WT:Requests for adminship/Timmeh 3#Participation by sockpuppets

(moved from Support section) → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

1. :Surely if, as you imply through your use of words, the current group of administrators that we have is bad, you would not want more of the same? — neuro^(talk) 11:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
2. ::Am I being offered a choice? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
3. :::Actually, you are. If your implication was indeed that the current set of administrators is bad, or short of satisfactory, and your implication was also that the candidate fits the same description (not saying he does or doesn't), your support undermines your viewpoint. The choice you are questioning the existence of is right in front of you. It is to support or to oppose, and your current support seems confusing as a result. — neuro^(talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
4. ::::Your unfounded assumptions are quite breathtaking. Where in what I wrote do I state that I believe the current crop of administrators to be "bad"? I simply stated that whether they're bad or good, Timmeh would be at about the level. If I had meant to say I believe that the current set of administrators was "bad" then be in no doubt that I would stated that very explicitly, no need for you to infer anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
5. :::::As you will no doubt notice, I didn't assume anything. Hence my original query, which you failed to answer the first time, which affirmed my belief that that was what you were implying. — neuro^(talk) 22:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
6. ::::::Surely it must be clear to you by now that I have no interest in your opinion on this matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
7. :::::::Evidently. — neuro^(talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
8. ::::::::I'm touched. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

{{anchor|Sockpuppetry}}

1. :Support, all y'all opposin cause of his username are bogus. He's a great user! KMcCormick (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2. :Support, Timmeh rocks! EhrichCartmann (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
3. :Support, per above. KyleBroflski (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
4. ::All three of the above supporters (besides Irbisgreif) have made no other edits outside supporting this RfA, indenting. JamieS93 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
5. :::Add the following user to that list. All 4 blocked indefinitely for socking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
6. :Support, go Timmeh! Stanley Marsh (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(disruption moved here. –xeno^talk 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

I haven't !voted at this RFA because I am genuinely conflicted whether to support or oppose. I also noticed the recent sock puppetry at the RFA. However, I think it would be a real pity if we held Timmeh responsible for those sock accounts, since (1) there is no evidence whatsover that he is at all to blame directly or indirectly, and (2) given how blatant and obvious the socks were it is quite possibly a Joe job (although we cannot be sure of that either). Irrespective of who was responsible for the socks, we should be wary of letting such disruption from an unknown source affect our evaluation of a admin. candidate; else we will end up making such disruptions even more likely at future RFAs (I won't explain further as per WP:BEANS.)

So as an uninvolved editor I request the reviewers to disregard this disruption and support/oppose Timmeh based on his known record instead. Abecedare (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

: I couldn't agree more. But, if I'm torn between the 2 (originally I was a supporter) and with stuff like that I have to change my opinion. Update: I probably should have known that an RFA would be target to sockpuppetry... Now, question, why are they not automatically semi protected? Any IP would have no reason to edit an RFA? tommy talk 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

::Tdinatale, do you feel that articles should be deleted purely because they are the target of vandalism? tedder (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

::: I don't understand the logic you're trying to make. tommy talk 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

::::He's equating (correctly so) sockpuppetry to vandalism, and Timmeh to the article in question. Essentally, he's suggesting that by your logic, any act by third parties whether it be at RfA or anywhere else should be help in account to that area/person, not the person who actually committed the crime so to speak. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::I didn't think it through. I guess it would be obvious that an RFA would be subject to sock puppetry and I should have figured that, but it didn't hit it me that way and I took the sock puppeting another way... What I'm really trying to say is why would any random IP want or care about an RFA. I mean, unless an IP knows a little about wikipedia and then want to waste their time by using public computers to .. make a fool of themselves... I see, but I guess I just figured people would have better things to do. I never suggested Timmeh was behind it, as even I figured no one would be that stupid to sock puppet their own RFA. In conclusion, I'm sorry for not knowing and I regret saying what I did, forgive my inexperience in these issues here. Here's why I probably took it in such a negative way that I didn't explain: what does it tell you when some IP makes fake user names (essentially) ridiculing Timmeh's user name? Regards, tommy talk 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

::Since RfA allows the voting of any registered editor (although IPs are generally welcome to comment), auto semi-protection would not be a good idea. The 'Autoconfirmed' userright requires 4 days and 10 edits - I can easily imagine a new editor joining and assimilating into Wikipedia within a couple of days, and then genuinely participate in an RfA. Possible SPA accounts will be held with less weight, or possibly indented, but innocent, non-autoconfirmed editors could very well exist. It's why we have the 'confirmed' flag. JamieS93 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

:I agree - there is a wide range of possibilities for what the socker's motive was, so its best to just ignore the socking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

:: Will do. tommy talk 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty clear to me by the fact there were 4 "socks", all of which had the name (or a variant) of one of the four principal South Park characters, that it was more a joke than an attempt to influence the RfA. So I've unprotected. No discredit for Timmeh, just someone's idea of a joke.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from main page. — neuro 20:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

:::The timing issue is yours, this rfa has been marked as expired for some small time, it has been open for a week which is plenty of time to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

::::It's cute that you didn't make this comment to the person who supported after the supposed deadline. The oppose badgerers are a funny bunch. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Cute is ok, I of course didn't see the support vote added after expiration, my comment is regarding all the votes after expiry, but we are in theory a flexible bunch and this will go down to the closer to assess, regards and thanks for pointing that out. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::Rob, 7 days is the minimum time for an RfA to run, it is not rigid. !Votes added after the supposed 'expiration' count just as much as at any other time. — neuro 20:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Ok, thanks, I am for support, he has a cartoon name, and he is still learning, but why not give him a chance, he wants the job and it's not rocket science , is it! Give him a chance. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::::If you want to support, go to the support section. If you want to comment on opposes, come to the oppose section. If you want to come to the oppose section with comments like "give him a chance" like we are some sort of evil group of RfA sadists, well. You have an opinion, fine. Just don't force it on the rest of us. I'm all up for discussion, but the comment above is just an attempt to shove your opinion down the opposers' throats. — neuro 20:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::TBF, Off2riorob has already indicated support in the correct place. This section of discussion should probably be hidden. Leaky Caldron 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)