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Also I must add that I completely disagree with the statement that it is an admin's "...responsibility to not make the CEO angry." With CEO linked to Jimbo. It's an admin's responsibility to do the right thing by the project, period, and whether or not it upsets Jimmy personally is really beside the point. It also isn't an admin's responsibility to fix or make better all complaints brought to them. A large amount of the time we make people who bring complaints to us *not* happy because the right thing to do for the project is not what the complainants want us to do. Sarah 08:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The diffs Daniel brings are very concerning, also the apparent lack of knowledge of policy and edit warring at user pages greatly concerns me as to how this user would act with the tools. Possibly after a long period of editing, I will be convinced that those were aberrant occurrences.  MBisanz  talk 08:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose on the basis that you view an admin as "a team leader or a manager", and per Daniel and Sarah. --Stephen 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a diff where he states that opinion on admins, Stephen? · AndonicO  Engage. 10:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph of nomination statement. giggy (O) 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah right, thanks. · AndonicO  Engage. 10:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. Not sure I want to trust Trevor with the tools yet; he seems a bit unstable, to be honest. While his judgment usually seems good (note: I rarely see him outside of RFA, so my perspective is pretty limited), something worries me&mdash;not sure what, exactly, though. · AndonicO  Engage. 10:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. A very low edit count means i'm not comfortable with the idea that he has enough experience to make a good admin. Has only created two pages, and the area's he says he would be involved in aren't ones he has had particular experience in. Also seems to misunderstand the role of an administrator, first saying an admin isn't above anyone else on a project and then comparing them to a manager; if this was a job, you wouldn't hire someone who doesnt have a proper understanding of what the job is. Claiming to be a level-headed user is fair enough, but brings into question the message on his talk page "The content was deleted via MfDs. Please do not re-insert it. The content is an attack on other editors. You should not be participating in attacks on other editors. The content misrepresents the Foundation. You should not be making unsubstantiated claims about what the Foundation endorses". From your contributions you dont seem to have an accurate understanding of wikipedia guidelines and policies, and your edit history is slightly worrying; i dont think an admin who makes edits normally and then vanishes for 2-4 months at a time is really appropriate. You've only really scaled your editing up in the last month; keep that up for another 6 months, get to understand the policies and contribute to more varied area's and reapply; if you've done all that i'd be happy to support. Ironholds</b> 11:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, since you have very little experience in the areas you'd like to be involved in. You don't have to be an admin to comment on the hooks at T:TDYK, yet you've never commented on anything besides your own two noms. You don't even have to be an admin to edit the next dyk update, but you've never done that either. I could find less than 10 edits on wp:aiv, so I can't really be sure you'd always know what to do there either (although the process is usually very simple, you seem to view it too mechanistically, which could lead to trouble, since blocking people is a big thing). - Bobet 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, Per WP:NOTNOW The user is good at heart, but I dont think your established enough to be an admin just yet. Have you considerd admin coaching?  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »  11:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I think the candidate is going to be a good admin someday, but unfortunately, today isn't that day. There's certainly no deadline, so plenty of time is available to you to expand some content, work on AIV and other areas, and generally show that you're capable of handling the admin tools. You're eager to help with DYK, and I urge you to do so - call it an apprenticeship, if you will. Once you've shown that you understand how these tasks are performed, I think many of my fellow opposers would find no further reason to oppose. It's an experience thing, and you should not be daunted at all because of it. I look forward to supporting you in the future. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per above - lack of experience in admin areas. Trebor (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Bobet. Keepscases (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per admin is a "team leader or manager" comment. Veers dangerously close to making an admin a WP:Very Big Deal. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, rather unfortunately I may add. In addition to the multitude of concerns presented by Daniel, the candidate also doesn't understand or know in part, our image policy. Rudget   (Help?) 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to suggest that asking a legitimate question to learn about, understand, or clarify a Wikipedia policy should be counted as a negative in evaluating an editor's suitability for adminship? Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions improperly here, but...it doesn't seem like a good faith reason to oppose. (I realize it isn't the primary reason for the oppose, but still...) Frank  |  talk  15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Why would the copyright belong to McDonalds, if they haven't taken the photo? If the candidate didn't know that, he should not even be thinking about the prospect of administrator tools. Rudget   (Help?) 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer was informative, and the discussion following it expanded by bringing in the question of a copyrighted logo as well. I think the question was legitimate and useful. I'm not suggesting a support (I didn't myself), only that this isn't necessarily a great reason to oppose. (Again...I've acknowledged it wasn't your only or even primary reason.) Frank  |  talk  16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep this to my last response, but what I'm trying to say is; if the candidate in question doesn't know something relatively simple like that, what else may they have descrepancies in? Rudget   (Help?) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Hadn't quite looked at it that way. Frank  |  talk  16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudget, this oppose is ridiculous, the user asked a question about something he didn't understand. "what else may they have descrepancies in?" Well, if they do have problems elsewhere, this is proof they'll ask about them rather than act according to whatever they thouht was right...-- Phoenix -  wiki  17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Opppose, pretty strongly, actually. User:Tinkleheimer/Signbook—silly signature books, almost no content contributions, over 220 edits to your userpage when you don't even have a quarter of that to a single article, not to metion the silly fake of the new messages bar which was previously on your userpage until recently. Even the signature suggest immaturity. Not at the minute. Qst (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Wikipedia is not a place to "make friends", nor is it Myspace. Administrators are not a "team leaders", and silly annoying pranks like fake new message bars shows you are here for the wrong reasons. Tiptoety  talk 15:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per all of the above (especially lack of mainspace work) as well as uninformed accusations of canvassing . Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
''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.''
 * 1) Neutral. I do feel that Tinkleheimer would be a good admin, but it's the experience I'm worried about. Daniel's diffs are concerning, but a review of his last 500 edits brought up no concerns for me. I feel that Tinkleheimer should wait a few months just to ensure that he is absolutely ready, and won't make any obvious and avoidable mistakes. He is certainly on the right track though. :) PeterSymonds  (talk)  08:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral for now, noting also comments by Ironholds in the oppose section and by Peter Symonds above in this section.  The nominee's intention "to participate in areas could use another set of hands" like checking proposed hooks and preparing noms for DYK at Template talk:Did you know can be fulfilled without admin tools.  — Athaenara  ✉  11:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Good: this section. He seems like a friendly user who probably will not abuse the tools. However, mistakes such as this section and the low edit count makes me uneasy. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 11:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral leaning oppose at this time. Diffs from Daniel in oppose and the last paragraph of the nomination in particular. Tinkleheimer, that is really not at all what admins are about I'm afraid. However I have only ever enjoyed positive and civil interaction with the candidate, which keeps me from an actual oppose. I just think he might hinder more than help with admin tools at the moment. If this passes I'd suggest going very cautiously, and if it doesn't then I'm sure a future RFA will be succesful provided Tinkle learns from the comments made (something I am sure he will do) Pedro : Chat  12:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I was thinking of supporting, but then I saw this RFPP report. For now I'm afraid I'm going to have to go neutral. Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  12:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral I am going to take the very comfortable position of sitting on the fence, since while I believe that Tinkleheimer is an accomplished user, and nice and polite one at that, I believe that there is still work to be done, before they get my unreserved support.-- Kero tan -<sup style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:black;">Have a nice day :) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral - I think it's important to keep in mind that adminship is not a reward, just as blocking is not a punishment. I'd rather see more experience before supporting this RfA. Frank  |  talk  15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Please get rid of the signbook. dorftrottel (talk) 16:17, 9 June