Timneu22 (talk·contribs) regularly exhibits hasty and clumsy behavior when doing new pages patrol. He is not willing to discuss his requests for speedy deletions or nominations for deletion. He does not seem to research the material he nominates adequately. He has awarded himself a barnstar as a joke, "You play whack-a-mole with terrible new pages like no one I've ever seen! Awesome!" Requests to discuss his actions are met with deletion of the requests and comments such as "I'm simply not interested", "I'm not concerned about this one bit", "I just. Don't. Care" See User talk:Fred Bauder/Test for more detail. User:Fred BauderTalk23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like the type of behavior that is currently causing Wikipedia's new editor rate to plummet. At the very least, Timneu22 should be willing to reply to concerns raised in good faith. Tagging articles for deletion should not be a casual affair ("playing whack-a-mole"), but approached with thoughtful consideration. Kaldari (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for comment here is just nonsense. I'm not clumsy when I patrol pages, and I'm rarely hasty. I patrol thousands of pages, and if I get one wrong out of every 200, well that's a pretty good record. The complaints are not any more frequent than that, I can tell you. And you know why I just. Don't. Care.? Because the discussion on my talk page was about a speedy tag that I applied — correctly — about 9 months ago. I don't care about something that old. — Timneu22·talk00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think his job done in the last two days was quite good, almost every article tagged for speedy deletion was deleted. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the January contributions because you nominated for speedy deletion a few articles that didn't got deleted at all. Just keep on doing like you have done recently and do not get too aggressive with TW. ---Neo139 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making mistakes is one thing ... I've made a few as an NP patroller and admin. No one is perfect.
The real issue is not that you made them, it's how you've reacted when those mistakes are called to your attention. It doesn't matter whether it was nine months ago or today. Most human beings have a right to expect something better than "I. Don't. Care", whether they're new editors here or your fellow NP patrollers. Is it so hard to say you're sorry? Just once? Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, it seems that Timneu believes that by archiving all the previous complaints, they are 'out of sight, out of mind'. The greatest problem for him with his 'I don't care' attitude, is that he has put his maturity in question, has demonstrated little concern for community spirit, and is now losing the respect of fellow Wikipedians, and their confidence that he is capable of carrying out reasonably accurate work. Kudpung (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. I keep my talk page clean by, well, clearing it. Community spirit? I'm all over the place asking people's opinions. Losing respect of users I've never heard of, who are suddenly on my talk page? You can't honestly take a look at my work as a whole and say I cannot carry out accurate work. That's just absurd. Again, if I get 0.5% of my pages wrong, so be it. I call them as I see them, and I move on. And I certainly don't dwell on some page from May of 2010. — Timneu22·talk11:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's simply no problem here. NPPers get shit on every day, by idiots who are vandals, by good-faith spammers, by bad-faith spammers, and now by Wikipedia admins who don't have the willingness to be NPPers themselves. To paraphrase: You reap the benefits of the quality-patrol service that I provide, and then question the manner in which I provide it. How many NPPers are there? I know of like three. I have done nothing but help improve the quality of Wikipedia. — Timneu22·talk10:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please try to moderate your language and try to avoid making oblique personal attacks. Not only admins, but also informed editors know exactly who is patrolling new pages, how often they do it, and what their hit and miss rate is. A significant number of new page patrollers are admins, and they put right what the new page patrollers get wrong.
First, I didn't make any personal attacks. Second, I truly don't appreciate this nonsense discussion taking place on my talk page. — Timneu22·talk11:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what, exactly, have I brought? I just do the same work I've always done, and now I have people I've never heard of complaining because someone posted something on Jimbo's talk page. Is this some sort of Jimbo-worship mob rule that Conservapedia talks about? Honestly, What is your ultimate goal here? To get rid of a valuable contributor to Wikipedia? This whole thing is pointless. — Timneu22·talk11:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As has been documented, there had been previous complaints about your hastiness with speedies and incivility, to which you responded as you did here: juvenile lashing out at those who brought this to your attention and complete and utter denial that you are anything less than perfect at NPP.
