Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Timmeh 2

Editing stats for Timmeh as of 00:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC). General user info Username: Timmeh User groups: rollbacker First edit: Feb 14, 2007 00:18:21 Unique articles edited: 2,462 Average edits per page: 4.20 Total edits (including deleted): 10,329 Deleted edits: 111 Live edits: 10,218

Namespace totals Article	       6595	64.54% Talk	        900	8.81% User	        205	2.01% User talk	1605	15.71% Wikipedia	 748	7.32% Wikipedia talk	 66	0.65% File	         33	0.32% File talk	  3	0.03% Template	 43	0.42% Template talk	 20	0.20%

Month counts 2007/02	1	2007/03	0	2007/04	0	2007/05	10	2007/06	20	2007/07	38	2007/08	103	2007/09	228	2007/10	267	2007/11	393	2007/12	676	2008/01	670	2008/02	508	2008/03	508	2008/04	319	2008/05	87	2008/06	150	2008/07	72	2008/08	98	2008/09	23	2008/10	134	2008/11	378	2008/12	518	2009/01	597	2009/02	787	2009/03	908	2009/04	1084	2009/05	764	2009/06	877	Logs Accounts created: 6 Pages moved: 33 Pages patrolled: 1 Files uploaded: 16 Top edited articles Article

* 381 - United_States_presidential_election,_2008 * 290 - Sum_41 * 265 - Escape_the_Fate * 196 - Yellowcard * 190 - Panic_at_the_Disco * 174 - Rise_Against * 149 - Appeal_to_Reason * 129 - Blink-182 * 124 - Three_Days_Grace * 117 - Papa_Roach

Talk

* 212 - United_States_presidential_election,_2008 * 33 - United_States_presidential_election,_2012 * 26 - Linkin_Park * 22 - 21st_Century_Breakdown * 21 - Green_Day * 19 - Blink-182 * 18 - My_Chemical_Romance * 17 - Minutes_to_Midnight_(album) * 17 - Panic!_at_the_Disco * 16 - United_States_presidential_election,_2008/Backgrou...

User

* 104 - Timmeh * 12 - Timmeh/monobook.js   * 11 - Timmeh/GA * 11 - Timmeh/title * 10 - Timmeh/Redlink * 9 - Timmeh/rfasandbox * 7 - Timmeh/Banner * 6 - Timmeh/AFD * 3 - Timmeh/signature * 3 - Timmeh/talk_archive_nav

User talk

* 243 - Timmeh * 35 - DougsTech * 27 - Hoponpop69 * 21 - Timmeh/Header * 15 - Xsyner * 8 - Alex15alex * 7 - Knight_Whitefire * 7 - ThinkBlue * 7 - Download * 7 - Matt_14

Wikipedia

* 33 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 33 - Good_article_nominations * 29 - Articles_for_deletion/United_States_presidential_e... * 29 - Administrators'_noticeboard * 27 - Requests_for_page_protection * 16 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 12 - Editor_review/Timmeh * 11 - Good_articles * 9 - Requests_for_adminship/Camaron1 * 8 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-29_United_States_pre...

Wikipedia talk

* 36 - Requests_for_adminship * 5 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage * 3 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 3 - Comments_in_Local_Time * 3 - What_Wikipedia_is_not * 3 - WikiProject_Music * 2 - WikiProject_Rock_music * 2 - WikiProject_Albums * 2 - Citing_sources * 2 - Username_policy

File

* 4 - Fat_Lip.ogg * 3 - Sp_crazy.jpg * 3 - Re-Education_(Through_Labor).ogg * 2 - AP-TiS.jpg * 2 - The_Good_Left_Undone.jpg * 2 - SUM_41_UNDERCLASS_HERO.jpg * 2 - Sp3_final.jpg * 2 - Paperwalls.jpg * 2 - Midget_Tossing.jpg * 2 - Lights_And_Sounds.ogg

File talk

* 2 - 2008_General_Election_Results_by_County.PNG * 1 - AP-TiS.jpg

Template

* 9 - Rise_Against * 9 - Sum_41 * 4 - Yellowcard * 3 - Infobox_Election * 3 - Infobox_Single/sandbox * 2 - Three_Days_Grace * 2 - 2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries_delegate_co... * 1 - 12_Stones * 1 - Story_of_the_Year * 1 - Uw-advert1

Template talk

* 8 - Infobox_Single * 5 - Infobox_Election * 4 - Infobox_Musical_artist * 2 - Rise_Against * 1 - User_Wikipedian_For

WT:RFA
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship (diff)

The discussion obviously should've belonged to here?--Caspian blue 00:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved it here. Tim  meh  21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Timmeh_2
So we have a reasonably solid candidate, User:Timmeh up for RfA. Some months back, this candidate voiced his opposition to DougsTech's behavior at RfA. Many admins, myself included, voiced the exact same concerns in the same threads. Eventually, DougsTech was banned for being a troll, which is precisely what those of us frustrated with his behavior had been calling him out for being all along. Now we have a situation where a qualified editor up for RfA is garnering significant opposition in his RfA for calling out Dougstech for being exactly what many of us thought he was. Worse, he has received at least one oppose for agreeing with Majorly's accurate assessment of the situation.

