--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:
From: Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Hello and a (small!) manifesto To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 8 February, 2011, 21:23
OK, but let's get down to cases.
What should we do about it? Think ahead
to community reaction, but assume, in good faith, that
he is doing his
best and could do better. (or is that just a game of
going through the
motions?)
This has now played out more or less as I thought it would: He has twice said he doesn't care, it's not his problem, and after some other discussion by other editors which he decided wasn't involving him he's removed the section from his talk page entirely.
I emailed him saying that was his prerogative and his position was clear, but that I might stop in and audit his patrol log and contributions on occasion in the future.
I'm glad the distraction is over so I can return to doing more content-related editing, as I have some long-range plans. However, things like this will happen again with this editor, and others like him.
It doesn't surprise me that Wikipedia would attract such serious Asperger cases as this. The phenomenon of indivudals with poor social skills (mostly, to be fair, male) finding a haven online where singlemindedly obsessive behavior can be of benefit, as it often is especially on Wikipedia, is not new to Wikipedia.
Frankly, Tim's fault wasn't his alone. The original article he marked had not included the code that makes footnotes show up (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swim_~&oldid=362817720). Now that, of course, doesn't mean it should be deleted. And in fact it wasn't ... the subsequent work on the article resulted in the tag being removed (the only deletion in the record is from a previous incarnation, in 2008). But reviewing admins should be careful about this, and Tim's absolute refusal to discuss this when asked, even in a less confrontational way, is a cause for concern.
First, these things are not always evident in the Twinkle or Huggle user interface. That's a technical issue.
But given the mentality expressed by his userpage and discussions initiated, it's clear that the benign neglect from the rest of the community has allowed the evolution of a space within Wikipedia where users like this, users who actually flaunt their antisocial tendencies, can thrive under the cover of a necessary project function.
Clearly greater oversight is needed.
Daniel Case
Timneu22 has now blanked his user talk page, again, deleting the ongoing RfC Fred started on it.
What is really funny is that this user and WP:VANISPAM fan has a Wikipedia biography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Neumark
which as far as I can make out is as clear a case of a vanity biography as I have seen; there is not one decent source among the references. His youtube channel has had all of 125 views since 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/user/timneu22
Notability? This is the sort of biography which, if it were on a garage band, the chap would nominate for deletion within five minutes of creation.
On top of it, the account that created his bio looks like a sockpuppet or meatpuppet ... responding to the AfD within four hours, after not editing for more than a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Neumark
This is not the sort of person who should be manning Wikipedia's front end.
Andreas