All those things would be less of an issue, to me, if your userpage hadn't indicated such an unhealthy joy in what I am fully aware, because I did it once, is a difficult and monotonous task, an attitude that came through in your responses. I'm watching that video right now ... the hurt in that boy's voice is indisputable. That's the sound a mole makes when it's being whacked. Don't it make you feel good? He deserved a better, more tactful explanation than "nonsense ... I doubt this is an encyclopedic topic". He was posting in good faith, something you have not given the slightest indication you are even willing to understand (Certainly your response to this indicates a massive unwillingness to assume good faith on the part of everyone bringing this). Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, you nominatedPaco Yunque, created by a new editor, Bireswardas (talk·contribs), for deletion 6 minutes after the editor had created the article, with their first edit to Wikipedia. I would like you to consider the effect that this may have on a new contributor: it can be profoundly dispiriting. We have no way of knowing if the editor meant to expand the article further, or if they have been permanently discouraged from contributing here. The work is without question notable: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
I would like you to stop speedying and Afd-ing new articles within minutes of creation, unless they involve serious BLP concerns or are clearly promotional articles. --JN46613:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that the message at the top of Timneu22's talkpage probably encapsulates the problem. Not only is it hostile, it's incorrect. Articles that qualify for deletion under A7 do not require sources or to demonstrate notability, they are only required to assert significance. I had a major run-in with Timneu, culminating in him reporting me to ANI on 17 December [6]. Here's the edit combining an attack on admins with a totally offensive description of a piece of content on the subject of a Hindu holy man (he called it 'a pile of shit' several times) [7]. For convenience, the whole discussion can be read here. The mistake (thinking it was devoid of meaning) was perhaps understandable, the language directed at it was inexcusable and unwarranted. To this day, I do not believe Timneu thinks he did anything wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that message isn't even the worst example. See this, which it took till well after an ArbCom decision to get the user in question to soften up. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite strange to see the number of people, including me, who have had an issue with Timneu over the same issue, that is, Timneu's occasionally regular wrong nominations, lack of civil communication at times and closure towards accepting that a problem exists. I had contacted Timneu separately in the past about his wrong nominations and have been quite taken aback by his responses. Timneu22 also does bite newcomers liberally and sometimes hastens with speedy'ing articles despite being clearly wrong. Karl Ley (Timneu's CSD nom for this, the subsequent AFD nom by Timneu) and Trilegal have been my personal experiences with Timneu's biting attitude on new editors and faulty CSD and AfD nominations. Timneu called me an idiot while replying to my message when I informed him that I was declining his speedy; in the past, he has used terms like fuck it, Fuck prod, and Prod sucks while replying to other administrators and editors when he was notified about not re-adding prod templates that are removed. Some months ago, I had to give Timneu a single-block warning for addressing Sarah Palin as an idiot. On the positive side, Timneu22 does relentlessly tag new pages and I do feel bad that he has not learnt to control his dialogging capabilities with other editors, newbies and administrators who decline his noms. I feel this because Timneu is a relentless new page patroller - of a breed that is extremely invaluable to our project in one sense; in case he were to apply policy aptly and control his emotions while replying, in Timneu we could have one of our topmost new page patrollers. I truly believe that and am convinced about that. Wifione ....... Leave a message00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally regular? Nonsense. I tag thousands of pages, and get very few wrong. I'm not the only NPPer who hates PROD. It does suck; it's really difficult to do NPP and keep track of nominated articles for a week. AfD or CSD; prod is a useless process to me and to others. Also, it's nice to see that you try to make a case by citing the same edit twice. Classy. And I never say I only say "fuck" in disgust; never aimed at a person. — Timneu22·talk00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad you have to go through this. All you need to do is accept that from now on, you'll nom pages more considerately and that you'll have a positive temperament while replying to editors pointing out issues. You should necessarily continue your NPP as, despite my obvious biased slant evidenced above, I believe in your contributions. This might sound funny, but I truly do feel sorry that you have to go through all this. Wifione ....... Leave a message01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go through what? What is the point of all this? Since there's no desired resolution, this is just a free-for-all for people to attack my behavior. Might as well attack Rickey Henderson for all those caught stealing