I recognize that reasonable people had a diverse array of views regarding DougsTech, and that a prevalent view circulating was approximately "he is annoying, but just ignore him". But many of us did not share that view, and as the countless threads that appeared here and elsewhere specifically about DougsTech can attest, the community was far from settled on DougsTech simply being someone who should just be ignored... a view of things which in retrospect has even less weight now in light of DougsTech's ban.

If you're someone who feels DougsTech should have been free to air his views, wouldn't you rationally also feel that Timmeh has the same freedom? Wouldn't opposing him for voicing his views, which turned out to be correct, simply be a case of retribution? Does it make sense for an editor to face sanctions (in the form of a failed RfA) for voicing views which were also popular and voiced by many admins, when said admins cannot face any sanctions for our involvement for the simple fact that we did nothing wrong?

Personally, I see a case of widespread opposition based entirely on retribution and bad faith. Nothing new here, of course, but something worth addressing regardless. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when is a failed RFA a sanction?!? He's seeking extra access- lack of getting it cannot reasonably be considered a penalty of any kind.  Friday (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well put. Although saying "he was just doing what DougTech did" probably isn't true or a good idea, as DougTech got blocked. But I believe that much of the oppose is because of "unneeded drama" supposedly fueled by Timmeh, rather than Timmeh's actual position on the matter (to clarify; they aren't opposing because of the reason Timeh opposed DougTech, but rather the way (s)he went about it). The opposes are (almost) completely unfair, and hopefully other users will see so. Isn't it funny that DougTech seems to be managing to create opposition at RfA even after he's banned...? ;) - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At Friday It is a sanction in that sense that those of us with the extra buttons do not lose them for expressing the same opinions, and being involved in the same threads. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have a way for the community to vote no confidence in a standing admin. We do have a means to vote no confidence on a candidate.  Friday (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the parallel. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nor do we have the ability to curb poorly reasoned opposition. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If the opposition is really poorly reasoned, then it will be weighted accordingly by the closing crat. There is no point in opening this discussion up again, it will always happen that people oppose based on reasons that seem unreasonable to some and never ever has a thread at this talk page change this the slightest. It only serves to extend the drama this RFA already suffers from to other places, something that we should try to avoid. Let's keep discussion of a certain RFA at that RFA's talk page, please. Regards  So Why  16:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. RfA is, in the final analysis, the community's judgment on whether a given user should have a small measure of authority over it. As it stands now, the community is not so willing. End of story. There is no one who can, or should be able to, force the community to accept a candidate for adminship it is not willing to accept. The community is judge, and jury, and the closing 'crat has a very limited role of weighing the community's judgment and evaluating and implementing the result.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And therein lies our greatest problem. That we consider the mind bogglingly small percentage of people who pay attention to this or any of the other voting pages to represent "the community" without requiring those considered to represent "the community" to themselves meet a set qualification is how we end up with retribution voting, and the arbitrary determination of when someone over the age of 18 may or may not be considered an adult, and allow that to stand as a valid judgement. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you started this section just to bitch about how messed up you think the RfA process is, I think you should find a better way to waste your time. Of course, RfA only attracts a small % of the community. Only a small percentage of the community gives a fuck. It's not a broken or messed up process until we've got a shortage of admins because of it. AFAIK, everyone up for RfA right now aside from Timmeh is passing. Hardly seems broken or "impossible" to pass to me.-- Koji †  17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "oh, wah-wah". Really? That's your edit summary... Add that to the list of my gripes then. I started the thread to point out that we're punishing Timmeh for being right, and being frustrated that "the community" was protecting the troll. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If I knew what a gripe was, I'd probably be upset, or have a very pleasent sense of self-satisfaction (like he first time somone called me flippant and I looked it up, lmao'd). Anyway, you agreeing with some guy is no reason to make assumptions of people's motivations. ITT, you threw WP:AGF out the window and assumed all the people opposing didn't know what they were talking about, and wanted to fail him as a punishment. I dare say you're acting like a dick.-- Koji †  18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not exactly convincing me to AGF with that kind of commentary. However, you are providing a fine example of the type of people, the type of thinking, and the type of behavior prevalent throughout the opposition. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You really consider me part of the opposition? I don't have a problem with Timmeh, I just do what amuses me. I have a problem with you sitting on your high horse when you're actually guilty of what you're accusing everyone else for.