Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Timneu22

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
regularly exhibits hasty and clumsy behavior when doing new pages patrol. He is not willing to discuss his requests for speedy deletions or nominations for deletion. He does not seem to research the material he nominates adequately. He has awarded himself a barnstar as a joke, "You play whack-a-mole with terrible new pages like no one I've ever seen! Awesome!" Requests to discuss his actions are met with deletion of the requests and comments such as "I'm simply not interested", "I'm not concerned about this one bit", "I just. Don't. Care" See User talk:Fred Bauder/Test for more detail. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Desired outcome

 * That Timneu22 either change his manner of engaging in New Pages Patrol to conform to Wikipedia policies of civility and assuming good faith or cease to engage in New Pages Patrol. He should in the future respond to queries, particularly by new users, regarding his requests for speedy deletions and nominations for deletion. He should take more care in evaluating his requests and nominations including a good faith effort to evaluate the subject before making requests and nominations. If he says he googled the subject and found nothing, someone else googling the subject should not find 11,000 hits. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That Timneu22 accepts and understands that he is not alone in patrolling new pages, and that his lack of civility, accuracy, and concern for other users, reduces the community's confidence in his work. --Kudpung (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That Timneu22 follow NPP guidelines and refrain from speedying or AfD-ing new articles created in good faith within minutes or seconds of creation.
 * That Timneu22 remove self-awarded barnstars referring to "playing whack-a-mole" from his user page, as well as other references to "whack-a-mole", as these leave a very poor impression with new editors. -- JN 466  06:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If Timneu22 refuses to discuss the issue further here and attempts to create another new anonymous account without resolving these issues, it is quite clear in that case, he/she may go ahead to replicate the same problems with the new account - given Timneu's parting comments to all and sundry. A clean start is only when the new account does not continue the same kind of behaviors and activities. If Timneu re-enters Wikipedia with a new user name without providing a response out here, it would be equivalent to evading scrutiny . Clean start is not a means to resume similar conduct while concealing a past track record. In this case, it may be clearly used for that. Therefore, the desired outcome also is that in case Timneu22 attempts to create a new account, Timneu22 reveal the same to arbitrators with a statement to the arbitrators that satisfies them that the issues raised in this RfC have been appropriately addressed.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  07:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hasty speedies/AfDs

 * 1)  Speedied swim ~ within one minute of creation; editor had clicked Save instead of Preview by mistake. Article was kept and made DYK
 * 2)  Speedied Karl Ley within one minute of creation; subsequent AfD resulted in Keep
 * 3)  Nominated Paco Yunque for deletion within six minutes of creation; article creation was this editor's first-ever edit to Wikipedia; AfD resulted in Keep
 * 4)  Speedied Standard Fare within one minute of creation, article kept
 * 5)  Speedied A Grounding in Numbers within six minutes of creation, article kept
 * 6)  Speedied Click Music Philippines within two minutes of creation, kept
 * 7)  Speedied Lightspeed Systems within two minutes of creation; kept
 * 8)  Speedied Sverre Malling half an hour after creation, kept
 * 9)  Speedied George J. Mead less than one minute after creation, kept
 * 10) etc.

WP:BITE

 * 1) Needlessly bitey treatment of a kid who created an article about Elevator filming (hobby) (a YouTube craze), upset kid made a video about it; Timneu22 accused the kid of "vandalism" on User_talk:Elevatorsonly3
 * 2) Bitey treatment of editor with 20 edits at the time: ; see also Talk:Trilegal; article Trilegal was kept after AfD
 * 3) Needlessly harsh language ("pile of shit") in discussions about good-faith newbie article written in unencyclopedic style:, ,