records. What a horrible player! He was successful 82% of the time, and I'm certain that my NPP success was waaaay ahead of that. But it's fine, just jump on the bandwagon. I've seen references to some pages from 7 and 9 months ago. Wow! That sure is relevant. You do whatever you want here. Especially since I have no desire to edit again. — Timneu22·talk01:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a desired resolution: it was that you patrol with more accuracy, demonstrate more respect for your co volunteers, stop the unacceptable use of language (even if you think it is modern), and demonstrate some maturity by removing the self-awarded barnstars and treating the whole WMF as a joke. If you have now opted to throw your toys out of the pram instead of just adopting a more friendly attitude around here, that is your choice and no one has forced you into making it. Most of the work you were doing will be a net loss to the project, but we will be able to live with that. --Kudpung (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, the top of Special:NewPages says "Consider patrolling from the back", not "You must patrol from the back". As I've said, you need at least a few people watching the front because you need to watch for the vandalism, attack pages, and copyright violations. Those need to be taken care of more quickly than they would be if no one did anything but patrolled the log from the back. Furthermore, it's a guideline, not a policy, and one that can't and shouldn't be followed to the letter. If we want to talk about "violating NPP guidelines", we can leave that one out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's the combination of factors: year-in, year-out, hundreds of contributors, at least a sizeable percentage of whom will have come here unskilled but in good faith, are having their articles speedied within a couple of minutes of clicking 'Save'. Which is precisely what Wikipedia:NPP#Patrolling_new_pages says should not happen, because, to quote, "Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author." When they go to find out who annoyed them, they come to a—frankly—immature user page where someone pats himself on the back for engaging in a game of "whack-a-mole" aimed at deleting their work as soon as it is created. They will feel, 'There is a person there who enjoys making me feel bad.' This sense of abuse of power will be their first—and in many cases, I fear, last—real impression of Wikipedia culture. We have our problems, but in this way we are making ourselves look worse than we need to. A few people here are worried about the plummeting number of new editors. If this is new editors' first experience of contributing to Wikipedia, should we be surprised that they don't stick around? Try to see it from their point of view. Moreover, this not only puts up barriers for new editors intent on joining the project. It also causes established editors to leave because, as one former editor wrote the other day, they "don't want to be part of a household where visitors are beaten up the moment they cross the threshold". --JN46618:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NPP#Be_nice_to_the_Newbies mentions that it "is also important to assume good faith as much as possible, or, minimally to assume incompetence instead of malice". Timneu22 does not do that; he assumes bad faith even with good-faith editors, calling their work "a pile of shit", "nonsense", and coming down hard on a ten-year-old kid whom he terms a "vandal" when clearly this is not what happened. And his response, when it is pointed out to him, is to say, "It is not my fault", and "I just. Don't. Care". That is not good enough. --JN46618:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the video is fair, and I wouldn't have called it vandalism either; however, that was also from June. Besides— this is probably my PDD-NOS here, but still— when communicating I focus solely on the point being made. I don't care how it's made, just that it's there and I can respond to it. I'm somewhat humorous about this on the notice on my talkpage, but in all seriousness I see no difference between "I've reverted your removal of five valid sources" and "Why the hell did you take five fucking sources out?"; they both communicate the same message. As to the immediate issue at hand; you may not necessarily agree with the way it's being said, but his points are generally valid. Tact is nice, and I know I'd have communicated some of this differently (the "pile of shit" comment is a sentiment I agree with, but I'd have phrased it more mildly), but I find it hard to disagree with a lot of what he says. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only one of the three certifiers I've ever come across on NPP is Kudpung, although I also know that NPP is rather lonely work and you can go a long time without seeing someone on the job. However, I have to say a few things. First and foremost, Timneu22 has done an enormous amount of work on NPP, and is very adept at picking up on bullshit. A huge chunk of NPP is picking up on bullshit and determining what is and isn't a credible claim, an advertisement, or an attack page, or... whatever you care to insert. I am 100% with him on the video that kid made; it doesn't matter how old the person is, nor how long the page has been up, the topic is blatanly unencyclopedic and has no business here. No amount of editing would have fixed that. The fact that some people are more sensitive than others isn't his fault. In order to do NPP, one has to be able to not