Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tim Song

Username: Tim Song
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Dec 31, 2005 14:13:40
Unique articles edited: 6,245
Average edits per page: 2.44
Total edits (including deleted): 15,222
Deleted edits: 1,129
Live edits: 14,093

Namespace totals
Article 2312 16.41% 
Talk 913 6.48% 
User 636 4.51% 
User talk 2156 15.30% 
Wikipedia 7304 51.83% 
Wikipedia talk 685 4.86% 
File 4 0.03% 
File talk 3 0.02% 
Template 44 0.31% 
Template talk 23 0.16% 
Help 1 0.01% 
Category 10 0.07% 
Category talk 2 0.01% 

Month counts
2005/12 3  
2006/01 8  
2006/02 1  
2006/03 0  
2006/04 0  
2006/05 0  
2006/06 4  
2006/07 0  
2006/08 0  
2006/09 0  
2006/10 0  
2006/11 0  
2006/12 0  
2007/01 0  
2007/02 0  
2007/03 0  
2007/04 0  
2007/05 0  
2007/06 0  
2007/07 0  
2007/08 0  
2007/09 0  
2007/10 0  
2007/11 0  
2007/12 0  
2008/01 0  
2008/02 0  
2008/03 0  
2008/04 0  
2008/05 10  
2008/06 0  
2008/07 2  
2008/08 1  
2008/09 6  
2008/10 2  
2008/11 0  
2008/12 0  
2009/01 4  
2009/02 11  
2009/03 13  
2009/04 18  
2009/05 5  
2009/06 1  
2009/07 72  
2009/08 1261  
2009/09 1135  
2009/10 2608  
2009/11 4034  
2009/12 3336  
2010/01 462  
2010/02 1055  
2010/03 41  

Logs
Accounts created: 2
Pages moved: 190
Pages patrolled: 327
Files uploaded: 1

Top edited articles
Article
•47 - Liu_Yong_(Qing_Dynasty)
•27 - Kristian_Alexander
•14 - Carmel_High_School_(Carmel,_Indiana)
•13 - Dan_Gerber
•11 - Jeff_Woolf
•11 - Sudan
•11 - Noah_Bryant
•11 - Ricky_Lawless
•10 - Roper_v._Simmons
•10 - Alabama_Department_of_Public_Health


Talk
•7 - Barnard_College
•6 - Comparison_of_free_credit_report_websites
•5 - Ricky_Lawless
•5 - University_of_Texas_M._D._Anderson_Cancer_Center
•4 - Richard_Burton
•4 - Windows_7
•4 - MyOpusRadio.com
•4 - Roper_v._Simmons
•4 - List_of_search_engines
•4 - Facebook


User
•111 - Tim_Song/CSDlog
•58 - Tim_Song/Sandbox
•54 - Tim_Song/monobook.js
•42 - Tim_Song/test.js
•37 - Tim_Song/twinklespeedy.js
•27 - Tim_Song/afchelper2.js
•27 - Tim_Song/Standards
•22 - Tim_Song/PRODlog
•21 - Tim_Song/afchelper3.js
•20 - Tim_Song/Sandbox3


User talk
•335 - Tim_Song
•29 - 12.196.37.227
•23 - Tim_Song/Sandbox
•17 - Juliancolton
•16 - Tim_Song_II
•15 - Tim_Song/afchelper2.js
•13 - M
•12 - Spartaz/Archive9
•12 - ArcAngel
•9 - Tim_Song/talkheader


Wikipedia
•115 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
•68 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_7
•67 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_11
•64 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_20
•60 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_November_3
•58 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_27
•58 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_November_30
•58 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_18
•58 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_14
•57 - Sockpuppet_investigations


Wikipedia talk
•21 - Articles_for_deletion
•21 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
•20 - Twinkle
•17 - Deletion_review
•17 - WikiProject_Articles_for_creation
•7 - Articles_for_creation/Barbara_Tarantino
•7 - Newbie_treatment_at_Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
•5 - Articles_for_creation/Slater_Bakhtavar
•5 - Twinkle/Bugs
•5 - Articles_for_creation/No_Pain,_No_Gain_(2005_film)


File
•2 - KissleScreenshot1.png
•1 - Gave_It_All_Away.jpg
•1 - Coat_of_arms_of_Senegal.jpg