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * NPP: "It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the log ... Working on the backlog eliminates complaints from editors that you tagged their page for deletion only two minutes after its creation. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author."
 * NPP: "Throughout the entire process of NP patrol, it is important to remember not to bite the newbies. ... It is also important to assume good faith as much as possible, or, minimally to assume incompetence instead of malice. ... Please do not be too hasty with certain speedy deletions, especially those lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3). Consensus has generally developed that writers unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines should have ten to fifteen minutes to fix the article before it is nominated for speedy deletion."
 * NPP: Speedy deletion is a tool which can easily be overused. Since speedy deletion removes a page without discussion, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete if there is any plausible reason that the article should be kept. In particular, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete using A7 for not being notable (in your opinion): an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, it only has to pass the much lower test of asserting importance or significance (whether it actually is notable is a subject for an AfD discussion, not a speedy deletion).
 * Special:NewPages: "don't bite the newcomers: cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can discourage new users. Consider using Friendly to welcome newcomers, and placing on their talk page if a first effort needs deleting; articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision."

Discussion initiated by Fred Bauder
See "New Page Patroller's Barnstar" at User:Timneu22 – awarded to himself, with the wording "You play whack-a-mole with terrible new pages like no one I've ever seen! Awesome!"
 * Complete discussion on Timneu22's talk page
 * "I'm simply not interested"
 * "I'm not concerned about this one bit"
 * "I just. Don't. Care"
 * Blanked, "I'm not in the conversation, so this isn't the place for it"

Discussion with Kudpung

 * Attempt to discuss by Kudpung re Articles for deletion/Paco Yunque
 * Blanked without responding
 * Another attempt to discuss the issues by Kudpung

Discussions with Jayen466

 * "Tim, you nominated Paco Yunque, created by a new editor, Bireswardas (talk · contribs), for deletion 6 minutes after the editor had created the article, with their first edit to Wikipedia. I would like you to consider the effect that this may have on a new contributor: it can be profoundly dispiriting. We have no way of knowing if the editor meant to expand the article further, or if they have been permanently discouraged from contributing here. The work is without question notable: (links to book sources). I would like you to stop speedying and Afd-ing new articles within minutes of creation, unless they involve serious BLP concerns or are clearly promotional articles."
 * Response: "I'd like to see more people patrolling so that the backlog articles don't simply fall through."
 * Second, longer discussion: "I've used CSD on articles that were three years old or three seconds old. CSD is CSD and AfD is AfD. The rules don't change. ... an article that was a pile of shit and incomprehensible nonsense. ... I'm done editing here.

Discussion with Wifione

 * Wifione's talk page " ridiculous PROD policies... I was unaware that PROD tags cannot be reapplied; it's ridiculous that they can just be removed...I hate prod... It's a waste of time."


 * Discussions at the Karl Ley article AfD


 * Full discussion at Timneu's talk page; "The nomination was valid, based on the text when it was nominated. You need to learn who 'new page patrollers' are before you post something insulting like 'please review CSD before tagging further pages'...Nothing was grossly incorrect. I 'do not' appreciate your work."Edit summary: "idiot", "know how to read?"


 * blanked without intent to discuss further

Discussion with Whpq
NOTE: Whpq is not certifying this dispute - see also Requests_for_comment/Timneu22.
 * Attempt to discuss by User:Whpq
 * Blanked without responding

Discussion with Atama and Wikidan61

 * 
 * Edit summary: "fuck prod''; "Now go play on someone else's talk page. I'm done with this (and prod - fuck it)"
 * Edit summary: prod sucks

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
 * 1)  --Kudpung (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) -- JN  466  03:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)    Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Procedural note: this certification has been placed at the bottom of the list as this user has substantially drafted this RfC/U; the certification itself is not in-line with requirements. The RfC/U was not deleted as minimum requirements have been met by the other certifiers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * 1) Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  &oelig; &trade; 12:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

You're all just wasting your time here, because I'm done with WP.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 13:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside views
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by Seb az86556
While I don't entirely agree with the examples given under "hasty tagging," and while know from my own experience at NPP that when one spends a lot of time going through the list, stuff like that happens (I honestly would have tagged at least two of the examples myself), I fully agree that the reaction towards criticism, concerns, or inquiries is totally unacceptable. This user needs to realize that one is fully accountable for one's actions, be it at NPP or elsewhere; the way to go about this is to either defend one's decision in a civil manner, or to say "yes, you're probably right, let me have a second look." Both the flippant remarks and the nonchalant I-don't-give-a-damn-attitude are not right. User should either change their modus operandi or quit.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Kudpung (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) -- JN 466  09:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)    Wifione    .......  Leave a message 
 * 5) &oelig; &trade; 12:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Perseus  8235 18:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by WikiDan61
Talk about beating a dead horse. The discussion of this behavior at User talk:Timneu22 has already driven this user into an undesired retirement. I don't think anything that happens here will affect that decision, so why bother?