give a fuck what other people think of them, because unlike vandal fighters we receive essentially no recognition for our work. Instead, we're pilloried when we validly tag pages by those who can't accept that their band is still a garage band or any multitude of things, and we're pilloried by regular users (often admins, but not always) when we get one or two wrong. I don't mind it at all, as I find NPP fascinating; I often get a laugh at some of the shit people try to post, and I learn a lot from pages that are on encyclopedic topics. But I also know I'm unusual because in the real world, I have a hard time accepting praise for anything; I'd rather be left alone and only spoken to if I'm having a problem (our article on PDD-NOS is pretty pathetic- you'll have to read about both Asperger's syndrome and autism to fully get it, as I'm a rather neat (and mercifully mild) mix of the two). Most people are not like that, and get sick of dealing with shit like No one reacts like the Militray Bases(Except Wright-Paterson Air Force).I miss being able to call them.When i try to phone anyone--I Vomit.--I do not get Hospital sick,I just Vomit Once,So i know this a War Criminal attack on my life,and the Children. (yes, this was the title of the article) and never getting any thanks for it- a vandal fighter reverting a polemical rant like that from someone's user page would get a barnstar. It seems easy enough to be able to PROD things until you have to keep track of 15-20 PROD tags and 10 BLPPROD tags (which really need to be monitored), and if you don't believe me try it. As for the foul language... I can't speak for the rest of you, but I'm 20. I can handle invective, and I'm not seeing anything so horrible that it warrants any kind of action. Calling Sarah Palin an "idiot" isn't exactly OR, it's reflecting the opinions of millions, if not billions, of people (I'll leave my personal opinions out of this; suffice to say you may be surprised), so I'm not seeing how that's a BLP issue. If it is, you can't call her "great" either, because that's just as unsourced an assertion, and BLP isn't supposed to discriminate between good and bad. I will say more when I get the time, but this is a good enough start The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny that elevator filming (hobby) is not at present a notable topic (although I noted that ED have an article on it). But there is simply no point in being rude, speaking of "vandalism" and "nonsense", or using gutter language. It is unacceptable for those volunteers who are, as it were, Wikipedia's welcoming committee for new users, to behave in this manner towards people who, however incompetently, are trying to contribute in good faith. It hurts the project. --JN46606:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minimum requirements need to be satisfied (before each editor starts to comment on the substance)
The succinct version of the following comment can be found here. This section will be collapsed upon that issue being resolved so that the RfC/U can continue unhindered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This really does apply to certifiers in particular rather than just anyone who has a passing interest.
SlimVirgin has already quite correctly pointed out the need to include evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Each of the certifiers needs to show where they tried to resolve the dispute through discussion (most commonly via the user's talk page); that goes beyond just notifying a party and then setting up this RfC - it is actively discussing the issue with the user in question.
I can see plenty of evidence showing Kudpung's attempts to discuss this with Timneu22. I can see some evidence of discussion between Jayen466 and Timneu22 (though even that isn't presented very well or clearly on the page). I don't see any real evidence of Fred doing the same (though again, that might be due to the manner in which it is presented). Some of the evidence is somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of this particular section. For example, prima fascie, a discussion on Jimbo's talk page is not an attempt to resolve the dispute with Timneu22; it's evidence of something else. Similarly, evidence showing clear attempts by Daniel Case to resolve the dispute does not show that an attempt is made by Fred Bauder. If the conduct issue is concerning Timneu22 (which one would hope is the case), then it really needs to show attempts between Timneu22 and each of the editors listed under "users certifying the basis of this dispute" (and to save controversies, ordering it to that effect might help). Obviously, there's 48 hours to present this evidence (from the time the RfC is created). I hope that brings some clarity as to why this remains uncertified despite the three mentioned editors being listed as certifiers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is all good; I'd suggest that Fred's certification be moved to the bottom of the list for the time being - in the event that Fred doesn't show evidence of his attempts (that is, beyond a notification), his name can be struck before the RfC is closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Outside view by Syrthiss disregards the fact that many editors have talked to Timneu22 over the past few days, weeks, and months, with perfect sensitivity and politeness. The result, shown by the diffs, was that Timneu22 called these editors idiots, and told them in very clear and often profanity-laced terms that he didn't care one bit what they thought.