File talk
•2 - HammerGods2008.jpg
•1 - AN_Sammie_Rhodes_1.jpg


Template
•7 - Uw-csd-a10
•5 - Tom_Clancy_franchises
•4 - Db-notice
•4 - Db-multiple
•2 - AFC_submission/comments
•2 - AFC_submission/submit
•2 - Self-citation
•2 - Db-attackorg
•1 - London_Broncos_-_1999_Challenge_Cup_Finalists
•1 - Db-org


Template talk
•21 - Did_you_know
•1 - Tom_Clancy_franchises
•1 - Afd2


Help
•1 - What_links_here


Category
•1 - English_actors
•1 - Wikipedia_semi-protected_edit_requests
•1 - Child_abuse
•1 - Books_about_child_abuse
•1 - Elementary_schools_in_Alaska
•1 - Blue_Ribbon_schools_in_Alaska
•1 - Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bosnipedian
•1 - Tom_Clancy's_Power_Plays
•1 - Tom_Clancy's_EndWar
•1 - Elementary_schools_in_Wyoming


Category talk
•1 - Tom_Clancy's_EndWar
•1 - Tom_Clancy's_Power_Plays

Data using X!s tool as of 20:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova's oppose

1. Oppose. Extremely lightweight on content. According to the Soxred report, only 16% of Tim Song's edits have been to mainspace.[1] It's not a question of quantity vs. quality either. The most heavily edited article is a three line substub. This person has only ever made over 15 edits to two articles. There's questionable wisdom to entrusting administrative powers to someone who has demonstrated so little interest or aptitude for writing an encyclopedia. Tim Song may be the nicest person in the world, but when someone who has had an account since 2005 has so little to show for it I just can't support the RFA. Durova⁴¹² 21:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

   We all agree (I think) that content work is important, but the reasoning behind opposing a candidate with low content contribs is usually based on the belief that they will not respect the efforts of content contributors. I believe a close look at Tim's interactions with other users would dispel any such concerns. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

   Durova, if memory serves, that Liu Yong article was edited so much because it was used as a debugging test for an AFC script. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

   And his second most edited article is rated start-class. People who lack serious experience in mainspace tend to get ideas about how the wiki works that don't quite bear out, and that hampers their capacity to deal effectively with difficult situations. That may not surface while they're aiming for adminship and making only safe choices, but it usually surfaces in the long run. For years every editor who's come to me for advice on becoming an admin gets the same suggestion: write a GA--or at the very least several DYKs. Tim Song hasn't done anything close to that yet. He can take a few months to do the heavy lifting. Come back in July or August and show some muscle. There is no deadline. Durova⁴¹² 22:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

   I understand your opinion entirely, but I've not seen this user tending "to get ideas about how the wiki works that don't quite bear out". From my experience with him, both at AfC and AfD, he's always dealt with content wisely and effectively. While I certainly respect your position, I've only seen positive results out of this user's work, and I must therefore disagree (not downplaying the importance of content in an encyclopedia, of course!).  fetchcomms☛ 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

   We've all seen the editors who make safe choices until after RFA, then demonstrate their shortcomings afterward. There's no urgency to getting this person mopified. The thing I tell every RFA hopeful is that--rightly or wrongly--people do interact with an administrator differently from a regular editor, and that would affect any conflicts they might get into during their GA drive. It really does inform a person's administrative choices to see those dynamics firsthand. Much better to get the proper experience first, then seek the tools. Durova⁴¹² 22:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

   You're of course entitled to your opinions, but I would add that I am one of many admins who got the bit after mostly working with new or neglected articles, and I have never, before or after getting the bit, been involved with getting an article up to GA status and I really don't feel like I'm missing some important area of admin experience because of it. Tim has done a lot of work over at WP:AFC, which does not show up in an automated check as article work even though that's what it is. To me that demonstrates experience in an area that is very important for admins, dealing with newbies without biting them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

   Okay, but I still say you're lacking good faith. Why don't you have a good look at the nominator's article work while you're at it? And then weigh that in value to positive maintainence of this project over the past four years? I'm actively engaged in many facets of this project, and guess what: I am not an article writer. These lack of content arguments are bogus, not all are writers, not all are editors, not all are reviewers. We are all volunteers. That is the only thing that matters when it comes to keeping this ship afloat. Oppositions such as yours, Durova, poison the well of the idea that everyone can find their niche, and work well in it. We should be encouraging this behavior, not pointing out places where perhaps the user doesn't have much interest and or skill. Tsk, Durova, Tsk. Keegan (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

