Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timmeh 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Timmeh[edit]

Final (88/38/7); Closed by Rlevse at 21:19, 04 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Timmeh (talk · contribs) – During recent discussions at the RfA talk page about potential admin candidates, Timmeh was one of the first people that came to my mind. I run into his edits quite often as we both tend to focus on rock music articles - we recently collaborated to save Bullet for My Valentine from being delisted as a good article, and both there and elsewhere I've been very impressed with his attitude, policy knowledge, and maturity. That area of Wikipedia is, by its nature, something of a magnet for vandals and new contributors: sensible and knowledgeable admins are always in short supply, and I'd very much like to add Timmeh to the ranks. He's done good work reviewing good articles, copyediting, adding content, and dealing with vandals and edit warriors.

This isn't Timmeh's first appearance at RfA, and it's worth discussing the previous experiences. His first one in 2007 was simply too early: there were no major problems highlighted, he'd just simply gone for it without enough experience. He then wisely left it for more than a year and a half before submitting his second RfA earlier this year. He received a good level of support, but also some valid criticism that led him to withdraw it: the primary concern was about potential immaturity surrounding his involvement with the whole DougsTech drama. His RfA was unfortunately timed and many of the opposers had a valid point that he probably hadn't made the situation any better. Fortunately, he seems very much to have learned from the experience: I encourage you to have a look through his more recent contributions, as I couldn't find any real examples of drama-mongering or the other issues that were raised. He got back to his excellent content and maintenance work, as well as improving his AfD rationales after some criticism there. Overall he's been a good example of a user who took valid criticism to heart and improved his editing to correct it.

I'm regularly guilty of tl;dr, so I offer you this summary:

  • Timmeh is an experienced and sensible Wikipedian who could make good use of admin tools in the course of his regular editing.
  • Timmeh has very much rectified the concerns raised in his previous RfA.
  • Timmeh being an admin would very much be a benefit to the encyclopedia. ~ mazca talk 12:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thank you very much for the nomination, Mazca. Timmeh 15:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Mainly, I'd like to work in the areas where I have the most experience. These include, first and foremost, WP:AfD and WP:RfPP. I've participated in dozens of AfDs, as can be seen here, and have done a few non-admin closures. At RfPP, I have successfully requested the protection of many articles that I frequent, which seem to be strong vandal magnets, as Mazca said above, and I could definitely make use of the ability to protect them when appropriate. I also have some experience at WP:AIV, WP:AN/EW, and WP:SPI, and would slowly move into those areas after being sure I know the relevant policies inside and out.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are probably the same as they were a few months ago. I'm most proud of my six GAs, and I'm working toward making a seventh, as well as an FA. I've done major expansion or rewording to some other articles that I thought looked atrocious, mainly United States presidential election, 2008, but I have yet to find the time to make them into GAs. Most of my other contributions are vandalism reverts, copyediting, or minor fixes. I have also been commended for my help at WP:GAN, where I've reviewed 16 GA candidates.
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 suppose this depends on what your definition of "conflict" is. I've been in several heated arguments and disputes over article content, but all were resolved peacefully, and I've always made sure to follow policy and try my best to satisfy as many involved parties as possible at the same time. I have also helped others resolve disputes, while avoiding getting involved in drama-filled disputes similar to the DougsTech incident. I believe I've handled disputes overall with a lighter touch and more thoughtfulness since my last RfA, where I was heavily criticized for my heavy-handedness in discussions. For more detail on my improvements, a good place to look would be my last editor review.
Additional optional questions from King of Hearts
4. How would you have closed these two AfDs: Truth in Numbers and Fledgling Jason Steed?
A: I would close Truth in Numbers as no consensus, as it is clear the community was evenly divided on whether or not to delete it, and both sides had valid arguments. I'll get to Fledgling Jason Steed and your other question later tonight when I have some time. Fledgling Jason Steed is a more complicated case. My personal opinion would probably lean toward delete, but I seem to hold subjects to a higher standard when it comes to notability. Valid concerns were brought up about the book being self-published and some of the sources cited being unreliable or not notable. However, the several keep !votes, Beehold's in particular, also bring up good points. Overall, the deletion discussion is filled with replies refuting arguments on both sides. Therefore, my final verdict would be no consensus to delete the article.
5. You are currently working on an article. Suddenly, a user on a dynamic IP range that is too large to block starts vandalizing the article with patent nonsense and obscenities. Can you protect the article?
A: Obviously, I wouldn't be able to block the vandal to prevent him from coming back. I would be able to semi-protect the article for a short time to prevent further disruption. However, I'd only do this if the editor was repeatedly committing blatantly obvious vandalism. If it was anything less, I'd ask another admin about the situation to make sure there wouldn't be a conflict of interest or a misconception that I was trying to claim ownership of the article.


Additional optional questions from Roux
6. Are you over the age of 18?
A: Yes.
Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare
7. How would you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Sakewitz as of this edit?
A. There is a clear preponderance of delete arguments, mainly citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. The keep arguments do have some validity, but they fail to take into account the fact that this person and event were covered almost exclusively in newspapers. Therefore, I'd close the discussion as delete per rough consensus, as well as WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS.
Additional optional question from Tedder
8. If you were closing speedies and saw this one, how would you handle it? (No fair looking at newer edits to the page, the page history won't actually help you)
A: It seems you misunderstood LarRan's speedy rationale, Tedder. I think what he was trying to say is that Hamilton is better known without his middle name spelled out and that Thomas F. Hamilton should be deleted to make way for a move of Thomas Foster Hamilton to Thomas F. Hamilton. If I came across such a request, I'd fulfill it per the rationale and make the move for LarRan. I've just reinstated the G6 request with clearer reasoning.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
9. Imagine you come across a blank article page as an admin, what should you do about it?
A: First, I'd check to see if the page is blank simply because a vandal blanked it. If that's not the case and it was created with no content, I'd speedy delete it per CSD criterion A3.
Question from User:Stifle
10. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. All non-free images must comply with all 10 of the non-free content criteria. To summarize a few of these: There must be no free equivalent available that would serve the same purpose. The smallest portion of the smallest number of non-free images must be used if that amount will project the adequate amount of information. Non-free images must be encyclopedic, and each must be used in only one article. When the image is of a living person, it "should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light", according to WP:BLP. Basically, it should be used for informational purposes only and not convey any connotations beyond what facts it is supposed to represent.
Additional optional questions from Bwilkins
11. ;Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
A: I have only one alternate account right now, Timmeh37. I do not plan to create any more alternate accounts, but if I do, I don't foresee any reason to keep them hidden from the general editing community and therefore see no reason to advise bureaucrats in private.
Additional optional questions from Abecedare
12. Timmeh, you mentioned above that you "have only one alternate account right now" (emphasis added). Can you clarify if you have had other alternate accounts in the past, and if possible list them here ? If there are privacy issues involved, would you be willing to instead identify any past accounts to a trusted bureaucrat of your choice ?
A: I have not had any other accounts.
Additional Optional question from Ultraexactzz
13. Timmeh, several users have expressed concern over your username. If you were asked to do so, would you be willing to change it in some way? I'm not making such a request, nor do I intend to comment or criticize your choice - doesn't bother me - but I would like to know your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, and good luck with the rest of your RFA.
A. My current username complies with policy, and it certainly is not meant as a joke, despite what some are saying. On my user page, I outline that I chose "Timmeh" because "it is simple, easy to remember, and is similar to my real name". Actually, only a few days after I changed my username to Timmeh, I filed an usurpation request to get it changed to "Tim" because I had not before realized the name could have been usurped. The reason I gave was that "Tim" was closer to my original username and it gave a better impression. I ended up not going through with the usurp because it was originally denied dut to my recent rename to "Timmeh". I suppose I just forgot about it afterward and got to doing more important things. I actually thought about changing my username several times since my last rename, but I didn't think it worth having to get everyone reacquainted with me through my new username. I would consider changing it, though, as this is the first time anybody has commented on it.
