Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timmeh 2

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

Timmeh

Final (55/37/10): Withdrawn by candidate. – (iMatthew • talk) at 23:59, 25 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 Wikipedia. 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)

• Withdrawal statement My RFA now looks as if there is about zero chance of it passing. Therefore, I am withdrawing. I'd like to thank, first and foremost, my nominator WereSpielChequers for continually providing extremely helpful advice from his review of me during my editor review several weeks ago, up to now. I'd also like to thank everyone who participated in the RFA, especially those opposers who provided useful and insightful advice. I believe that in addition to being a test of a candidate's judgment and ability to handle the tools when faced with all kinds of people and comments, an RFA is also a very important learning experience, one that in many ways prepares a candidate to be an admin. The issues that got me the most opposes were nothing that couldn't be learned from quickly and easily. Although I can guarantee that I won't repeat the "offenses" that are the basis of many opposes, a portion of the community feels they can't trust me in that. I respect that, and in a few months I'll still possess the knowledge I gained during this RFA, so no harm is done, save for the temporary prevention of a "good contributor" from helping out more. I shall endeavor to improve in all areas, as I have always done, but I shall do it most in those areas where serious concerns were raised. Thank you, everyone, for your time and thoughts, and I hope to see everyone around in the future. Timmeh 23:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could someone please close the RFA? Thanks. Timmeh 23:54, 25 June 2009 (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 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia community. Therefore, their privilege of editing Wikipedia 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.

Questions from Tony1

7. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?

A: I believe the idea is a good one, which would help users make admins more accountable for their actions. There could be users who abuse the system, but the safeguards put in requiring diffs and specific policy breaches seem to mostly eliminate that chance. Overall, I think it's a very good idea that looks good in theory. Also, since it does not "issue binding decisions, enforcement or judgements on any Wikipedian", I see no problem with having it. I would support such an initiative.

8. Forgive my directness: you are on the young side. In terms of dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?

A: Cool down blocks should never be used, so blocking would not be an option in this case. I believe that a firm strike through and apology request would be a viable alternative, and probably the best one. Unless the situation is resulting in disruption to Wikipedia's processes and the building of the encyclopedia, I think the alternative shown is the correct course of action. If the situation and rude remarks are repeated soon after, a topic ban, or even a short block, for the uncivil editor may be appropriate, in order to prevent the other editor's rights (which I mentioned in the answer to Q4) from being continually infringed upon.

Additional optional questions from Triplestop

9. Consider the following situation: A user commits highly offensive and egregious vandalism, however they only do it once a week and blank the warnings from their talk page. You notice that this activity has been going on for months. Between their vandalism acts they have good contributions. What would you do?

A: The account looks like it could be compromised in this case, with a hacker or someone else using it only once a week. In such a situation, it is not improbable that the owner would not know of the vandalism being committed. In that case, I'd send an email if possible, making sure the owner is aware of the once-a-week vandalism and explaining how it is hurting the project. If I received no response or if email wasn't enabled and the vandalism continued, I would have no choice but to block the account to prevent further vandalism and disruption. A second block would be indefinite, accompanied by another email letting the owner know of the indefinite block and that he would be able to create another account if the first account was in fact compromised.

10. What is your favorite color and why?

A: Actually, I don't really have a favorite color. I do like dark red and blue, but I don't have an absolute favorite. Sorry to disappoint you.

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

11a. What policy areas have you contributed to?

A. I made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism here supporting incorporating it as a guideline. I can't remember any other policy area contributions at the moment.

11b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?

A. I believe all the current policies are well-written right now. Of course, they're not perfect, and that's why the ignore all rules policy exists. One guideline I proposed a change to and would like to change a bit is Wikipedia:Music samples. My comment can be seen on the talk page

11c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?

A. Well, XFDs are often closed per WP:SNOW because consensus is very clearly leaning to one option, so much so that there is basically no chance of consensus changing to the other option. Administrators definitely use WP:SNOW as a common sense reason to close XFDs, and I think it definitely has weight in the discussions. The outcomes and arguments to avoid essays are cited much less often in XFD debates, but they do provide useful advice during the debate, especially arguments to avoid. I'm sure closing admins take such an essay into account when determining consensus and which arguments are reasonable in XFDs.

11d. Can WikiProject policies widen or narrow community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a particular level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport participants be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written)?

A. I'll address your examples. For the first, all articles must comply with the general notability guideline to be notable; nothing the WikiPorjects can say about notability will change that. So, the short answer for your first example is no. For the second, the short answer is also no. If notability is clearly established by significant coverage in reliable sources, an existing article cannot be deleted or made a redirect. WikiProjects are not representative of consensus, and therefore cannot override, widen, or narrow actual policies or guidelines.

Optional question from Sky Attacker

12. Consider the following situation: You believe that a sysop has been taking advantage of their admin rights in some way. There is insufficient strong evidence to take the matter to ANI or elsewhere and when you leave them a message on their talk page they ignore you. What would you do?

A. That does leave few options. If talk page messaging doesn't work and the admin continues taking advantage of his tools, I would file a RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges. Of course, if this is included in "elsewhere", I would instead get a third opinion on the issue. If the third person is in agreement, I would ask another admin, if possible someone whom the abusive admin trusts, to try to contact the admin in question on his talk page. If all that fails, an email would be appropriate from someone whom the admin trusts but who still thinks he's abusing his powers. Really, if there's enough evidence to get one or two unrelated editors to agree with me about the abuse, there likely would be enough to file a report at ANI or RFC. If I ask other editors for comment and they disagree with me, there's really nothing I can do, save for requesting arbitration, which is always a last resort.