Timneu22 has been adamant in his refusal to follow NPP guidelinesnot to speedy articles one minute after creation and instead work on the backlog. He has not been sensitive to other editors' concerns, or the potential feelings of new contributors, treating NPP as a whack-a-mole video game in which he wanted to come first.
Timneu22 keeps insisting that he is done with Wikipedia. Yet he is still here, and complaining; without any apparent sense that any aspect of his behaviour – wilful disregard of NPP processes, ongoing rudeness – might possibly have been less than stellar.
Syrthiss, Timneu22 had plenty of opportunities to avoid this RfCU. He closed every door that was opened to him—not gently, but slamming it in people's faces. This is not the time to opine that a "gently, gently" process might have worked. The "gently, gently" process failed to make any impression on Timneu22. That is why we are here.
And I share Wifione's concern that Timneu22 may very well want to come back under a new account—he's said as much—and continue behaving in exactly the same manner. --JN46617:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was more talking about the past two days. Its harder for me to judge what has occurred over the weeks and months prior to now based on Timneu22's talkpage blanking habits. Considering I had his talkpage watched, I must have interacted with him in the past but I can't recall if it was favorable or unpleasant (which I'll go check in a bit). Syrthiss (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was favorable, or at least neutral. Both were me informing him of status changes in pages he had tagged, it looks like. Syrthiss (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Syrthiss, really, the RFC is not because of a one-off aberration from Timneu; if it had been, you may have well been right to use the Rhino simile. Timneu's peccant pattern has occurred over many months (which I have evidenced personally), if not years. At one point in the past year, I had to watchlist his talk page just to ensure that all the newbies who would end up on his talk page don't get blown away in one shot. For example, that's how I tracked Trilegal and the newbie editor creating it; one of the cases documented in the RfC. From Elen of the Roads, to four other editors certifying in this RfC, to another non-certifying editor who also mentions the sloppiness of many of Timneu's NPP nomming contributions - each time when Timneu has been approached with a proactive request to correct his wrong noms or policy shortcomings, the response from Timneu has been always explosive, with a (I'm sorry to use this word, but it fits the situation) tragedy queen touch put in towards the end for additional emphasis. This is my personal view, but I honestly believe that you, Blade and the others should consider once whether you are doing more harm to the project than good by forwarding a rhino simile to expansively justify the behavior of an editor who has time and again simply scythed down newbies and spouted out invectives without remorse and without an acceptance of the mistake. Editors may well hold for long the belief that Timneu should have been handled with kid gloves and mollycoddled into acquiescence - I know why they would hold it; because they wouldn't have ever tried to make him correct his behavior. One try would have been enough for them to understand the quintessential assume-bad-faith procedure of Timneu. After repeated requests to Timneu to correct his attitude and nomming procedures have failed - purely due to Timneu blanking off discussions with flat-mouthed statements - this RfC has been proposed. With all this in context, I can simply not fathom how your Rhino simile even fits here. Wifione ....... Leave a message18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do users under RFC usually have shaky SPIs filed on them, and undergo outing in those SPIs? THAT is what is disturbing me. THAT is the rhino-like behavior. I have never as part of my comments on this RFC said that I am defending Timneu22's behavior. From his responses it is unlikely that he would have responded favorable once the RFC was filed, but mistakes by some of the filing parties guaranteed that it would fail. Syrthiss (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say something to that effect, but Syrthiss took the words out of my mouth. I'd also submit that if you were concerned about someone's behavior, the way to go about resolving it (which is, at least I thought, the purpose of an RfC) would not be to out the person and accuse them of sockpuppetry; that's only going to provoke them and make things worse. That people lacked this foresight is rather disappointing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To quote a great guy: you cannot be serious! User 208 was "outed" (but not really) in the previous comment. We were all friendly on that page trying to improve it; I had many dealings discussing that page with 208. Do you think linking an IP address to a username is the same as what you did? No. That's not even an "outing". Daniel Case, you and your behavior should be seriously questioned as an administrator. You're going to review one of my edits from 2007 that's not even remotely close to what you did, and try to make me out to be a hypocrite? You are the reason I will not donate my time (or money, which I did) to Wikipedia in the future. Your comment here is just completely ridiculous. — Timneu22·talk21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joke or not, it was taken seriously enough that the accused user felt compelled to disclose his IP a few edits later. That was a world away from finding out that you've been using a sock to edit an article on yourself for several years which even you have admitted shouldn't be kept and proving it by a link to your YouTube account that 'anyone can view which made the relationship transparently obvious. You complain about that yet one of the xlinks in this RFC would also, by that standard, out you as well.