Additional optional questions from Neurolysis
13a. Following up on the above question, why did you believe it appropriate to change to a username (no doubt you gave some thought to the username before you changed to it) that is essentially based around a 'retard joke'?
A: As I said above, I did not intend it to be a joke, and my reasons for choosing it are shown in the answer to question 13. In fact, I even thought that it didn't give the best impression back then, and that's why I requested an usurp of User:Tim.
13b. What is your personal opinion on your username?
A: It is simple, easy to remember, and is similar to my real name, although I admit that it doesn't give the best impression. More thoughts about it can be seen in my answer to question 13.
Additional Optional questions from LAAFan
14:: If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?
A: I would revert the vandalism and leave a message (non-templated) on the editor's talk page regarding his edits. The user would obviously be aware of the consequences of vandalism, so If he did it again, I'd give a final warning and then block after a third offense to prevent further disruption. Since there's a chance the user's account has been compromised by someone else, I'd then email the user letting him know of his block and suggesting ways to be able to edit again if the account had in fact been compromised.
15:: If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?
A: I would sufficiently warn the IP and then block it (for a short time, as it could be dynamic) to prevent further vandalism. Page protection is not appropriate when there is only one IP vandalizing the page, as it would prevent other IPs from editing in good faith. I would only semi-protect the page if there was a significant amount of recent vandalism from multiple IPs.
Question from Leaky Caldron
16. Are there any circumstances (aside from personal reasons, health etc.) in which you would offer your resignation as an administrator?
A: I'm not sure how much this would help now, but yes, there are. If I knowingly used the admin tools against policy and other editors had acknowledged it, I'd ask for a broader discussion on my actions and ask to be desysopped until the discussion had concluded and there was a decision by ArbCom whether or not to permanently desysop me.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Sorry about the wait guys. I'll answer the rest of the questions within the next couple of hours. Timmeh 21:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • General Notice from Candidate I'm not sure where the best place to put this would be, so I'll put it here. :) I'll be away (without internet access) from now until Sunday afternoon (UTC), which will likely be after the RfA is closed. Therefore, I'll be unable to answer any questions that may arise unless the bureaucrats grant an extension. Thanks for supporting, those who supported, and to the opposers, thank you for the constructive criticism. Whether this passes or fails, I'll surely remember your advice and will apply it to my editing and/or admin actions. Timmeh 18:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Sure, I'm willing. ceranthor 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator. The time elapsed is, in my view, sufficient if improvement has occurred - and it has. Demanding arbitrary periods between RfAs does nobody any favours. ~ mazca talk 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yep, remember reviewing on WP:ER, and seemed good then, and still does, has the clue, willingness and right stuff for an admin. AtheWeatherman 16:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support civil, helpful editor with a clean block log and nicely varied contributions. I think he would have done well if he'd got the tools a few months ago and am glad he's stayed around and is running again. ϢereSpielChequers 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. support I was looking for good reasons not to support you, but found none. hope you also become a good admin. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I see nothing in the history that causes me any great concerns (vandalism, membership of ARS, things like that). --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - seen him around. No concerns here.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 16:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Dedicated, hard worker, who's demonstrated an ability to learn and grow. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support experienced editor who's willing to learn knows what he's doing. Airplaneman talk 17:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Good interactions, mature and civil, and per Hiberniantears. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Has shown good progress in the last few months, and is an excellent contributor. I see no likelihood of the tools being abused. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This RfA might be a little too early, but I supported your last one and I still stand behind that. I don't see any reason why you'd misuse the tools. ThemFromSpace 17:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support of course. Mr. Hed 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support after review of Timmeh's previous RfA's and his answers and comments here. Mind you, I also have some concerns about the RfA being a bit too early since the last one, also some of the Opposers in the last RfA were a bit troubling and gave me pause, but the consensus here convinces me that third time should be the charm, as I believe the learning process has been effective in that somewhat short period of time. Good luck! Jusdafax 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. From his actions at GAN I can tell Tim is a very reliable and responsible user who isn't afraid to get stuck into backlogs.  GARDEN  19:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - this RfA came pretty quick after the last one, which surprised me a bit at first. However, time has elapsed since some of Timmeh's judgement issues (DougsTech, etc.) and I believe he has proven himself as being past any major issues. He seems fine this time around, and I come from the perspective of one who opposed his last RfA for drama/judgement type reasons. Tim's probably not perfect (although I can't recall anything negative lately), but on the whole he's quite knowledgeable and reasonable, so I'm happy to support this time. I doubt he'll cause problems with the tools, good luck. :) JamieS93 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Revisiting: I still believe that he'll be a net positive as an admin. The issues raised in the oppose section are valid, but not convincing to me as they are primarily based on a feeling or intuition (besides the AfDs). Accepting an RfA nom only 3 months after the last request (no offense to Mazca) maybe wasn't the smartest move, but Tim made some clear mending of his actions since RFA #2. Character change isn't going to be obvious; negative aspects fading away is less noticeable, but nonetheless it's quite existent here. He's not perfect, but overall has got the knowledge and reason that it takes to be an admin. His answer to Q7 is perfectly fine, and nothing in the other answers are cause for worry either. My opinion is basically unchanged, and I remain supportive. JamieS93 01:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Textbook case of an editor who may not have been quite ready last time but took a few months to improve and is now fully capable of pushing ye olde mop. Good luck. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Timmeh will make a great admin. hmwith☮ 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Per above.--Giants27(c|s) 20:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Consistent quality edits in diverse areas, knowledgable, well-meaning, and committed editor. He's earned it. It's time to put the DougsTech issue to rest. -- Ϫ 20:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I weakly supported and then abstained last time, as a number of issues were nagging at me and I was not impressed with some comments on RFA#2. However a good review of recent edits shows a marked change. I doubt you'll go wild with the tools, you are unlikely to misuse them and you are clearly here for the right reasons; that you have had two failed RFA's yet shrugged your shoulders and carried on working hard speaks volumes. Just take it easy with the new tabs and ..... if in doubt - don't. Pedro :  Chat  20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. A review of a sampling of the candidates contributions reveal nothing to worry about. Candidate displays improvement since last RfA, which means he reacts positively to constructive criticism. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I supported last time; the candidates editing skills have improved since. Will make a good admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support has taken criticism at last RFA and applied it to editing. I do not see any reason to believe the tools would be misused. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 21:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Is this RFA too soon? I wouldn't have thought so. Anyway, Timmeh responded very positively to the one point I brought up last time in opposition, and I've seen lots of good stuff and nothing bad since. - Dank (push to talk) 21:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - al the good reasons mentioned. Also editor uses nice edit summaries. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Timmeh is clueful and intelligent. Should make a good admin. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. As last time. Malinaccier (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: mistakes were made, possibly because Timmeh isn't a bot. I'm fairly sure Timmeh wouldn't take the same path if put in that situation again. Ignoring one instance and/or period of time? Solid editor. It's just the mop, after all. tedder (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some opinion followup: Timmeh's username doesn't concern me. It isn't egregious, offensive, or aggressive in any way. Many other usernames are closer to objectionable- a notable example is TenPoundHammer, purely because it could be construed as bitey. Net positive and all that. tedder (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? "Ten Pound Hammer" is the name of a well-known country song by Aaron Tippin. If I recall, the lyrics are something like "your love hit me like a ten pound hammer", and country music is hammer's focus, if I recall. Based on those lyrics, TPH is merely spreading his love :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support You've improved, so it seems that you have learned your lesson with things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support upstateNYer 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Not enough administrators currently. I supported last time, and no issues have arisen since then that would make me change my mind. I like the answer to Q5 (as your answer to Q1 seemed to imply otherwise). I really hope that you'll continue adding content even after a successful RfA – it would be counter-productive to promote good content contributors if it ends up limiting their content writing. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I suppose I should have been clearer in Q1. By frequent, I mean have on my watchlist and revert additions of vandalism and formatting errors. Most of those articles are not ones that I have heavily contributed to. Timmeh 11:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. STRONG Support You appear to be trustworthy when it comes to the tools! --Rockstone (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. If you look at the editor from the first RFA and this one, the differences are striking. The candidate is now a solid editor with extensive experience, and I have no reservations about granting them the tools. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Since no actual concerns have been raised, there are no worries here! :-) Majorly talk 19:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support -- 3 ¢ soap Talk/Contributions 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support Seems keen! Why not give him a chance, he has a few friends that will keep an eye on him and he won't make the wiki wheels drop off. Whats that song.. Mama Used To Say take your time young man. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Familiar with his work, which I've found to be excellent, and I've seen nothing here to make me thing he cannot be trusted with the tools. And just for the record, based on the truly bizarre oppose below, I like his username. And I like saying it. Timmeh! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good luck with the mop!! America69 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak support, I'd like to have seen a little more time since the last RfA but that's not worth opposing over; I think I can trust him not to cause any issues. Should do a good job. Shereth 22:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per previous RfA. Tan | 39 00:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I think that obssessing over an issue that happened five months ago seems a little questionable. Besides, the canidate's edits since then have all seemed to be well placed and in good faith. Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 01:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, I see nothing that concerns me. Wizardman 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, for my first RfA vote. It feels like only a matter of time for this. SluggoOne (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is now below the discretionary range, I'll elaborate. I have no problems w/ the Dougstech issue, but this stems from a personal belief that DT should have been shown the door soon after he made clear his intent to disrupt RfA. I have had discussions and disagreements w/ Timmeh in the past and I have found that he is amenable to new information changing his view and he is cordial. He has improved over his last RfA and I don't see why we have to impose an arbitrary 6 month waiting period between RfAs (which is clearly what is evolving). Protonk (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. As someone else suggested above, I came here expecting to oppose, but I've found no reason to believe that Timmeh would make a worse administrator than those we already have. Damning with faint praise, I know. --Malleus Fatuorum 08:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (moved to talkpage) → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Timmeh. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. A marked improvement over the last run; like Pedro, I get the impression that he's calmed down and sees adminship as a hurdle, not the goal. Ironholds (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - I have known Timmeh since my own RfA, and while I have not commented in any of his RfAs up until now, I think he has matured since then and would make a good admin. I have not found anything to suggest he would not pass my RfA criteria. I am not convinced by the opposition, most of the cited issues were one off incidents which Timmeh has learnt from, and some are not of concern to me at all. I actually like his username by the way. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I should re-comment here given that the situation at this RfA has changed. First, I don't watch South Park so I had no reason to be concerned about his username. I do think the potential to cause offensive, with the oppositions own words, is trivial in this case, and I doubt Timmeh had the intention to cause offensive. If Timmeh wants a username change, that is his decision to make. I am also a little put off by Timmeh's clarification to the answer to question 7. WP:NOTNEWS discourages the existence of articles based on a few sudden hits of news coverage with no long term interest. It does not mean we can't have articles based on newspaper reports, if the issue is of longterm interest, and it definitely does not mean we can't have articles based on local coverage. There are some editors who don't want articles based on local coverage, but both WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS mention nothing about this so the closing admin should stick to what policies and guidelines actually say. I don't think the answer to one question is in this case bad enough to make me switch from support, and I still think Timmeh would be net positive. I also maintain the view that three months between RfAs is not unreasonable, even if others disagree though I actually agree with Timmeh's comments The number of edits seems like a more accurate gauge of experience gained than length of time, though there is no perfect way to measure contributions. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, looks to be a perfectly trustworthy user and I feel they deserve the mop. Good luck! [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Recent activity looks fine. I don't have a problem with the username. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Head seems to be in the right place. –xenotalk 02:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Sure, why not? PmlineditorTalk 08:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support One of the opposes is concerning as its from someone Ive found to have a clear view of whats going on. But I not aware of a single problematic recent edit from this candidate, hes a quality contributor and no reason to think hed misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - I like your rationale in your answers, particularly for the AfD cases. Despite what is said below, a person can change in 3 months. Heck, a person can change in a day. I've had experiences in Wikipedia that completely changed the way I looked at things, and I know I've had major changes in the way I treat other editors and treat article content based on a single revelation. For example, I know that in a short period of time I went from being an inclusionist, to a deletionist, to something in-between. -- Atama頭 16:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to oppose. -- Atama頭 15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching back to support (yes I know this seems fickle). -- Atama頭 01:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Not convinced by the opposes. Tim Song (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Pretty good. I actually closed the Steed AfD as delete, which got a near-unanimous confirmation from DRV, but I can see how it could also be considered a no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Cautious support I remain concerned about judgment and maturity issues, but Timmeh is a devoted editor who (I think) is ready to be given an opportunity to be an Admin. Please be cautious especially with the block button and do your best to resolve disputes and avoid drama without using it. And step away from stressful situations and confrontations. Good luck. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Net positive despite the concerns. And by concerns, I don't mean the DougsTech mess (which dates back to April) but the AfD sloppiness mentioned in the last RfA. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. My opinion remains the same since the prior RfA. — ξxplicit 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support: There are issues. I wish you had waited until Jan./10 - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Doesn't seem likely to misuse the tools. Shows a wide knowledge of policy. I'm not at all convinced by the "opposed" issues raised.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  05:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I had better add this in to conteract some of that oppose trend. The answers look good to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Ditto that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support significant improvement since last RfA. I've seen Timmeh around and our interactions have been positive. Valley2city‽ 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Clueful candidate. No obvious problems. Support. AGK 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Seems trustworthy and very interested in helping to improve Wikipedia overall. Some users have some maturity concerns, but I think he'll be fine. tommy talk 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, I don't see any major problems. Just tread carefully at first, and you should be fine. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  70. Support. Seems to have improved since the last RfA, 3 months is fine as far as I'm concerned, and solid contributions. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support He seems like he would not abuse admin privleges. Hmrox (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support. Last time I checked, a person's username has nothing to do with how he will perform as an administrator. I find this user to be a helpful person and have full confidence that he would be a great admin. Tavix |  Talk  00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody suggested the two were related. — neuro(talk) 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. I disagree with the original premise of immaturity. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support A net positive and also per answers to questions 14 and 15.--LAAFansign review 04:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support After weighing this one over thoroughly in my mind, the concerns raised below seem to be mostly about the username and the time after the last incident, neither of which concern me greatly. A good editor who will not misuse the tools. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Appears thoughtful, well-spoken, well-reasoned.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Weak Support - Watched this discussion for a few days now and have decided that although I'm concerned about your judgment as noted in the oppose section, I can't see you misusing the tools. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Weak support Net positive. ƒ(Δ)² 08:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, decent user. --Aqwis (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support: I've read many of the comments both support and oppose, Timmeh's answers, and his nomination and I just have to support him. He seems like a reasonable, policy knowedgable, decent contributor that, like everyone else, could use some improvement as expressed in the oppose section but nothing that I feel is deserving of an oppose.