Optional question from Jeff G.

13. On 1 June 2007, you uploaded File:Ycpaperwalls.jpg[1], which was deleted on 7 August 2007 after Pushmonkey uploaded it twice more and reverted one version of it[2]. About 22 hours later, you uploaded it again, twice. It was deleted again on 19 September 2007. Were the deletions justified, what have you learned from them, and what would you do differently in the future?

A. Wow, that was a very long time ago, and the image was my first upload too. That brings back some memories. Anyway, the deletions were justified. I honestly don't remember if I added a non-free use rationale when I originally uploaded it. So, its deletion according to the "missing non-free use rationale" criterion occurred either because of my neglect to add one, or Pushmonkey's possible removal of the one I added. Apparently, I was able to add a non-free use rationale soon after the image was deleted, and that may be why I uploaded it again. After a while, Wickethewok removed the image from the Yellowcard article probably according to the first of the non-free content criteria. Therefore, it was orphaned and appropriately deleted per WP:CSD#I5. As a result, I definitely gained a better understanding of the non-free content criteria and when and where non-free images should and should not be used. Ever since soon after that image was deleted for the last time, I have been more careful with using non-free images, as they are only to be used in place of free images when absolutely necessary. Really, I've learned almost everything I know about images and copyright since then, as it was the very first image I ever uploaded.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• 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

Approximately one half of the oppose votes here appear to focus either on the user:DougsTech issue or on a postulated immaturity of the editor. I would hope that the closing 'crat, and further !voters, will look beyond this one episode. And yes, I have supported and no, I do not know him/her personally. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The concerns are valid, in my view. Adminship is not just about what you do, but how you do it, and Timmeh didn't show much style on the DT incident.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A good percentage of all RfAs hinge on the community's perception of an editor's level of maturity. I'd argue that it's one of the most important things we discuss here. Dekimasuよ! 11:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. – (iMatthew • talk) at 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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^"talk" 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 | ^Talk 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   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)

7. Per previous interaction which was extremely positive. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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)

    Thanks for assuming good faith. I think some of the opposers may have forgotten to do the same, or do it to the same extent. I of course always do research into every AFD to attempt to find reliable sources. Per above is shorthand for something like, "I researched the subject and came to the same conclusion as those above me." Timmeh 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Here Timmeh applies good faith to the supporters of himself and questions the opposers good faith. Timmeh, Please apply the simple pleasure of good faith to the people that also oppose you. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

    Please accept my apologies. I did not mean to make it come off in such a way. I was specifically talking about Laser Brain's statement that I "clearly didn't look" for sources in an AFD. It seemed a bit like LB was not AGF in that statement. I of course respect all the opposes and their reasoning, including yours, but I was offended by LB's quoted statement. Timmeh 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Timmeh - if that comment offended you then adminship may not be best for you. Trust me - the grief gets a lot worse that comment which, to be honest, I didn't really find offensive in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, that was a poor response on my part, especially to someone else rather than to LB directly. Believe me, it's not like I can't handle it. It was just a very poor decision to respond in such a way. My first response to LB was the extent to which I should have commented on his oppose. I hope everyone involved can accept my apology and an assurance I will not blow up a comment like that into what is probably now considered an insult directed at LB and the other opposers. If you think I have offended LB in any way with my comments, I'll send him a personal apology by email. Timmeh 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Why apologise? You said you were offended - I am offended by many things that go on here, but it's the way you handle yourself that matters. I think you handled yourself fine - it is utterly shameful people feel the need to make assumptions about you when they clearly know nothing about you whatsoever. The best person who knows you is yourself - do you really think you need to apologise for someone else's behaviour? I don't think so. RFA, as we can see, is a horrible place with some really not very nice people in it, and you should not be forced to have to apologise to anyone. There are a great many admins here who throw tantrums at the slightest offence, yet still manage to get on fine on a day to day business. We're all human here - anyone who expects more should not be allowed to participate here. Majorly talk 21:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    I think you've made it clear you "apologise" (a poor term and I acknowledge Majorly's comments above) - good on you and my respect to you in the way you've handled your small error of judgement. I would also say that generally you should keep things on Wikipedia rather than email if possible. But then my opinion in regards to on-wiki and off-wiki communication is apparently wrong, so you'd do best ignoring any "advice" from me to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    How big must a "small" error of judgment be before it holds enough weight to override a candidate's past experience and actions and cause you to retract your support !vote? I admit I was wrong, but I don't think it should be that big of a deal, especially considering the circumstances. Timmeh 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    I guess the answer is in Beeblebrox's RFA where one bad error of judgement scuppered it - and I might add to a fine editor like yourself. Timmeh, I know this is stressful, I know how you probably feel a bit cheesed off when you've given so much work and effort to Wikipedia, and that you believe you will be brilliant with the extra tools. I'm really sorry, honestly I really am, and I'm sure we all agree the adminship process is knackered. But please note I'm not opposing. Pedro :  Chat  22:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

11. 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 Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Tan | 39 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the advice. I will definitely remember it and try to avoid drama-ridden debates in the future. Timmeh 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

12. Support - Thoroughly unconvinced of the opposition. T is a net positive through and through. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Support - I think I can trust you. :) – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Moved to neutral, again.