And I have found stronger evidence for your socking (unfortunately, I will have to share it with the relevant parties privately as you threw a loud enough tantrum to persuade people to redact the original SPI that I don't think it's wise to try to open it up again). I don't need to try any harder to make you out to be a hypocrite ... I know it and so do you. You are angry because your shameful little secret has been exposed, one which makes mockery of everything you claim to uphold. If only that little boy practically sobbing in that video could see you now ... I don't think he'd be crying for you, would he? There's a word for this thing that's happening to you. And a song ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that above, I'm tempted to invoke WP:KETTLE, so I will. I'm pretty sure starting an RfC on someone for perceived incivility and then baiting them falls under the definition of "cheap shot", and frankly is quite pathetic. NPA applies to everyone, and argumentum ad hominem is called a fallacy when used in that fashion for a reason. If we're throwing songs around, you can have a look at this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are embarrassed by the linkage of one of several other accounts on other websites, one where you left some information that identified you in a place everyone could see, and that that information was then used to raise a valid COI allegation here does not mean you get to recklessly shout "Outing! Outing!" at me as if doing so long and hard enough would make me disappear. After a certain point, doing this without substantiating it becomes a personal attack. I did not out anything you hadn't already put out there yourself; stop complaining and contribute rationally and calmly. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done nothing but that. Again, you're the cause of all this, not me. You're digging yourself in bigger and bigger holes as you try to talk your way out. Just stop already. — Timneu22·talk17:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, since I don't see a contribution of yours after these timestamps to a checkuser I assume that you are doing this in some off-wiki way. If that is what you need to do to preserve sensitive information, that is fine. Can you have the checkuser share the results here or in a new SPI page when it is complete? Syrthiss (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the wake of this disclosure, and the AN/I consensus, I consider all further accusations and charges that I outed you to be a malicious and false personal attack that you would do best to formally retract, strikethrough and apologize for. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the {name redacted} biography User:Pianette7created is an almost exact copy of the Scott D. Davis article created by Timneu22, complete with the typo "Discograhy". The creation of a vanity biography citing blogs of the subject's friends and comrades in Internet music promotion is really a minor problem for the project, compared to the NPP concerns, but Timneu22's refusal to come clean about it and attack those pointing out the double standard leaves a poor impression. --JN46616:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen this. If either Tim or Daniel think they come over at all well they're very much mistaken, and I can't believe the time I've wasted on this. I feel a bit of an idiot to be honest. Why can't either of you play nice? Egg Centric (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: That's if it turns out Tim has been socking. If he hasn't, then to be honest this is disgusting behaviour by Daniel, policy be dammed. I'm not starting an RFC though - I know enough about how things work here to know that I'll be blocked for something or other. Tim, it seems to me, has nothing to lose by starting it. However he should only start it if he's whiter than white and genuinely concerned about his real life identity being so easily linked to his account. He may be trying to score points. And a kid was upset (not crying though I think). I dunno. Egg Centric (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I thought I had my last edit, but these accusations require rebuttal.) Daniel's behavior here has been disgusting from the start. Anyone who knows me knows that 1) being falsely accused of something really pisses me off and 2) I do not lie, to the point of brutal honesty. I am actively trying to determine who the editor is, so that I can figure out why I've been accused of things that I have not done. My guess is it's some sort of unintentional meatpuppet, which is to say it's just someone else. As for Daniel's latest promotional edits accusations: it looks like I created that Scott Davis page more than four years ago. Clearly when I was that editor I was not the experienced editor that I am today, but still my edits there weren't promotional. (Although now that I am highly familiar with WP:GARAGE, I understand the article should have been deleted; the article says nothing more than "this guy exists", at least on page creation.) My edit history is clear: Rickey