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, having read through the opposes, I see nothing that is even remotely convincing. Irbisgreif(talk) 16:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No futher concerns, per SPI completion. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Above comment related to the disruption that was moved to talk page. –xenotalk 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support: not convinced by the opposes. Timmeh seems to be a good editor in general, and would make a good admin. The only blot on his record is the DougsTech case, and I think he recognises his mistakes there and would not make them again. Robofish (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support I have been sitting on the fence for a long time on this one since the concerns about temperament (vis-a-vis DougsTech), and the hurried third RFA are valid IMO (I have no real issue with the AFD comments, which are borderline and dated; and with the username, which is perhaps a storm-in-a teacup, and easily remedied if needed). However, I am moved to support Timmeh based on his conduct during this RFA, which has been pretty drama-filled and gave him several "excuses" to blow his fuse, which, to his credit, he didn't. I trust that he has learned from the feedback he received in this and previous RFA and will be a better admin for it, either now or sometime in the future. Abecedare (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support I am going to WP:AGF here. I think that Timmeh can be a great admin. I completely disagree with the username concern. There has been an issue with their demeanor on wikipedia, however I think that it is relatively minor, and nothing to really be concerned about in an admin. Due to his response in the neutral section, I completely believe he will take adminship humbly, and step into the tools cautiously. I also think that 3 months is fine for requesting again. 3 months can be a huge change in someone's life or even their attitude. It is my belief that Timmeh is a net gain to this project, and could bring even more with the extra buttons. Good luck SparksBoy (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support: I was wrong. Pascal challenged my position and I thought things over. Almost every concern raised was petty. There has been the issue of demeanor - petty stuff. Indeed on this RFA Timmeh's demeanor and maturity have been of the of the highest standard. I support Timmeh based on his conduct during this RFA, which has been pretty unfair (including me) and gave him several "excuses" to blow a fuse, which, to his credit, he didn't. He will make a great admin! a humbled - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Great candidate. warrior4321 14:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support A more careful review shows that, despite dougstech and mzm, timmeh is thoughtful editor. Switched to support. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Hope to get this in before close. All things considered, I think Timmeh has the ability to become a fine admin. I'm not fond of the user name either - but it's the work that's done which counts. There's always going to be a learning curve for any new admin., I think Timmeh has the desire, heart, and ability to do what's right here. — Ched :  ?  17:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - an editor with a record of exercising questionable judgment. I do not think he can be trusted with the tools. Crafty (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I believe that the candidate often seems to have questionable judgment (esp. in making comments) at times when good judgment is sorely needed (nothing particularly specific, it's a general trend that I have seen). Unlike in some RfAs where improvement can be demonstrated quickly, I believe that RfAs where maturity and such are in question should have a decent amount of time between them so that people can see the difference — here, however, I am struggling to see the improvement. — neuro(talk) 21:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice Pedro talks of a 'marked change' above. I'm curious as to what he means. If you're reading this, Pedro, could you expand? It might help me to see something I am missing. — neuro(talk) 21:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, just about everyone is. What am I missing? — neuro(talk) 21:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/Timmeh :) Seriously, it's not something I could evidence with diffs Neuro. More a general perception that Timmeh is, shall we say calmer, less in a rush, and not seeking adminship as an end product but simply asking to get the tools to help further. I appreciate that this is very fuzzy but I recall the mess of RFA #2 (and the neutrals / opposes after my switch from support) and I feel confident now that Timmeh has moved on from the (pretty minor) errors and will be a net benefit with the bit. Sorry to be so weak on specifics. M♠ssing Ace Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you can read that as Pedro - not my flipping brother-in-laws account as well who would do well TO LOG OUT when he's been using my laptop. Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (good job Pedro :P) No worries, I was a little light on the diffs myself. :) A rather bad example of what I mean (and some may not see the issue) -- this seems off, and is the sort of thing that I am still seeing from the candidate. He refers to one comment from MZM as 'badgering', which promotes the entirely wrong idea about RfA. RfA is a discussion, and talking to the opposers should be encouraged, not batted away with such words. Timmeh then says "telling them not to oppose over legitimate concerns and blaming them for going deep into your contributions and finding faults is not the way to go". He did neither of those things. As I say, this is just one example, and a rather poor example at that, but it is an example nonetheless of a trend that I still see in Timmeh's edits. — neuro(talk) 22:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I think this is actually a hard task looking at the underlying pattern. I think I'm confident with my support, but as last time there are minor reservations - it's probably a balanace that I see tips over to support and I fully understand if other see it tips the other way. As noted (when signed in as someone else apparently....lulz...) I'm weak on diffs either way. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding MZM's RfA, I was by no means calling MZM's whole response badgering or blaming him for talking to his opposers, and I am fully aware that RfA is a discussion. The part of the comment I was referring to and that really bothered me was that which said, "I really wish you would have asked me on my talk page or somewhere else before making judgments about my editing (and opposing)." Making judgments about a candidate's contributions is what !voters at RfA are supposed to do, and they have no reason to ask the candidate before opposing for legitimate reasons. I don't want this to get overly long, so you can take a look at this discussion for a more detailed explanation. Timmeh 22:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerned with answer to Q15, if you're going to be blocking IPs, I expect you to know how to work out whether it is dynamic or not so that you can judge appropriately. — neuro(talk) 08:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the fact that the candidate had to be prompted to change his username before he would even catalyse with a potential solution despite all the clear opposition to it. — neuro 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Concerned about judgment.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any particular incidents in mind? I noticed that in my last RfA you stated you'd have no problems with supporting at a later date, and I was wondering what could have caused you to have renewed doubt in my judgment. Timmeh 23:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still the DougsTech matter ... I think that if you had waited six months, I would have supported, but three months is not enough track record for me to say "that's over the horizon".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the DougsTech discussions were technically five months ago, and in the last three months I did make more than 2,000 edits. The number of edits seems like a more accurate gauge of experience gained than length of time, IMHO. Thanks for explaining, though. Timmeh 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you as well. I'll continue to give it some thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having monitored this RfA and thought about it, I'm sticking with my oppose. I add to my original rationale those stated by DGG and OR. If this RfA fails, I strongly advise editing for a while without giving much thought to the mop and trying again after the new year. I should say I see nothing offensive in Timmeh's username.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too soon to have confidence. April - Key driver of a major dramafest (DougsTech). June - RFA 2, including saying in response to an oppose that the April episode hadn't been that bad since "no policies were broken". August - editor review with a clear view towards running for RFA again. Sept - RFA 3. I'm sorry, but this user did not have the mentality (perhaps maturity) to be an admin in April and June. Since then, he's been a good user and hasn't done anything bad. That's great, but few people genuinely change that quickly and the risk is too great. Maybe you're a completely different person than 3 months ago. Maybe not, no harm in waiting. Martinp (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Immaturity, poor judgement. Pretty much just look at the last RFA, from a few months ago. Friday (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC) PS To specifically address the "he has changed a lot in a few months".. do voters really think people change quickly like that? The only people who mature noticeably in a few months are babies. He's not a baby. If he really is a "different person" than the subject of the last RFA, which one is the real one? At RFA, voters try to judge the true nature of the candidate. Anyone can put on an act, under supervision of a handler or two. The act isn't what matters, it's the true character of the candidate that matters. And I have very little confidence that the true character of a person can change meaningfully that quickly. I'd want to see a much longer time of maturity and good judgement before I was willing to believe these problems have gone away. Friday (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As you're no doubt well aware, I'm not usually one to agree with you, but in this case I concur pretty much in entirety. As I was saying to Julian yesterday, does change in such a short period of time really illustrate a change in personality, or does it simply indicate that the candidate has been acting one way so that this RfA would 'go to plan'? The sort of concerns raised at the last RfA are issues with his