13. Support No reason you couldn'e be trusted, and your answer to Q4 was superb. MacMed^talk_stalk 01:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - Per excellent answer to Q4. (X! · talk)  · @115  ·  01:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Support, candidate seems fine. Wizardman 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I don't see any major problems that are big enough. Triplestop (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Support as a net positive, any negatives for this person are extremely minor. Tavix |  Talk  04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Support --Xavexgoem (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Support as net positive. The opposition does not highlight any major issues to me. --Taelus (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Struck comment above as there are some concerns now, including the reply to Support #10, however still in my mind net positive. --Taelus (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

20. Support Seen him around and trust him. MBisanz ^talk 09:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - per Timmeh's good response to my neutral !vote, his sensible question answers, and his overall record of good contributions, I'm now sufficiently comfortable that he'd be a definite net positive with admin tools. There are issues, but they are minor. Think before you act, avoid unnecessary arguments, and you'll be a great admin. Best of luck. ~ mazca ^talk 10:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support The DougsTech stuff seems to be an isolated chain of incidents, and RfA especially gets people especially stressed out whether they are in the ring or are commenting. I don't view it as an issue because of which Timmeh shouldn't be an administrator because of those circumstances. Maxim_(talk) 12:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Support tempered, weakened, and saddened by the DougsTech issues. One must hope that that was an aberration or a flaw the candidate has grown beyond.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Support No concerns. I've seen him around, and worked in a few areas with him and never had a problem. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Weak support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has four barnstars on userpage and no blocks on the log; however, User:David Fuchs raises a serious concern below with regards to WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, can see no reason to oppose. --Aqwis (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
27. Support, excellent work at United States presidential election, 2008 and excellent answer to Q4. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Why not? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
29. Support, interacts positively with all editors, should have wide support from every little corner of Wikipedia. No need to agree with him 100% on every minor detail. Definitely a positive for the project. Drawn Some (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Good editor. I really think the comment made above has been blown way out of proportion. I love you Pedro, but you coined the term 'net' - which means a cumulative view. One comment should not an RfA tank. Law _{type! snype?} 22:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Weak support - a few concerns, but should be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. Satisfied with answers to the questions. -- œ^™ 00:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Yea, I know the oppose arguments, and indeed I have been on the opposite side on a few occasions of Timmths stance. But I've seen his work in many areas, and while I don't always agree with his viewpoint, he does think things through. He's polite, considerate, and usually willing to listen to reason. I don't believe he'll use the tools to any detriment, and while I realize there may be some growing pains, I think the potential for good things is there. I don't often end up on the opposite side of Pedro, but I think in this case that Timmeh has the ability to make a good admin. I also trust the nom, and I figure that he has the best handle on the situation, ... so all things considered - I support. — Ched :  ?  02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    comment re: the Dougs Tech era. I really think it is time to put that situation behind us. Prior to the attack on Ryulong, the community was fairly well divided. Some supported his "right" to vote in oppose, others felt his posts were disruptive. Regardless of the position that you held, that time is behind us. I think it is wrong to judge a candidate on an individual stance on a situation that was so clearly divided amongst the community. I think it is time to move on, and judge this candidate by his contributions, his efforts, and his desire to improve the site. — Ched :  ?  02:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