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Syrthiss
While I am not overly happy with Timneu22's behavior as outlined in this RFC, and of his habit of blanking talkpage discussions, I think that this entire matter has been handled with the all the sensitivity of a very large rhino. If it had been handled better, I think you might have had a chance of achieving the stated desired outcome. Handled as it was, there was very little chance of that and a large chance of driving Timneu22 off wikipedia. From the outside, I saw essentially this RFC started on the user's talk page, as well as a SPI founded on shaky evidence (and declined by a CU for that reason) and something that looked very much like an outing of Timneu22's real life identity (now redacted).

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Syrthiss (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 13:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I was beginning to feel like the only person who was standing up for him; I'm glad to see I'm not alone. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Egg Centric (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Whpq
I had a note left on my talk page informing me of this RFC. I am not involved except that the person filing the RFC added my "dispute" as one of the items. I would not characterize my example as a dispute. I left my message at Timneu22's talk page because I felt the AFD for Paco Yunque was extremely sloppy, after seeing other sloppy nominations from Timneu22. Yes, I was actively ignored but I chose to let the matter drop and pursued it no further. As such, I cannot certify as requested.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Thparkth
I am a relative inclusionist who thinks that very often new editors get a raw experience from the speedy deletion process, and too often new page patrollers treat speedy-tagging like a multiplayer first-person shooter. I have disagreed with Timneu22 many times, over the deletion of specific articles (it was me who removed his speedy tag from swim ~ listed above) and over speedy deletion policy.

Given all this you might expect me to condemn him here, but that's not how I feel at all. Timneu22 is most definitely a net benefit to Wikipedia. He is intelligent and articulate, he learns from his mistakes, and he is driven by a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. He is very productive as a new page patroller, and he actually has a pretty low error rate. He is also a significant contributor and a valuable voice in deletion policy discussions.

Of course he makes mistakes - who doesn't? - but overall his contribution to this project is very valuable, and it would be a real loss if he was chased away. So I would say to him, there's always room for improvement, but your contributions here are valued and appreciated. Please don't quit.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Thparkth (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Egg Centric (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Marcus  Qwertyus   07:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  Perseus  8235  14:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) ScottyBerg (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by ScottyBerg
I've encountered Timneu22 several times with regard to CSD issues and new page patrolling, and I agree with the previous comment that he is a generally productive contributor. I was surprised to learn of this RfC, and dismayed that it's driven him off the project. I agree that he needs to calm down, but I think it's regretable that he has left.

New page patrolling is a wearisome task. I have done less and less of it. As a matter of fact, I find it hard to do for more than a few minutes at a time, even with Huggle. It's an endless battle and it's a losing one. I think that what we're seeing here is burnout as much as anything. That should have been recognized before this RfC was commenced with all guns blazing.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) ScottyBerg (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to close by Beeblebrox
Not completely outside as I have had several speedy deletion related discussion with Tim, but in any event, Tim has indicated a wish to simply retire, but does not seem willing to do so as long as people continue to comment here. So, if we stop posting here, the problem fixes itself. Not the best solution as we generally want to keep editors not drive them off, but it is the solution Tim has already agreed to. Therefore I would ask everyone to stop commenting on the outing or anything else, either here or on the talk page. If Tim should decide to return to editing at some future date we can re-open this RFC then, but continuing here now seems pointless as it is the only thing keeping Tim from completing his retirement.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Saves any aggro Egg Centric (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.