personality -- a person does not change their traits in three months, it simply doesn't happen. If a turnaround has happened here, I suspect the very fact that it has is indicative that it hasn't. — neuro(talk) 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it simply: I have learned from my mistakes and have changed as a result of them. It's certainly not a hard task. I have striven to grow and improve myself throughout my tenure here and especially in the last three months, and, as others have said, it has shown in my editing and behavior since June. One or two isolated incidents don't make a personality, and I would hope my personality isn't nearly as bad as some are making it seem. Timmeh 22:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Last RfA seems like yesterday, and the candidate's username remains amongst the worst on Wikipedia. "Do you need a page protected? Talk to TIMMEH!" Please. Keepscases (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that the candidate will be happy to take your word on good usernames when you switch from one that screams "CAPTCHA" from a mile off. — neuro(talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not running for administrator at this time. Keepscases (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keepscases has a point here people and it's unfortunate that by crying wolf so often it's been missed -- Neuro, you totally missed it. The name Timmeh is admittedly partially a retard joke. Part of the joke on South Park is: "Hahaha, retards do talk funny like that." Whether or not you find retard jokes funny, it absolutely screams immaturity in the society I'm familiar with. Do you know lots of people in professional settings who make something that might be interpreted as a retard joke? Even if you believe such concern is based on oversensitivity or political correctness, do you believe a username based off a CAPTCHA is somehow comparable? --JayHenry (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't agree that I ever "cry wolf", JayHenry does do a good job of clarifying my point here--I think I went into more detail in the candidate's last RfA. Having an administrator named "Timmeh" would make Wikipedia look bad. As for the comment below, the candidate did, in fact, have an exclamation point after his username...until just before his last RfA, if I'm not mistaken. Keepscases (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid to tell you that I am unfamiliar with South Park for a variety of reasons, primarily because I find its humour to be unsophisticated and unpalatable. I do, however, make a distinction between intention and interpretation. We can't cover our asses against being called 'offensive' -- you can't please everybody. We can't safeguard against every negative outcome of the things we do on Wikipedia, because different people see things in different ways. I concur that the username is not particularly well chosen, but I disagree that it is anything to oppose over. If Timmeh likes South Park (if such a thing is possible), then it is entirely plausible that he simply wanted to name his account after one of his favourite characters from the show. I don't really see how the fact that this particular character is mentally retarded comes into it. — neuro(talk) 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The mentally retarded character's name is Timmy. He is called Timmeh because that's how retards talk. Get it? It's a retard joke. --JayHenry (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the condescension, much appreciated. — neuro(talk) 11:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of how we may interpret south park, I don't think taking a name from the show means that he's unprofessional (leaving aside the point that demanding 'professionalism' broadly may not be worth it). Protonk (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't have an exclamation point following his signature, so it may take an extra stretch of the imagination to picture one. Just saying. ;) JamieS93 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that I consider Bullshit-master a benign username compared to some others, as do many others I'm sure, I doubt Timmeh is really among the worst names on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the fact that the username "could be worse" is relevant. There is certainly merit to the concern that a username based on a joke making fun of the mentally handicapped is not consistent with the professional appearance becoming of an administrator. — Jake Wartenberg 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - I'm also of the "Time will tell" school and find 3 months after an controversial RfA too short. FWIW, this is a general concern of mine and I had already started to jot that down. Time intervals of a year or half aren't really arbitrary for me but reflect some experiences here as well as real life analogies. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose per the comments in this RFC, the 37 opposes in the last one. Ikip (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Why so soon after the last one? It was rather contentious to say the least, and I think with good reason (I did not participate). Despite the fact that we often think in "Wikipedia time" around here, where a week can seem like a year, I don't think a person's judgment (which is the core issue at RfA) changes for the better much over the course of three months, and there were some real judgment issues discussed in the last RfA. The quick rush to RfA again when WT:RFA seems to be on a recruitment drive gives me real pause. I disagree with Ironholds' contention (which I also, admittedly, see as a bit of a distinction without a difference) that Timmeh "sees adminship as a hurdle, not the goal." It seems to me that he very much sees it as a goal (third try, second in a few months, set up by an editor review), and while I know others very much disagree, I'm skeptical of editors who strive to leap through whatever hoops there are to gain adminship. Timmeh was criticized for poor AfD research and rationales last time so he has made a point of working on that which is obviously good, but it has the feel to me of going through the motions in order to be able to pass RfA the next time around (I know there's a bit of an AGF failure there, but that's how I see it). Timmeh has commented on 38 AfDs since his last RfA (basically doing 2-3 at a time on a dozen or so occasions), but in looking at all of these I see almost none which are controversial or "difficult" AfDs. Basically all required a simple Google News search where it was obvious whether or not the topic had coverage in secondary sources (usually Timmeh did this well enough from what I can gather, though in a still-open AfD here I find the sourcing arguments put forward by him to be extremely weak and the Google research not at all carefully done). In a prospective admin who says one of the two main things they will do is close AfDs, I want to see evidence of participation in tricky, close-call AfDs where the editor engages with multiples policies beyond WP:GNG and with strong counter arguments from other editors. I'm just not seeing that in the recent AfDs, and the previous ones were admittedly problematic in terms of lack of rationale, etc. Timmeh obviously is a valuable editor with a lot of great contributions (and if this passes, as it well might, I'll hardly freak out or anything), but I'd recommend that he not worry at all about RfA/adminship for awhile and then maybe try again in 6 months or so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're interested in how I'd go about closing controversial AfDs as an admin, as that seems to be one of your biggest concerns, my answers to questions 4 and 7 might have some relevance. Also, about the "goals" and "hurdles", I do think of adminship not as a goal but as a hurdle that I must pass in order to reach the goal, which is to help build and maintain the encyclopedia as best I can. I'm sort of a perfectionist, too. If someone points out a flaw or if I realize one myself, I work on correcting it immediately, as I did after my participation in the DougsTech discussions and after my last RfA. Timmeh 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply, I did read all of your answers and agree with what you said in questions 4 and 7, but I still would have liked to have seen the kind of AfD contributions I described above. As far as goal vs. hurdle, I see the distinction you are making, but it's somewhat splitting hairs in my view. Again, others disagree with me here, but I tend to be skeptical of editors who seem to be aiming so clearly for adminship (for whatever reason—goal, hurdle, need the tools to block vandals, brownie button) from the get-go and throughout their time on WP. Your first RfA was after about 7 months and 1,000 edits, and now this comes right on the heels of the second one which was a bit of a crash and burn. You've participated in 170 RfAs and are among the top 200 contributors at WT:RFA after being an active editor for less than 2 1/2 years. It's really nothing personal, I'm just wary of editors who pursue adminship so vigorously and display such intense interest in the RfA process. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    55 supports and 37 opposes was not enough for a successful RFA, but it was a long way from the crash and burn zone - morelike 60% than 6%, and a three month gap is normally taken as an appropriate gap - especially for an editor who came so close last time. ϢereSpielChequers
    "Crash and burn" (even with the "bit of a" qualifier) was probably too harsh, I'll agree. However Timmeh did withdraw, and 60% support does not, I think, equate to coming "so close" to passing. I'm not sure where it was previously determined that "a three month gap is normally taken as an appropriate gap," but in my view two RfAs in three months suggests that an editor is heavily pining after adminship, and as I've said twice already I have general qualms about supporting in that situation. Perhaps my view is not in line with the normal one here at RfA (I hardly ever !vote on these things), but I do think it's valid. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum to oppose. I've just read JayHenry's comment here and I'm afraid this only deepens my oppose. Shamefully (for someone of my generation) I've not watched enough South Park (the show, the movies I know well) to even understand initially what the username "Timmeh" referred to. I'm all for politically incorrect humor in real life, engaging in it rather frequently, and it sounds like this character in South Park is actually to some degree challenging unfortunate stereotypes about disability rather than upholding them. However I've stated on a number of occasions in the past that I think we need to think of administrators to some degree as ambassadors to the outside world (that's certainly how the press sometimes sees them). I'd ask everyone here to consider if, in the future (as is entirely possible), admin Timmeh engages in some notable admin action which receives coverage in the press as being controversial, we then want the press (and Stephen Colbert et. al.) pointing out that the admin user name in question is taken from a developmentally disabled South Park character? We have enough public perception problems as it is. Though this is a volunteer, "amateur" project, I think the issue here is one of professionalism. Picking this user name arguably showed some bad judgment in the first place, and I think it's probably a good idea to change it. I'm not some username tyrant (mine is hardly standard or non-weird), but I think Timmeh's username is more problematic than most, particularly if we are talking about adminship (to anyone who wants to gauge the impact of this name/word in popular culture, check the first couple of definitions at Urban Dictionary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess you better start a recall against me then. After all, would we want the press pointing out that an admin is a tramp? Colbert would love that. I haven't formed an opinion yet on the candidate, but all this focus on the name takes away from the real issue -- can we trust Timmeh to use the tools to improve the project? Worrying about what the press will think is silly, because as we've seen in the past, they don't really understand anyone here who doesn't use their full real name. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to probably agree to disagree here, but I think there is a qualitative difference between usernames like yours and mine (which are merely "strange" relative to normal human names) and Timmeh's user name which is a reference to a cartoon character which many might feel mocks people who are developmentally disabled (I would not agree with that assessment, but again this is about perception). Yes, the press end Colbert might make fun of User:Wizardman, you, or me, as having stupid or bizarre "identities" here on Wikipedia, but none of those can be perceived as degrading a class of people. To think in terms of analogy, imagine an editor whose name is admittedly a direct reference to a cartoon character that many feel is based on anti-semitic stereotypes, or stereotypes about African Americans. I doubt you'd be okay with that, and the situation here is really not much different (and understand I'm not saying that User:Timmeh or even South Park is remotely biased against people with disabilities—it's just that the username is unnecessarily provocative and to some probably even offensive in a similar way that an anti-semitic cartoon character would be). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not that this will make any difference--obviosuly this RfA will pass--but after some thought I find myself in agreement with Friday and Bigtimepeace. People simply do not change as much in 90 days as you would have had to in order to address the issues brought up last time. Not that my opinion will carry much weight here, due to the numbers, but there it is. → ROUX ₪ 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Unsatisfied with response to Question #7, which misreads policy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain? If you truly feel that Timmeh's close was out of order, you might want to be heading over to DRV, because that is pretty much what the closing admin came up with as well. NW (Talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing admin's close was also incorrect, and a misreading of policy. However, as is the case with many problems on the site, I don't have the time to fix everything that other people have screwed up, so I'm just letting it go, in the hope that someone else will un-screw it later. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain how exactly it was a misreading of policy? If you're right, I'd certainly like to know such information for when I am closing similar AfDs if I become an admin. Timmeh 00:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose User:Martinp's comment is dead on. You seem to have a craving for the tools that makes me incredibly uncomfortable given your three failed RFAs (all within months of the other) and demonstrated history of bad judgment in several very visible instances that would have been truly nightmarish had you been able to simply throw a block to vent your enthusiasm. Many of your supports are also about as wishy-washy and unconvincing as any I've seen on RfA in quite some time. Unlike many people, I don't consider maturity and patience (at which you've erred previously, as I explained) to be extra-special traits that make you a shoo-in at RfA. They are minimal requirements. Sorry. Bullzeye contribs 23:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does he really have three failed RfA's? Was there another one under another account? I see that Timmeh was originally known as Tim62389, but I can't find any RfA under that account. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do in fact have only two failed RfAs, one coming not within months of the other, but a year and a half afterward. Timmeh 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Per question 7. I've no problem per se with deleting this article. I missed the discussion but I probably would have gone with an IAR delete !vote with a nod toward "NOTNEWS". But "but they fail to take into account the fact that this person and event were covered almost exclusively in newspapers." is just a horrible reason to delete. Lots of what we cover are found just in newspapers. This one appears to involve some 30 articles (per the AfD discussion). Other issues raised about maturity worry me, but I've not investigated beyond this discussion... Hobit (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the answer to question 7 as "local newspapers" but maybe I'm assuming too much here, perhaps Timmeh can clarify. -- Atama頭 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I probably should have been more clear by specifying local newspapers. The person did not receive significant coverage nationally or globally. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings. :) Timmeh 22:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify that? Is there a policy or guideline or something else that makes purely local sources (not national or global) unacceptable in this case? Hobit (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If a person does not receive significant coverage outside their local area, I'd think it's unlikely that the person would be historically relevant or notable. Basically, consensus was to delete the article, and that's the main reason to close it as delete, but WP:IAR certainly applies because of the unusual nature of the BLP case, as well as WP:BLP because of the coverage almost entirely of the event and not the person, and WP:NOTNEWS, as most coverage is local news coverage. Wikipedia articles are not news reports. Timmeh 11:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response, that does make a bit more sense. Given DGG's comments below, I still worry about your level of understanding of our deletion policies at this time. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an FYI, my last RfA was the first time I received any criticism of my AfD !votes, and two of DGG's examples are from a few months before that. Timmeh 22:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I'm still not thrilled with your answer to #7, even with the clarification as the notion of local coverage as a limiting factor doesn't exist in any BLP related guideline or policy that I know of and your original answer would have been a horrible closing statement. Given the supports that are coming from people I trust I suspect you're going to be a good admin someday. I'm just not sure you know this area, one you indicated you want to work in, well enough at this time. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Simply, not yet. I want to see more time of not being involved in unnecessary drama. I'm not that concerned about the username since Wikipedia did in fact elect a messed rocker to be administrator. @harej 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Mostly per Friday. I'm not entirely convinced that someone can make such a change in 3 months. The way Timmeh interjected himself into the discussion on MZM's RFA (as noted above) did little but cause unnecessary drama (and IMO totally misinterpreted MZM's comment). As well as comments like "The number of edits seems like a more accurate gauge of experience gained than length of time" – Edit count is a measure of nothing but number of edits. Mr.Z-man 01:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose because of rationales given in various AfD arguments showing unawareness of well-established principles. (I am not concerned with wether to keep or delete, or whether it agrees with the decision in the case, or whether I agree with the decision in the case; nor would I emphasise this as much if the candidate had not specified a primary intention to work at closing afds.) (1)"Most of the articles in a Google News search of this person are in German" [1]; vs. sources in any language are acceptable (2) "I did find a few articles on the game (4 or 5), but at least 3 of them were pay-per-view " [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Generations (game)]; vs paid sources are acceptable (3) " the whole format is defunct, so its players are very unlikely to be notable anyway" [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toshiba HD-A1] vs. notability is permanent DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno. The first two are both from April, almost six months ago, so I'm unwilling to assign too much weight to them under the circumstances. I would read the third comment to mean "unlikely to be[come] notable [in the future]", which would be a perfectly reasonable statement, but perhaps that's just me. Tim Song (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how you can read 'be' as 'become'. The changes you suggest give a completely diffent tense than specified in the original message. — neuro(talk) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the first two are from before my second RfA in June. I've made a strong effort to improve my AfD rationales since then. In the third, I'm not saying that notability is not permanent; I think it's basic deletion knowledge that notability is permanent. The fact that the format went defunct so quickly without widespread usage makes it unlikely to be notable. Timmeh 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Your behavior and mindset is not one that I would like to see in an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per concerns about maturity levels, understanding of policy, and decision making ability above. The username also certainly gives me pause. — Jake Wartenberg 03:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Dougstech and Mzm give me pause. Perhaps in a few months but not now. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose 3 months/2000 edits isn't a long time, in terms of Wikipedia; I don't see why waiting a bit longer is an unreasonable request, when adminship is forever. I have concerns over maturity. Keep up the good work, and I'm sure adminship will come naturally enough - or perhaps it will come from this RfA, but I can only vote according to my own opinions, not based on the way things are going.  Chzz  ►  04:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Friday said it better than I could ever hope to. Badger Drink (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Like some of the others I'd like to see a little more time to confirm that the issues from the last RFA are truly corrected long term.