34. Support - A few concerns about maturity (this is just an overall impression, so I really don't have anything to go on), but overall, I see Timmeh as a fine editor, and a net positive as a sysop. NW (Talk) 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Net positive. wadester16 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Tentative support—Although you're young, I'm impressed with your skill-base and relative maturity. I like the fact that you're a content editor ... apparently a promising one. However, I'm concerned at issues raised in the Oppose section, such as Laser brain's. (Your GA nomination, linked above, was sitting there lonely yesterday; I think it's good.) Tony (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Support and strongly, I might add. Timmeh has helped me be a better Wikipedian, by proding me to put more thought into my edits. I recently gave him a barnstar for his efforts on an article he and I have both worked on. I think he will make a fine Admin. Michaelh2001 (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Support You didn't handle the DougsTech thing correctly but from what I've seen of you around here I don't think you would have abused the tools in the dispute with him, nor do I think you would abuse the tools in any other manner. ThemFromSpace 05:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Weak support I don't like the fact that this candidate is being pilloried for the Dougstech issue. More substantive support later (or a change of heart) if the situation merits it. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
40. Total support²⁶. He is 10¹⁶⁰ times more civil than me. He fits well in the scene. Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact the Encyclopedian Embassy 09:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
41. Support While one can argue about the DougsTech issue, I do not see outright misbehaviour from his side. Satisfying answers to questions, and indication he's willing to learn from mistakes. The latter is exactly what I would like to see in admins. --Pgallert (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I think the community can trust you to not abuse the tools. hmwithτ 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
43. Support No problems here. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. Opposes seem mostly frivolous. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. I see two arguments presented below against Timmeh: (a) his role in the DougsTech problem and (b) his "immaturity". I have seen neither argument backed sufficiently with diffs or with anything, especially the second argument. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
46. Support No problems with any of the issues highlighted in the oppose section. You cannot in any serious way punish this guy for making the right call on DougTech, nor have I seen any other evidence which makes obvious any immaturity. Net positive, cheers. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
47. Support This user appears to have a good knowledge of how to handle incidents on Wikipedia. I also agree with Cyclonenim above, he made the right call on DougsTech.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
48. Support good answers to questions and should do well - the lesson that any prospective admin will take away from the opposes is to avoid any and all conflict; any such being in effect a no-win situation. I would rather see what an editor does under conflict, than punish the editor for having the gumption to wade in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
49. Support RFA seems good. Good Luck. America69 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
50. Support per most of the answers (especially 4 and 13), per Koji's oppose 9, and per WP:NETPOSITIVE. Good luck.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Don't agree with his actions concerning DougTech but overall seems a quality editor and would likely make good use of the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - Timmeh knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
53. Why the hell not? Pmlinediter  ^Talk 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Although I've not had any direct interaction with the candidate, my impression is that his contribs have helped the project. His answers are articulate and on-target, for the most part. Is he perfect? No, but let's keep the big picture in mind – does the condidate understand and correctly apply Wikipedia policies; have the temperament and experience to wield the mop; and can he be trusted to use the extra buttons constructively? For me, the answer is most definitely yes.  JGHowes  ^talk 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - Candidate is here to build the encyclopedia. Timmeh, I think you've learned from this RfA how NOT to respond (possibly at all) to various styles of contentious editors. --StaniStani  22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    Why do believe that it's acceptable to call other editors "contentious", in view of the fact that the civility police's current practice is to block for "sycophantic"? Would you agree that you deserve to be blocked for making a "personal attack"? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    Malleus, do you mind if I put a more positive spin on that? When you compare the rationales on both sides in close cases, including this one, you may come to the conclusion that RFA isn't working right, because the supporters seem smarter than the "contentious" opposers. My take on this is that that's because it's easier to sound wise when you're supporting ... "yes, I agree, what a nice chap" ... than when you're opposing. It would be obnoxious to say "we always get it right at RFA" ... that would step on the toes of the people who don't pass and who vote the "wrong" way ... but in this one, I think both sides have very solid positions. See the talk page, for instance. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    I make no judgement about whether both sides have solid positions or not. I do, however, take exception to supporters abusing opposers, or indeed the reverse. It ought to be perfectly easy to register a vote without attempting to insult those who do not share one's opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 25 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 ^Talk/_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 / ^C)} 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   See his editor review linked above.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, I read it, but it doesn't sufficiently answer my question. If the extent of his errors were a few misapplied no-context tags back in March, I hardly see this as a red flag. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:15, 22 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 [3] and engage in borderline trolling and other dramatics was utterly unhelpful [4] . 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 Wikipedia 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)

4. Oppose the Dougstech issue does bother me, per CoM above. Looking through the candidate's AfD contributions, I see a frightening number of nominations where he either didn't look for sources, or the discussion veered towards a merge; AfD is not cleanup, and editors should propose merges, et al before taking them to AfD. It's a waste of everyone's time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   I have proposed merges outside AFD, including this, and although some of my nominations have resulted in redirects instead of deletes, a majority of my recent ones have resulted in deletion. Timmeh 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose Per Skinwalker and ChildofMidnight. Your GA work is good, but I believe your actions in the DougsTech fiasco were immature and unhelpful at best. Adminship requires a nuanced touch, a high degree of situational cluefulness and the ability to minimize disruption and drama by de-escalating conflict as much as possible. At this time, I do not believe you have sufficiently demonstrated these abilities. Bullzeye ^contribs 15:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Per much of the above. Also by his own admission he's still a kid, so he should be scrutinized for kid-like behavior. There seems to be plenty of evidence of kid-like behavior in the above opposes. Just to head off possible objections: Yes, I understand that he says he's over 18. I don't care much about how politicians in some particular country define adulthood- I care more about what science says on the issue. There is lots of evidence that the "adult brain" develops closer to the age of 25 than the age of 18. So, those in that in-between group should still be scrutinized to see whether they behave more like a kid or more like an adult. Friday (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, based on my observations of his interactions with other editors. Jonathunder (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Skinwalker. A dramafest was made out of someting which should have been ignored. Otherwise, I have no problems with this editor and look forward to supporting at a later date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   I've told myself I won't respond to any opposes, but I just want to say, to all those who have strong concerns about my involvement in the DougsTech issue, that although I probably involved myself a bit too much in all the drama, no policies were broken and the whole thing was resolved peacefully. Also, after realizing I became too involved with the DougsTech issue, I intentionally stayed away from this huge dramafest, save for a comment at the end. Timmeh 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   I would say some wikipedia etiquetts were broken, like harrasment of another user, destruction of their talk page, hounding..and likely a couple more.. how was the whole thing resolved peacefully? Did you apologise? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

   To put it into context, for the sake of whoever doesn't know: DougsTech was a user who has since been banned for exhausting community patience, for offences including harrassment, incivility, and trolling. He trolled RFA from the moment he made his first edit there, and like all people who troll RFA, he has ended up banned. History only repeats itself. As for the issue here, Timmeh's involvement was incredibly mild at best. Even so, the fact he was trying to encourage DougsTech to start writing articles instead of being a pest should be supported, not opposed. One of the reasons I supported in fact. Even people who stood up for DougsTech saw how irritating he was, even if they thought the "principle" of letting him say whatever he wanted, regardless of its merit, was more important than the process's integrity. I don't understand these types of opposes anyway. "I have no problems with this editor and look forward to supporting at a later date" - why not support now? What difference will a few months make? Majorly talk 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry to be picky Marjorly, but I would like a reply regarding these concerns from Timmeh, (Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