Henderson, some point of sale companies, lots of typo fixes, and then lots of patrolling. Nothing promotional here, no SP, no vandalism, no attacking you. So stop it. I'm truly fed up, and I want any and all of your OUTING edits removed. My online identity was simply a guy who deleted articles, but you go and say "this guy and his real name are deleting your articles." So thanks for that, I hope you're proud. Obviously I should have chosen a different username, but this doesn't excuse your behavior. — Timneu22·talk18:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You edited Scott D. Davisjust 3 months ago; I've added some third-party refs to it, and given that his YouTube videos have had several million viewers, I'm prepared to support a weak keep. That YouTube-savvy kid you "whacked" figured out who you were all by himself and put it out there. You can thank him. --JN46618:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your two numbered points. 1) How do you think I feel about your now irrefutably demonstrably bad-faith outing accusations? No one except you thinks this is outing. As usual, emotionally it's all about you, isn't it? Doesn't matter if the other person is a 10-year-old or a 42-year-old, apparently. If you hurt, it never stops to occur to you that you might have brought this on yourself. 2) We'll be the judge of that. Lashing out at your accusers may win you some sympathy votes from editors not prepared to look at the allegations, but you have not addressed the facts at all. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Daniel: shut up. Others do think you caused the outing and have mentioned it at ANI. And to Jayen, wow, I fixed that article; is that a promo edit? What the hell are you accusing me of now? I'm simply done with Wikipedia. This is my final edit. I have no further need to reply. I haven't a clue who pianette7 is, and it's apparent you have a better idea than I. Good for you. I'm not going to defend myself any more. — Timneu22·talk19:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not really coming across as someone genuinely concerned about being outed (although I do agree you have been, whatever the letter of the policy says) rather than using it to score points. If you're genuinely concerned you should really contact arbcom or jimbo or something... Egg Centric (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the Mediawiki page where Timneu22 gives his full name, anyone who enters his user name in Google has the info Timneu22 is so concerned about having been revealed in the second google match, from a place where Timneu22 put it himself. It's a red herring. --JN46619:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not unsurprising to be honest. Such a shame things have come to this. But it's also a shame what happened to your wife. No one is winning at the moment, just various degrees of losing. I do wonder whether it would be a good idea to have a wiki negotiation project... Egg Centric (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to comment here as I have several encounters with Tim, but it is not at all clear whether he is really retiring or not. If he is then it would be pointless, not to mention cruel, to continue this RFC. If he isn't then he needs to clarify the situation. I suggest we all hold off for a day or two and see if this retirement is for real. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have retired. My only edits have been on these RfCs; that should be obvious. But no, others keep jumping on! If all people want is me to say "I'll be more prudent and go slower with my nominations", all these discussions were pointless anyway. I would have done that. But other events have made it clear that I shouldn't bother with this site any more. — Timneu22·talk23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was confusing me was that you were still contributing here, on this page. If you are truly retiring then you can feel free to consider this RFC closed and go ahead and retire. There is no point in trying to arrive at a voluntary solution with you if you have no intent to continue editing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this another way: If the RFC is stopped you will be leave, and not be commenting or editing further, if not forever then at least for a long time? I'm not implying that you should or have to do this, but that is what "retired" is generally understood to mean. If instead you are "semi-retired" but are going to continue watching things and making comments, then we should probably press on. I'm just trying to avoid wasting any time here, ours or yours.Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then this RFC nonsense should have been shutdown immediately when I said I was done. It may have even been started after I said that, which I believe is the case. It should be shut down now, as I have repeatedly said I'm not going to edit. I hope someone will start an RFC on Daniel Case. — Timneu22·talk01:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to return. All you guys want me to do is say "I'll be more prudent with my NPP patrolling and less bitey"; well I could do that and I would have already said that and still been on patrol. But it's just not worth it now, with unforgiving admins who are out to get me. I only did NPP for about the last year, because my day job was reallllly slow and I had nothing to do but surf the web for a few hours a day, so this was something I could do that felt productive. A user like Daniel Case, who is clearly a power-hungry chip-on-shoulder kind of guy, is the final straw. He found an edit in 2007 where I commented on someone else's comment that linked an IP to a username.... and he accuses me of "outing"? I mean, just trying to look for an edit like that (which wasn't "outing" in the first place) means the guy has a serious out-to-get-me problem. This is not an environment in which I care to spend my time. — Timneu22·talk12:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say you would have done that, but didn't when you had the chance, on a number of occasions. Instead you told everyone who expressed a concern that they were being an "idiot", that you just didn't care what they thought, and that there was in fact no problem to address. No one is out to "get you", but everyone would like you to acknowledge the problem and change your behaviour. That's all. Really. --JN46616:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting here as an uninvolved admin. I'm mentioning that because I've already used the tools in connection with this issue, and would like to be able to use them again should the need arise, so I don't want this comment to imply involvement.
Tim, the benefit of continuing with the RfC in this more formal way—rather than on your talk page—is that there's a space for you to reply to the charges, and no threaded discussion is allowed in that section, so your words will remain prominent and clear. That's why I added the formatting when I saw it go up informally, even though you'd said you had retired. The RfC will allow people who support you to add their views, as I see they're doing, and that will leave things more balanced. My advice to you, for what it's worth, is to take a couple of days off where you're not even thinking about this, then come back and post a calm response for the record. Then you can decide, once you see how the RfC is going, whether you want to return to editing. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS02:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues supporting Beeblebrox' statement; I just request for the addition of the following points in the closing statement.
It be noted that Timneu has not apologized within his RfC statement for any issue raised in this RfC. May it also be noted that Timneu should resume editing - either through his original account and/or through any other account(s) - only after he either requests all the RfC requesters and endorsers to formally re-open and close the RfC or he communicates directly with the arbitrators, who may at their discretion independently address the issue and take any decision or re-open the RfC. (For Timneu's personal privacy, may his misplaced outing accusation not be noted in the closing statement as it'll only exacerbate the issue to his disadvantage.) The final point to be noted is that in case Timneu resumes editing disregarding this closing statement in all its facets - either through his original account or through any other account(s) or both - this will not be considered a clean start, and his account(s) may be notified that he should first address the RfC issues before resuming editing, and he also be informed that if he fails to address the RfC issues first, his non-clean start accounts may be hard blocked only after and if a discussion addressing purely the blocking issue has been initiated at the ANI and reaches the block conclusion. Thanks Wifione ....... Leave a message05:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points:
We should not expect, and certainly should not try to force, an apology.
RFCs are non-binding, the idea is to come to a voluntary agreement, there is deliberately no mechanism to "enforce" them
If he is retiring I don't see any need for a "closing statement" we can just mark the RFC as indefinitely on hold
Wikfione, I'm sorry to seem critical, but I think you may be under a misapprehension as far as the scope and authority of an RFC/U. Timneu22 is quite at liberty to ignore this entirely voluntary process if he so chooses. He certainly has no formal obligations regarding it if he decides to edit again in the future. Thparkth (talk)19:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim hasn't edited in two days. For the moment, he does in fact appear to have retired. Are there any objections to placing this RFC on indefinite hold? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No (Apparently, it seems almost the same thing happened three years ago, without going here (We can't say we weren't warned ... it's got all the same ingredients). I think Tim means it this time. I hope he can find some peace. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