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose This RFA being accepted three months and two days after withdrawing from the previous one is too soon for the concerns raised then. Also, the improvement after that RFA indicates a change in visible behavior on Wikipedia, not a change in underlying attitude or maturity; a longer period of time would be needed to demonstrate that the behavior change is not simply a show to gain adminship. Considering the problems in the last RFA, should have waited at least 6 months after that one to accept a nomination again. If this doesn't pass, I would be more than willing to support in 4-6 months if no new major concerns develop between now and then. Username is within policy so that isn't a real concern for me. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Per DGG. Those AfD arguments are a far cry from the answers Timmeh gave in this RfA and gives me reason to doubt his judgement in closing AfDs. -- Atama頭 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of those AfDs are from April, before my last RfA in June when I first received criticism of my AfD !votes. If you'll take a look at User:Timmeh/AFD, you can see that my participation since my last RfA is separated out for reviewing convenience. :) Timmeh 22:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. You're correct, your AfDs since then are pretty solid, I can't see any poor arguments in them. (I didn't read them all but I did read most of them.) I'm switching back to support, because again I think that actions speak for themselves and if you took prior criticism to heart and changed, then your mistakes prior to the last RfA shouldn't be held against you (not enough for me to oppose at least). -- Atama頭 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. To put it plainly, "retard" jokes are not funny, and someone who makes one every time he signs his name is not showing enough maturity for me to support. Also, I remember this editor reverting edits to change "re-elect" back to the less readable "reelect" repeatedly. It's trivial, but it is part of a general sense I get from this editor, which goes beyond the name, that he is not ready. Jonathunder (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely we can find better ways of evaluating a candidate's character than a username. It's not like his signature is "ha ha a retard is funny because he's retarded". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It does show a severe lapse (lack?) of judgment, the fact that it has not been changed subsequently likely indicates that no change has occurred. — neuro(talk) 08:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a lapse of judgment and most certainly not a severe lack of judgment. It's the name of a cartoon character whose name is Timmy though Timmmmmmmeeeeeeeee is the standard pronunciation in the show as YouTube can attest. It's no more scandalous a username than Homer's donuts (contribs). To say that he makes a retard joke every time he signs his name is ridiculous. I don't understand how this oppose is getting any kind of traction... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - poor judgment (per Jonathunder), lack of knowledge of policy (per DGG), and too many recent RfA's (per Theseeker4). Sorry. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I've given this some thought, and it's just too soon after the Dougstech mess and concerns expressed in the last RFA. More globally, I've learned to look askance at folks who seek adminship this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose because waiting a mere 3 months is a bit of a slap in the face. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose I have a lot of the same concerns as those above me. I think that after the way your last RfA went, you should have waited more than 3 months before running again. It's just not enough time to see how you've supposedly changed. iMatthew talk at 19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose too many judgmental concerns, doesn't seem like the right time...Modernist (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - agree with User:Friday, and it looks like the user deliberately wants the tools. His username is not helping either. Whytye (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't yet commented on this RFA, but... 'it looks like the user deliberately wants the tools'? How is that a reason to Oppose? Should we only be giving the tools to people who don't want to be admins? :/ Robofish (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only conclude that Whytye used the wrong words, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. — neuro 12:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - per above and per concerns with judgement and how soon the RfA is. Razorflame 22:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. After giving this some thought, I have to oppose. Most people seem to agree that Timmeh has demonstrated poor judgment in the past - the only issue is whether to apparent change in the last 3 months is real or an act. I am not going to go so far as to say it is an act, just that we don't have a long enough history to properly judge. If a new editor was applying after 3 months and 2000 edits, the RfA would almost certainly fall. Yes the standard advice is "wait at least 3 months & 3000 edits before reapplying", but that is the bare minimum and I personally would prefer to see more time and/or edits. Thus, I do not feel enough time has passed to accurately judge whether the change is real or not. Additionally, I am slightly bothered by the answers to the questions as they appear to be "politically worded" so as to "offend" as few people as possible by fence sitting. This, by itself, wouldn't matter much, but added to the quick re-application it leaves me uneasy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not a self-nomination. I nominated Timmeh once again for adminship because he had clearly taken on board the valid concerns raised in the previous RfA. If we genuinely have candidates who are willing to make thousands of minor and immensely constructive edits to a neglected area of Wikipedia purely as "an act" to gain adminship for some unspecified nefarious purpose, then quite frankly Wikipedia is doomed. Timmeh is a sensible, civil, and dedicated user who has basically been forced to jump through various hoops by the opposers on his previous RfA. In the process of his editing, he has both jumped through those hoops and continued on his original highly constructive path - only to be opposed once again for two things: requesting adminship too soon (something myself should be held responsible for) and his username (which has never been previously raised as an issue). I get the feeling that this is a user that simply cannot win here.
    I do apologise to ThaddeusB for making this comment to his oppose specifically - this is directed at many of those who've opposed here, and this just happens to be the one that finally inspired a response from me. ~ mazca talk 01:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was not a self-nom, but he didn't have to accept either. You will note I said there were insufficient edits to judge him solely on his new edits, which is ideally what I personally would like to do. This is my primary reason for opposing. Others, of course, are welcome to use their own standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose !votes are not only more convincing, but are also much better thought out.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, too bent on becoming an admin, also concerns about maturity and discretion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Despite your clarification above your reading of policy with regard to Q7 is still flawed. WP:BLP1E is correct but WP:NOTNEWS cannot be applied with that rationale, regardless of your clarification above. You also seem a bit too eager to become an admin. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Support Weak Oppose: There are issues. I wish you had waited until Jan. Seems a bit too eager to become an admin. Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But of course if he goes through RfA this January, he'll be flooded by "4th RfA? no no no." I would invite people to think this kind of thing through. We've got to find admins somewhere and imposing mandatory time/number of edits requirements between RfAs is not going to get us anywhere. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is logic behind such requirements. — neuro 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would dispute that. Above, Thaddeus claims that "wait at least 3 months & 3000 edits before reapplying" is a bare minimum. That's certainly news to me and I'm not sure where those numbers are coming from. Just three years ago, we had successful RfAs for editors who had 3000 edits total. I've been an admin for close to two years and a half and trust me, the job has not gotten harder. But RfA certainly has in part because of arbitrary standards like these. They guarantee that we only promote people who have the time to make 1500 edits a month. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I offer that number only as the general advice offered by many editors, not as my own standard. If you look at previous RfAs that have failed, this is indeed the most common numbered offered. Also, what the community standards were 3 years ago is irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well many editors also feel that these are ridiculously high and completely arbitrary numbers. Yes, community standards were different three years ago (and in fact two years ago) but how did we get from viable candidates with 3000 edits to "you can't run because you need 3000 edits since your last RfA". Nothing really, we've just gone crazy with the RfA standards. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion backlog which for the first time since my promotion two and a half years ago is regularly over 200. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And an equally valid interpretation is they were ridiculously low 3 years ago... In any case, if you accept the idea that a certain number X edits is required to judge a candidate (which most people do), if makes perfect sense, logically speaking, to expect a user to compile a similar number of additional edits before replying if there first Y edits were problematic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those "ridiculously low" standards of three years ago promoted plenty of great admins and conversely, today's standards have failed to prevent bad mistakes. You further argued that in any case, 3000 edits is too low to judge if someone's improvement is an act but then again, Pastor Theo fooled you with 5000 edits. Not that I blame you or anyone for Pastor Theo's promotion: we need admins for the project to run smoothly so we have to accept that RfA isn't foolproof. But the constantly rising standards of RfA do not make it any more foolproof and are partly to blame for the dwindling number of active admins. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correlation does not imply causality. — neuro 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I say "partly to blame". I believe that more valuable candidates would run under a less toxic RfA atmosphere but that's speculation. However, it's clear that some of the failed RfAs of 2009 would have been successful under less stringent standards. That's causality. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What you fail to understand, is that I am more concerned about preventing "minor mistakes" like out of process speedy deletions, overly-aggressive admins, poor readings on consensus, and so than trying to detect purposeful deception. Minor mistakes like these are rarely caught and, in my experience, are much more common among "older admins" than newer ones. Whether that is a reflection of higher RfA standards today or something else I really can't say. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point. I am still very much on the fence. Ret.Prof (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose primarily per DGG. We have too many AfD closes that substitute counting noses for policy-based consensus already, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose I'm not sure yet that Timmeh has the right temperament for adminship and appears to take some things too personally. Also, as many have said, I don't understand the rush to become an admin. More time is needed to evaluate his work and maturity. Shanata (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I find the judgment and maturity of the candidate lacking. ÷seresin 17:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Concerns about timing, maturity, judgement and motive (just another userbox to add to the impressive array already displayed} Leaky Caldron 17:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved off-topic discussion related to timing to the talk page. — neuro 20:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
I remember your last RfA (three months ago, perhaps too soon for another), and a lot of concerns were raised about maturity and independence of thinking. I am not sanguine that three months is enough time to address those issues. Neutral for now, pending a more detailed review of your contribs over the past 90 days. → ROUX ₪ 15:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Switched to oppose. → ROUX ₪ 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember right, the main concerns about maturity and independence of thinking were: 1. My behavior in the DougsTech discussions in April, and 2. My tendency to use AfD rationals like "per nom" or "per above". You can take a look here to quickly see my AfD participation since my last RfA. I hope that helps answer a few questions. Timmeh 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
iMatthew talk at 15:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to post a reason, iMatthew? tedder (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should he have to give a reason for neutral? It could simply mean abstain, or be a placeholder. If he opposes or supports, fair enough, but neutrals don't need a reason IMHO. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then he shouldn't have put his name down at all. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same position as roux. I'm not sure yet, and have still been looking through his contributions. Since when is a rationale required in the damn NEUTRAL section? iMatthew talk at 19:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of simply putting your name down in the neutral section, seriously? What possible reason could there be? If you're in the same position as another editor here, then make it known, otherwise don't vote at all. It's uninformative. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could not agree with Wisdom more. Seriously - Neutrals can swing an marginal RFA so please give the candidate, and the community, at least a basic reason as to why you are neither for nor against. Pedro :  Chat  20:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrals let closers know that people have read the RfA and are neutral about the outcome. A borderline RfA could swing to support (unless the oppose have solid diffs of worrying behaviour) and many neutrals could help that swing. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this, guys. I wouldn't have let it sit all week, especially if it got close towards the end. iMatthew talk at 22:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO GODDAMNIT HOW CAN WE MAINTAIN A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT WITH PEOPLE BEING REASONABLE AND TALKING ABOUT STUFF? RfA RUNS ON BILE AND PETTY BICKERING. etc etc NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I honestly can't see that enough time has elapsed since your last RFA for the community to be able to see whether you have addressed the concerns raised last time. The reasons why I opposed last time (A constant stream of "little slip-ups") are very difficult to get rid of. Regardless of your politeness during the Dougstech incident, I disagreed both then and now with your philosophy as to how minor trolls should be handled, and I think that you would be an administrator who is too quick on the trigger. I don't think that a certain amount of harmless crankery or plain disagreement is the huge problem which many users appear to think (see WP:DISAGREE). On the other hand, your article building is very impressive, and you do appear to have taken the comments from your last RFA to heart, so I am unable to oppose. Best of luck. AKAF (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning towards oppose based on the fact that your most recent RFA was in June. Keepscases oppose makes me mad, so I don't want to be in the same category as him.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    lol Keepscases (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @KC - Thanks for the wonderful insight. — neuro(talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I can't decide. I like the user's contributions to the project, along with their devotion, however there are significant concerns in the oppose section. I would just like to see Timmeh step into adminship with a humble attitude. Otherwise I have no other concerns that I can find in their contributions SparksBoy (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The main reason I decided to only work in two of the admin areas I have experience in is that I tend to be very cautious when trying something new and until I get used to the new task, buttons, tools, whatever the something may be. I intend to completely avoid any areas that are known for their drama (ANI, WP:AN, and AN/EW to a lesser extent) for a while after I become an admin, mainly because of my prior bad experiences there and a fear that I'd easily slip up and really make a mess with the "mop". I really can't imagine stepping into adminship with any attitude other than a humble and hopeful one. :) Timmeh 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, leaning towards support. I really like your resumé, but the reasoning behind the “oppose” votes gives me pause. (Note: this is not intended to be an “oppose in disguise.”) Bwrs (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too much fence-sitting in questions rather than committing to an answer. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I don't like the name, but I'm wrestling with whether that is an acceptable reason to oppose. If someone proposed banning such a name at WP:U I'd oppose it. If a new user wanted the name "I_am_a_jerk", I'd counsel against it, but not prohibit it, on the basis that the downside of the choice will largely accrue to the user. I'm tempted to argue that being an administrator is different, and negative reactions may accrue to Wikipedia, not just the editor, but I'm worried I am creating a bright line distinction between editors and admins, when the distinction is a bit grayer. My current position is that the name is acceptable for an editor, but not for an admin, but that position isn't as coherent as I would like, so I'm not ready to oppose just for that.--SPhilbrickT 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Timmeh would be willing to change his name. I know I had naming concerns in my RFA and I found that CHU was fairly painless. I tend to agree that administrators should strive for neutral, non-inflammatory, non-divisive usernames. –xenotalk 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think I share the concerns of many. The contributions are good, and I'd like to support, but I don't have the comfort level that I need. The combination of many individually insignificant cues, combined, is enough to keep me down here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral and let me tell you why: both Thaddeus and mazca's comments in oppose #32 above. To me, those two posts sum up the two sides of the coin right now. The odds are supposed to be 50-50 that when you flip a coin, you would get either heads or tails...but since I started following this RfA, it has always landed on the edge, every time. There have been dozens of additions, and sure enough, the coin keeps landing on the edge. I have great faith in the contributions, but the other side of the coin weighs just as heavy. My fear is going to be "where does Timmeh go from here" if this unfortunately fails...that would be the ultimate test for Tim, and will ensure the coin no longer lands on the edge in the future. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the coin is still teetering on the edge you might want to focus on a test of the candidate's judgement that hasn't been mentioned here yet. In light of current events I have been rereading Law and Pastor Theo's RFAs. Those events shouldn't really influence this RFA, but they are probably affecting the whole atmosphere on the pedia, or at least on the wikispace bits. My judgement as with many here was found wanting on those RFAs, as I supported both. Interestingly there were three !voters who had the good judgement to oppose both those RFAs. One of those three was Timmeh. Ironic that it is his judgement that is generating so many of the opposes.... ϢereSpielChequers 19:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is ironic and one of the reasons I do support Tim overall. I generally don't focus on single issues, I look at patterns, and please remember - I'm being neutral, sticking up for him, and actually expressed my sincerity directly on his talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin is not a big deal, Timmeh is not going to make the wheels drop off, he will I am sure go slowly and take care, nothing much will have changed by January, editors that have opposed simply to wait another couple of months could take a chance and move to support, there are plenty of people watching out, so he will I am sure learn his way to being a very useful Admin. Give him a chance. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Bwilkins: Timmeh has had two other AfD closures that he handled very well and continued to be an excellent contributor.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't we all? I've closed dozens of AfD's, but it's always 1 or 2 that people remember. I have already acknowledged his contributions and positives. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Timmeh_3&oldid=1144596787"