   I agree with what Majorly said. Can you show where I was harassing DougsTech or destroying his talk page? I believe I argued my point civilly at ANI, and if I was hounding or harassing DougsTech, he made no mention of it. There were definitely plenty of other editors just as involved as I, and I don't think anyone involved should be given more credit than anyone else. The whole debacle was a mistake. Timmeh 19:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   The whole debacle was a mistake... but it is your actions that are important here. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

   I don't think that DT's ban is relevant to the discussion; it merely means that Timmeh is "too much indebted to the event for his acquittal". Adminship requires a light, nuanced hand, which Timmeh did not show in his interaction with DT. Based on that, I'm opposing. I've seen that a heavyhanded admin can be a real problem around here, when he gets on a specific user (I'm thinking of Aitias's little difficulties, which lost us a good editor). I'm not saying I'd oppose Timmeh in future, I'm simply saying that his interaction with DT raises concerns, and I'd rather see him post more of a track record before getting the mop. I'm even less assured by his comment in reply to me, I don't think the standard should be whether "policies were broken". As for Majorly's comment, well, I'm concerned enough by this one incident to oppose, but recognize the editor's good work, and I'm hoping this drops behind the horizon without repetition.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose Because I can.--Koji† 19:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Because you can?　What's that supposed to mean? Triplestop (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   What an unpleasant thing to do, KojiDude. Please reconsider; at least put a more helpful rationale to give the candidate some idea of why you think he isn't suited. "Because I can" sounds juvenile and immature at best. Majorly talk 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Majorly, I agree totally with you. But, as you well know, so will the closing 'crat. PS please note I have already supported this candidate. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose, I highly value the candidate's article contributions but I have a general concern about lack of maturity and careful reasoning. AfD participation like this concerns me; the candidate opines "delete" and says there are no sources but he clearly didn't look. This feeds into the groupthink concern Skinwalker mentions above (agree with the group until proven otherwise). Also, the "pet peeves" list on the candidate's userpage seems immature. If people ignoring your advice bothers you that much, you may find adminship boiling your blood a bit more often than is ideal. --Laser brain (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    In fact I did look. Paul Erik looked a bit deeper and found some book sources. I would not have !voted delete if I did not feel I sufficiently looked for sources. Timmeh 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    To clarify and frame my comment more as constructive criticism: Your AfD involvement, including my example, isn't indicative of careful research and consideration. Finding sources for that particular topic was easy, so the appearance is that you either didn't look or didn't look carefully. Careful research and reasoning is an essential skill for administrators, lest you take incorrect actions. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose.As per his involvment in the dougtech debacle and general issues of maturity as mentioned by other editors. Adminship is a big deal and he is not ready. In my opinion and according to my expectations. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC))
12. Weak oppose due to nagging issues regarding maturity/temperament. Overall I see many positive contributions and I am largely satisfied with the answers to the questions but I am not convinced the user has the maturity level I am looking for in admins. Shereth 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
13. The hypocrisy evident in the comments made following support #10 make it evident that this candidate is not yet ready to assume a position of authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Bullzeye and Wehwalt. Martinp (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose per the comment cited by Malleus Fatuorum. I don't normally oppose RFAs, or visit them at all, but I found myself here, and, "Thanks for assuming good faith. I think some of the opposers may have forgotten to do the same, or do it to the same extent," made me cringe.

    If the candidate can put that kind of attitude firmly behind him, then a future RFA could be a different story. A big part of what's on display in one's RFA is how one reacts to opposition. This was not how one should react to opposition, nor an attitude to display when standing for a position where one will be called on to resolve disputes, and not to escalate them. Learn how to pour oil on water, and not kerosene on fires. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    I did clarify and then apologize, and I still don't understand how one small error of a comment can override all my other contributions. But thanks for the good advice anyway. I'll take it to heart, and I'll know not to make such a comment a second time. Timmeh 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    It's true, you did, and that's good. I don't mean to discount your other contributions, it's just that most contributions can be made without special buttons. Part of being an admin, it seems to me, is being called upon to attend to ugly situations. Messing up and then recognizing it is good; but messing up in one's RFA is likely to be magnified a bit. An RFA is, in a way, a microcosm of what you'll be dealing with once you get the mop. There's conflict, there may be trolls.... how one reacts here becomes, for many, an indicator of how one will react in general.

    Perhaps I should have said this above, but I was also thinking back to the recent DougsTech situation. This edit [5] indicates to me priorities that I see as misplaced. That was a situation where the community made a clear decision to be a dick, as a community, and there were more people agreeing with me later that we needlessly shat on someone's dignity. Unfortunately, a decision was made and the thread closed hastily before we could find out that a lot of the community was ready to be magnanimous.