   Re: Beeblebrox's comment, Beeblebrox has twice the mainspace edit percentage of this candidate, with over 100 edits to the most edited article and respectable numbers everywhere else.[2] That's hardly comparable. And re: Keegan, it's certainly a novel contention to construe bad faith from an oppose at RFA over paper thin mainspace contributions. It's rare to see any candidate get serious support at all on the basis of article work as lightweight as this. The oppose stands. Let him come back when he's ready. Durova⁴¹² 23:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

←The support is a result of his excellent work at other venues which do not require experience editing articles. Wouldn't feel rather silly to write a GA or DYK just "because I was told to at RfA"? That seems to defeat the purpose—if he wants to write, then by all means go ahead. If he's interested in other areas of work, why hold it against him? And as pointed out, he has done quite a bit of work concerning articles through AfC. I'm not trying to sway your !vote (it's doubtful you'd change to support or neutral), and I think we'll just have to disagree.  fetchcomms☛ 00:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That would hold more weight if Tim Song's WP space work were in predominantly mechanical areas such as WikiProject Spam which hold less relevance to article building. Serious content work prior to RFA has bearing on the perspective one brings to discussions such as this where an editor took offense at this prod. It was a reasonable prod of an article which turned out to be notable, although the user space complaint was heated in tone and partly based upon mistaken assumptions. People who get very heavily involved in project space without much firsthand experience writing articles do not, as a group, have a good track record at dealing with that sort of outburst: they allow too much latitude or too little. It would be frivolous to demand a GA solely for the purpose of seeing a green plus sign on a user page at RFA, but it's quite substantive to expect enough firsthand experience in mainspace that an administrator would understand the subtext and know where to draw the line. That particular example happens to be recent; it's one instance of the type of broad experience which administrators ought to bring to bear and which Tim Song doesn't have. Noting in passing that Keegan, who claims not to be a content editor, has triple the mainspace percentage of this RFA candidate and that Fetchcomms has more than double the mainspace percentage. Mainspace work tends to go down rather than up after RFA, so if this person doesn't roll up his sleeves and write articles before getting the bit he may never do it. Durova⁴¹² 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanical". Wouldn't SPI also be a "mechanical" area? I do understand your point about the prod, but I personally feel that Tim Song has good judgment, and I just have faith in him—not, of course, to say that you have poor judgment (quite the opposite, certainly). I also feel that his experience with creating content through AfC and his great work in AfD provides what i would be looking for in the areas you mentioned. I myself have one GA and several DYKs, but I'm not sure that's made me better at dealing without outbursts. And also a note, over 4000 of my edits are automated (I think that includes the 1000+ deleted?) leaving somewhere between 1000–2000 manual mainspace contributions. But I also do not close AfDs, do not work as an SPI clerk, although I am involved in AfC.  fetchcomms☛ 02:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

People have been known to get emotional over AFDs of articles they've written, same as PRODs. Really, to oppose over lightweight mainspace work is a normal and ordinary at RFA. It's more than a little bit odd to see such vigorous (and even heated) responses in this instance. Has it recently become unacceptable to ask a person to get more experience and return in a few months when they're better prepared? Durova⁴¹² 03:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for decorum

It isn't really appropriate when dialog sinks to the level of tsk tsk. Please discuss the candidacy on its merits without personalizing or demeaning commentary. Durova⁴¹² 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am forced to agree with Durova. Obviously I disagree with hisher oppose (otherwise I wouldn't have supported, and kept the !vote as a support), but I think that hisher opinion is perfectly valid and reasoned. Tim's article work is (on the face of it) thin on the ground - and that's been an oppose reason for many different editors on many different RfAs, and yet I didn't see this kind of reaction. You've all made your point, Durova can see where you are coming from... now let's just get on with this RfA without this unnecessary drama.
Phantomsteve offers everyone a selection of doughnuts to choose from: jam, custard and caramel. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think Durova is a "her".  fetchcomms☛ 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

YUM! I'm a jelly doughnut

Brought the doughnuts: NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take two of the custard filled. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think Fetchcomms is right. Of course that's based upon self-published sources and is unreliable... ;) Durova⁴¹² 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops... erm, of course that was deliberate, as a distraction from everything else.... I have corrected it above! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. In real life I'm perfectly feminine. Durova⁴¹² 02:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Belches and hogs the remote control.