-- Koji †  19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So you said that you're just fooling around. If this is how you want to treat RfA, than fine, although I don't approve of it any more than I approve of your vote at the RfA in question, but please stop this rudeness to Hiberniantears, at least they're voicing their opinion in a civil, well-mannered way. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Civil is a relative word.-- Koji †  19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: given that doing something about Dougstech was broadly popular, and also given that a good many editors were vocal about that who don't appear to have generated this kind of opposition, and also given that I see a good few names in the oppose list who I don't see as the types to oppose an RfA in petty retribution, is there any chance that in the particular case it was the way in which the candidate went about challenging Dougstech which is the issue here and not simply the matter of having challenged him? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm opposing. I feel that Timmeh wasn't letting the fire burn out, he was merrily throwing gasoline on it, and showed a heavyhanded touch that I would hate to see in an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All you need to do is actually read what people actually wrote. Then it's fairly clear that yes, a lot of the opposers are complaining of the way it was handled, not about someone disagreeing with what Dougstech was doing.  This should be pretty obvious. Friday (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose too many admins. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Request Can this thread be moved to my RFA's talk page, where it belongs? Tim meh  00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Responding to question on my talk page
Hi Dank. I was going to wait until after my RFA concludes to ask you this, but I see no good reason not to do it now. I do mean this in the nicest way, and I am by no means trying to get you to strike your oppose. Would you mind explaining how you think having a pet peeves list on my user page would impair my ability to be an effective admin? Thanks. Tim meh  23:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you asking at all. Do you mind if I move this conversation to the talk page of your RFA? - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Go right ahead. Tim  meh  00:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Suppose someone's coming to your talk page to ask a question, and then they see they've committed one of the sins you mention: they didn't use the preview button, which I guess means they took two edits to say what might have been said in one, or they got their capitalization wrong.  What if they didn't respond in a timely way to one of your questions ("When editors don't respond to talk page messages or questions") or they did something different than you asked, without explaining themselves to you beforehand ("completely ignore my advice without an explanation").  Is this likely to make them hesitant to talk with you?  Do you feel that keeping lines of communication open is important for an admin?  My experience is different, I guess; editors virtually never explain themselves to me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Timmeh, I didn't get around to explaining my stance on that, either. Dan has covered part of what I was thinking about the list, too, that it makes you less approachable, particularly to new editors.  But, a lack of approachability isn't a sin in its own right, of course, there are admins who just . . . aren't.  I think what strikes me most about the list is the assumption that other people should be doing things just right and to your liking—that is, in my view, an immature way to think the world should be!  It never ever ever works like that.  And read numbers 1 to 3, and then be really critical when you read number 4.  Does anything strike you as slightly contradictory?  As for the short-sighted bit that I mentioned, you specifically say . . . "This is an encyclopedia after all."  You seem to have missed the point . . . this is a collaborative encyclopaedia, this is an encyclopaedia bringing the strengths and weaknesses of hundreds of people together, none of whom are proper editors, some of whom can't spell to save their lives, or for whom English isn't their first language.  Some of whom really want to help out, but just haven't quite worked things out yet.  That's what you're here for, to bring your strengths and weaknesses and help us all out . . . not to criticise the weaknesses of others that happen to be strong points for you.  If this were a job and other editors were getting paid the same as you but kept screwing up, then I can imagine this annoying you.  In any case, I get the impression that you rather like fixing typos, ;-)  If it weren't for the ones who never preview and can't spell, think of all the fun you would have missed out on!  Anyway, I hope that helps and maybe you have a better understanding of some of the neutrals and opposes that are coming up.   Mae din \talk 07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with all of that (and well put!), but on the other hand, I also see lots of evidence of a softer, approachable Timmeh, which is why I said I'd be supporting if I went with my gut ... if forced to guess, I'd guess that you'll wrestle with the contradictions for a while and then wind up being a fine admin in the end. But I don't like predictions, speculation and armchair psychoanalysis at RFA, which is what I meant by "fairness" ... I just try to read what you've written, and if there are internal conflicts or apparent roadblocks to effectiveness or communication, then I generally ask the candidate to come back in 3 months and see if the troubling things are still there ... sometimes what I'm looking at isn't a good indicator of future performance, but I aim for fairness, for treating similar candidates in similar ways, and waiting 3 months usually produces the right answer like magic ... time always tells.  The support you're getting in this RFA suggests to me that, if you think about this stuff and work on it, you'll get through RFA unscathed in 3 months. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)