    I have no doubt you'll get more used to this kind of stuff, and get better at surfing among the shoals of wiki-conflict. I just think some more practice at de-escalation would do you well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose for having the temerity to think that the "whole thing was resolved peacefully" --Stephen 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Opppose Careless work at AfD. DGG (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose per maturity concerns. Artichoker^[talk] 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose For agreeing with what Majorly said. There are several problems with his version of events. Even without that there are obvious problems with attitude. RxS (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    This oppose is very illustrative of why RfA has become hell for candidates. No diffs, no real reasoning other than a veiled "fuck you, no way". ..."obvious problems with attitude". Christ, borderline personal attack. Tan | 39 01:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't realize it was a condemnable crime to agree with another editor. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Well, considering that User:RxS isn't a lawbook, I think it's safe to say you're right. Depending on the context, it may be enough to lose one person's trust, however. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    How so? His version of events puts the whole sequence in the worst possible light. You agreeing with it shows me you're fine with that. The bullying that went on there showed the dark side of what's becoming more and more common here. Yuck. And, really, the answer is a clear indication that your temperment needs a lot of work. RxS (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Wow. Do you find that telling people "your temperament needs a lot of work" leads to many improved temperaments? I mean, I've never tried that strategy, because it seems to me unlikely to accomplish anything positive, but perhaps it works for you? I learn something every day... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed. None of us here are equipped to make judgments as to that, and it's very rude anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Rude?!? Many if not most of the opposes are about temperament. Looking over the opposes and the links it's easy to make a judgment like that. That's what RFA's are about. RxS (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    So, as I asked, do you find this approach to be often successful? I mean in practice, not just in theory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Telling someone their temperament needs work when their temperament needs work? Sometimes yes sometimes no. Doesn't come up very often. Most of the time it's in a performance evaluation, success is generally up to the subject. A bit off topic though. We can take this elsewhere if you really want. RxS (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    No, unless you want to. I'm happy enough leaving it at that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Being opposed in an RFA is not "condemnation" for "crimes", just an expressed opinion that someone should not be an administrator. RxS obviously means that the fact Timmeh supports Majorly's version indicates an attitude towards other users that RxS, in his own opinion that he is entitled to, thinks is incompatible with adminship. Questwolf (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose. Concerns about maturity and temperament. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose. While adminship across Wikipedia shouldn't be considered a big deal, the position still demonstrates community trust; in both the technical aspect and the social aspect that comes with such a large community. As per some of the issues raised above, I am not certain that this candidate is ready to be trusted on either level. While I do appreciate some of the great work he has done for the project, it is my advice that he appeal for the tools after he has demonstrated to the community in a definitive manner that he has in fact matured and improved his "temperament." ERK ^talk 06:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose – The tone used by the candidate and his friends when responding to opposition in this RFA indicates a temperament problem. Questwolf (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose - Timmeh seems like a nice enough chap, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. AGF bleating of the sort found here is so tedious. Agree with Friday in re: maturity. With regards to the Dougstech incident, it requires a certain lack of both WP:CLUE and general maturity to imagine that DougsTech would respond at all positively to polite, well-meaning, but completely uninvited propaganda. It's not even a matter of "was a troll/was not a troll" - it's just a pure lack of personality-gauging and human intuition, the ability to distinguish between people who would (for example) find welcome templates totally awesome, friendly, and helpful, and people who will find the templates condescending and obnoxious. Admins should be more like that cool, laid-back uncle who takes you fishing and helps you understand the facts of life, and less like that annoyingly chipper, nattering old aunt, no matter how good the intentions of the latter. Badger Drink (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose Given the concerns about immaturity, I recommend that the candidate consider a change of username. His current name brings to mind a bunch of South Park characters or impressionable kids yelling "TIMMEH!" at one another...not exactly consistent with the maturity, calmness and individuality that many desire in an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, but I really don't see what my choice of username has to do with my ability to be an effective admin. Timmeh 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed, ridiculous. While I'm adhering to my oppose, it does not make me feel good to be associated with an oppose like that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Keepscases, considering that you admitted your username was a CAPTCHA string, I don't think 'individuality' of username is something you should be talking about. This type of oppose is exactly the sort of nonsensical elitist bollocks that is ruining enwiki. 78.148.93.109 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Really? I assumed that Keepscases was the nickname of a teenage boy who collects his used condoms ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    We all know you assumed that, Wehwalt. ;) 78.148.93.109 (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    I would have to agree with Timmeh by saying that a choice of a username has nothing to do with the effectiveness of an admin. What a ridiculous oppose... Tavix |  Talk  17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    It has about as much to do with an oppose as "has four barnstars" has to do with a support. Why not go hassle some of the supporters for providing poor rationales as well? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    In case it wasn't clear, I am opposing based on immaturity concerns noted by other voters. I just figured I'd mention that the candidate's choice of username probably isn't doing him any favors. Keepscases (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Am I the only guy who found it a bit un-called for that Wehwalt said Keepscases collects used condoms? Just a tad unneccesary?--Koji† 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    For whatever it's worth, I didn't mind. Keepscases (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Indented oppose (because anons are worthless) - I realise that I am not allowed to place a !vote here, but I think the AGF comments brought up are ridiculous. It just shows a very petty attempt at ganging up against anyone that stands in his path to adminship. I often have also had the distinct impression that Timmeh goes around looking for people to agree with, and to go "I agree" constantly. I wouldn't usually mention it, but the AGF comment in support leads me to believe that I am correct in thinking that that is what he does. 78.148.93.109 (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC) — 78.148.93.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Timmeh 16:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Haha, what the fuck? I'm an SPA? Wow, you really are silly. Check the IP address, it's dynamic. 78.148.233.176 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    There's really no way to prove you've made useful contributions outside this RFA. Either way, your !vote is discounted, so no need to get worked up over it. Timmeh 23:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not concerned about the !vote being discounted, that doesn't bother me. It is your ganging up on opposers that bothers me, and the comment that only suggests to me that you have an attitude of "you supported me, you can be in my gang" that I find particularly concerning. 78.148.233.176 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    On another note, "[...] Wikipedia's policies, which are biased against animated mentally and physically handicapped children [...]" is possibly the funniest and most untrue thing I have ever read on a userpage. Congratulations. 78.148.233.176 (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Could you explain in what way I am ganging up on opposers, and with whom? Aside from my obviously inappropriate comment which I clarified and apologized for, I have only responded to opposers in order to clarify facts or get further advice on how I can improve. As for the quoted statement, it is of course a joke. Obviously, animated characters don't exist in real life, so Wikipedia can't possibly be biased against them. Timmeh 23:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    If that is a joke, I assure you, it isn't funny. As for the comment, I am referring to this.78.148.233.176 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    You did say it was "possibly the funniest" thing you ever read on a userpage. Anyway, I know you are referring to that comment, and like I said and you can see, I clarified it right below that and then apologized, as it was obviously inappropriate. I do respect all opposes and their reasoning, except for Koji's of course. Timmeh 23:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Fine, it is a joke. I didn't see it at first, but yes.
    