Here's the issue

The source of the tsk tsk is something that I say to anyone when I see such issues arise.

I've spent years watching people scream and shout and cry and debate and plan how and why RFA is broken, and this is an example of the reason why.

There is no problem with opposing someone for a myriad of reasons. There is a major problem in opposing someone because of a perceived fault in one particular area of the encyclopedia.

We clamor for more sensible admins with a clue, but we want to oppose them for "X reason" based on pre-set criteria. This is counterintuitive and detrimental to the long term sustainability of the project. What is created is an environment in which we seek perfectly all around decent contributors. What we don't wind up with is specialization of focus. If you'd like a discussion about quality versus quantity, this is where I pick quality.

An environment that encourages and rewards people with things like sysop because they have shiny good articles, featured articles, images, etc is not a productive one. Study after study has shown that if people are working on something for a certificate or reward, it is not going to produce positive results inherently. This should be reinforced doubly on a project like Wikipedia, because I'd rather not have the content that I'm consuming produced by someone with a drive to have a WikiCup point as a source of satisfaction. Instead, I'd rather have content that is produced out of the genuine passion to create it/work on it/maintain it. That is because this is genuine contribution, and for better or worse it is much more heartfelt and much more like to create a sustained userbase. Because they care about the substance, not the shiny things. Think of the pieces of flare from Office Space, and it is a similar analogy to work and productivity.

So Durova, while aimed at you it is also aimed at the RfA process as a whole. Denying someone the opportunity to expand their ability to mop this place because of one specific aspect that is important to you and not them is not conducive to a healthy environment. It simply isn't. That is what scares people off and confuses them as to the purpose of an administrator. The purpose of an administrator has nothing to do with content creation. At all. That's a simple fact. So to pollute the well with the idea that it is an integral part of being an admin and "Understanding what it takes" is an assumption that the candidate doesn't know what it takes. They probably do, if they've been around long enough to be nominated for adminship.

Automatic opposition based on personal criteria is a net negative to the project as a whole. And I will eat a donut. Keegan (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is owed the mop. And tsk tsk is not something one says to adults over forty. Simple as that. Now please retract the insult. An RFA is a serious matter; let's not sidetrack it. Durova⁴¹² 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I retract it in the sense that it seems to have deeply offended you, I don't want to offend you or start a fight. FWIW, I have said tsk tsk to adults over forty. When I fired them for catching them stealing. Age is irrelevant, but if that is important to you I respect that. I'm happy to end this conversation and let Tim carry on his sing song way. Keegan (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If anything, the strawman argumentation is more objectionable. Although being likened to a thief in the midst of a retraction is more like one insult substituted for another. Durova⁴¹² 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that your age is irrelevant to me, I was not comparing you to the thief. My daily routine deals with all age groups, I do not discern or apply particular standards to particular age groups based on the chronological age deserving one over another group. I do apologize that I offended you, that was not my intent. I think that I make a reasonable point as to how these sort of carte blanche oppositions are detrimental to the growth and support of the administrators of the English Wikipedia. I'll agree to disagree with you, if you care to do the same. Keegan (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It was by no means a carte blanche opposition, but a normal rationale that has been accepted at RFA for years (although I rarely make it; I oppose less than 20% of the time at RFA). Had the insults not derailed the conversation any misunderstanding on that point would have been clarified. It is an unpleasant surprise to see a functionary interact this way. I hope you handle OTRS tickets better than this. Durova⁴¹² 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have apologized for you perceiving a personal grievance based on what I wrote, with supplimentary reasons why I feel how I do about these opportunities. Would you like to accept my apology and we both walk away, or would you like to stab me back? I can see how my words are hurtful, but I've never fought fire with fire since it seems that only winds up in ashes. Would you like to have the last word and accept my apology, and we'll hop on down the trail, or would you prefer to keep pressing the issue? I'll accept the former, and ignore the latter. The ball is in your court. Keegan (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies are never necessary, but retractions sometimes are. Substituting one insult for another is hardly retraction. It's a bit dicey to express this to someone whose ops are such that one doesn't expect the person to ever need this type of distinction; I do indeed hope that the people who write to OTRS receive better treatment. Now I intend to return to the featured content drive that this conversation has interrupted. Please take better care in the future; it is perfectly normal to oppose an RFA for lightweight experience in mainspace. Durova⁴¹² 04:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)