    Either way, that's not the point. The fact that you show such a lack of judgment in a situation like this does nothing but aggrivate my concerns. 78.148.233.176 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Understood. The comment was rude and uncalled for, and was a small, isolated lapse in judgment. Thanks for voicing your concerns. Timmeh 23:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

25. Oppose Weak contributions at AFD (and to some extent the answer to question 6) do not give me confidence in Timmeh closing AFDs. Also do have a bit of concern over some of the candidates comments regarding DougsTech. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Lack of policy involvement, yet active enough on RfA to create a giant deal out of what was nothing. Prodego ^talk 17:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Could you clarify on what I created a giant deal out of? If you're referring to the DougsTech issue, one could argue that several different editors got the controversy started up by actually starting threads and badgering DougsTech. In fact, I was just one player of dozens in a drama-ridden game that should never have begun. I believe that everyone involved, on both sides, is at fault for continuing such a debate for so long. I was wrong, but so were plenty of other good editors, and I had hoped that everyone would look past that isolated incident. Nevertheless, every opposer has his reasoning, and I respect that very many may be bothered that much by my involvement in the issue and the side I took. I invite any questions in the appropriate section regarding the DougsTech issue and my involvement. Timmeh 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

27. Oppose I actually do not think that the candidate did terribly wrong when the fiasco around DougsTech's block/ban occurred. However, I'm disappointed at his snarky comment and defenses regarding "good faith" on the opposition votes. Administors are required to have better communication skills to help editors build this encyclopedia.-Caspian blue 00:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose without prejudice for a future RFA. At the moment Timmehs "small, isolated lapse(s) in judgment" occur with unsettling frequency, and I find his handling of the IP above very reminiscent of Dougstech, indicating that nothing was learned. Admins need to be able to back away from a troll. AKAF (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Are you saying that I am a troll? If so, I beg of you to point to some evidence. 89.242.167.150 (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    And yes, I am the 78 range above, just to confirm. Damn dynamic IPs. 89.242.167.150 (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

29. Oppose Peter Damian (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose, per GTBacchus. Nakon 08:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose, mainly per GTBacchus; what he said has already been borne out in your discussion with the IP editor above. Yes, please work on de-escalation. Tagging a self-indented comment as a possible SPA is not going to help the closing bureaucrat decide how to treat the comment, and the original comment was not in itself disruptive. The tagging was sure to make the IP editor unhappy. It's more important to retain perspective than to fight every possible battle. Dekimasuよ! 11:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose, per behavior in this RFA. Your apologies for the knee-jerk reactions here are commendable, to be sure, but the need for them is troubling. For one, I find knee-jerks indicative of how a person will react under less controlled circumstances. For two, the multiple incidences of such reactions in this RFA, in a situation where you should anticipate stress and the need to step back, do not speak well for your ability to handle similar challenges in the field. — Lomn 14:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
33. I generally have had a very positive reaction to Timmeh's edits, and I think he brings a lot to Wikipedia. If I were voting my heart or my gut, I would support, but I'm going with "fairness" this time ... and I don't think it's fair to support a candidate with the current list of "My Wikipedia pet peeves" in a prominent place on his userpage. Sorry, Timmeh. I'm very optimistic that you'll see my point and similar points brought up during this RFA and that I will be able to support your next RFA run. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose - I initially came with a neutral opinion, since I've seen Timmeh around with good activity level and decent contribs. However, his involvement in this RfA raises definite concerns. In particular, the interaction with Pedro—the AGF comment, and overall making a bigger deal out a little interaction—and what feels like an attempt at persuading the opposers. Timmeh, I was just here (at RFA) less than 2 months ago, so I still remember the intense stress at times, and some leeway could be given to nervous candidates. However, adminship has the potential to be just as bad, and I don't see proof that you'll be able to handle that and make clueful judgements. I applaud your choice "I won't respond to any opposes", but I don't see the same attitude being displayed in this RfA otherwise with comments like "thanks for not opposing". Frankly, some of the opposes/comments in this RfA are ludicrous, and I'd rather not be associated with that. But as an administrator, you represent the website, and I see problems with lack of wise decision-making (i.e., DougsTech involvement). I hope you'll use this as constructive criticism to work by. :-) Best, Jamie^☆S93 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose While Timmeh has done some excellent work for the project, the concerns expressed in the oppose section are potentially problematic. Timmeh's temperament regarding Dougstech and haranguing of that user is not the behavior expected of an admin. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose because we don't need more immature admins. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose per biting an IP editor (78.148.233.176) right here in this RfA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

#Undecided at the moment. This may change. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing to support.Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

#Neutral - 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 Wikipedia'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 ^talk 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)

Switching to support. ~ mazca ^talk 10:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1. 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)

   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) Moved to support.

2. I told you, too many boxes. I don't have time for a proper examination of your record, thus neutral. NVO (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   You are commenting on the fact that he has too many userboxes? Do all admins have to have minimalist userpages in order to garner support for RfA? At least this wasn't an oppose, or there would be about 50 other comments under this... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Note past tense: was commenting, a few days ago. NVO (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral: although I am leaning towards oppose and may change as the RfA progresses. I accept that there are a lot of positive points to Timmeh's editing, but I have some concerns regarding his approach and temperament. I know it seems silly, but I very much dislike "My Wikipedia pet peeves" on Timmeh's userpage. In my opinion, it displays a juvenile, short-sighted, and hypocritical attitude, and if Timmeh would like, I would be more than happy to send him an email or a message on his talk page explaining why I think so. I realise those three adjectives are considered excessively negative, and I'm not suggesting that Timmeh is any of those three things . . . I just think it is a poor choice of content for a user page and it makes me less optimistic about his attitude in general. Maedin\^talk 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   I hope you aren't thinking I would take actions against policy simply because someone did something listed under my pet peeves. I would never block editors who don't provide an edit summary, make a few spelling errors, or repeat recent vandalism warnings. I would simply leave them a civil, informative talk page message. I just dislike these actions; I never directly say or imply that I would do anything against policy to prevent the actions from happening. I really hope you aren't assuming that either, and if the wording currently there comes off as juvenile, short-sighted, and hypocritical, I would be glad to reword it or even remove it if it is causing problems. Timmeh 16:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Oh absolutely not, I wouldn't suggest that at all. I have no doubt that you would follow policy and never do anything out of process on account of a few pet peeves. I'm sorry if that is how I made it sound, I was trying to not write an essay and probably missed out something important! I don't want to clutter your RfA, so I'll give you some more background at your talk page or by email, if that's ok. Maedin\^talk 16:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   That's fine. This RFA's talk page would be good too. Timmeh 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - willingness to answer 10 questions at RFA shows willingness to perpetuate a broken system and to engage in, in not instruction, some form of creep. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Indented because IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote" per WP:RFA. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Abstain from support. Not overly impressed with the AGF throwaway comment here I'm afraid. also fixed IP markup above - that IP neutral is one for the 'crats I think. Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   I've apologized and clarified, if that makes any difference. My wording should have been clearer the first time. Timmeh 21:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   I appreciate you have, but it was the knee jerk reaction that gets me worried. Mind you I'm hardly a saint in this regard. Maybe I'd do well to refelect on that thinking about it. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   I admit the lashing out was inappropriate, but I think my editing history shows I've not been one to do it often, especially not every time I receive an insult or comment I don't like. I suppose I just took this one a little too personally, especially because of the environment where it occurred. Thanks for not opposing, though. Timmeh 21:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   So Pedro, will you be going through RFA then, particularly as you admit you are guilty yourself of this sort of thing? Majorly talk 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Take it to my talk page Majorly. There is a difference between oppose and abstain you know. Pedro :  Chat  22:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   i) I deliberately used an asterisk to avoid giving my neutral comment a number, as IP editors (in keeping with usual WP tradition of shitting all over us) are not allowed a numbered vote (vote is WP wording, not mine), ii) ALL comments on an RfA are 'for the crats', and can be ignored or not as the crat sees fit. Did you really need to give a warning about my comment? "Hy, look, stupid crats, Ignore what that pesky IP said!!"? 82.33.48.96 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well you're still buggering up the numbering for bots (because it matters so much). Use the discussion section - as you clearly know so much about RFA you also know it exists. And no, I did not "give you a warning". The comment refers to the fact that all of RFA is allegedly a discussion so for an IP to be neutral is of particular interest in terms of the way the current set of 'crats work. That is all, and apologies if it came off any other way.Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

   Also, feeling miffed that you're being ignored is easily fixed: Get an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and prevents people from knowing exactly where you are by tracerouting your IP address. Having an account makes you more anonymous. As for your comments on WP tradition, IPs make a surprising number of decent edits, and most do not get reverted. If you are seeing a large number of yours getting reverted, perhaps it's time for another approach. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Back to Neutral as per Pedro's diff. – (iMatthew • talk) at 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
6. neutral I like to support content contributors, and Timmeh has clearly been around a while, but I too am concerned by edits like this and some of the work at AfD. I doubt this will pass, sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
7. I can't decide either way, but this RFA is devolving into a drama fest. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral per Maedin, Pedro and David Fuchs as well concerns over the candidate's maturity and careless AFD work. While I do not think the candidate will not make a good admin, I have serious doubts (despite their good contributions) that they will make a good admin at the moment. Regards SoWhy 09:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral as I think there are some issues which need to be addressed, though I don't find the arguments presented in the Oppose section to be convincing enough to oppose. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral, mostly per Nihonjoe. One two three... 09:48, 24 June 2009 (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.