Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tim Song

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

Tim Song[edit]

Final (122/21/6); Closed by X! on 20:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Tim Song (talk · contribs) – I will keep this brief, contrary to my natural inclination to use too many words. Tim Song is a dedicated user, contributing to both mainspace and the internal operations of Wikipedia. Tim Song is an active checkuser clerk, so naturally the tools would help there. He has also contributed greatly to Articles for creation and stub maintenance. The user also actively works in other helpful maintenance, up to and including counter vandalism work and helping new users. I am confident that Tim is ready to further assist in maintaining the encyclopedia with expanded use of the tools available. Keegan (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Co-nomination[edit]

Tim Song contributes extensively at DRV and I have always been extremely impressed by his calm and respectful demeanour and the sensible policy based approach that he takes to reviewing deletions that places a premium on preserving content and helping new users through the DRV process. What I like is that he will often spend time after a deletion has been endorsed trying to guide the user through creating an acceptable userspace draft. I looked at nominating Tim for adminship a couple of months back but he asked me to wait. Coming in late to the RFA gives me an opportunity to comment on some of the opposes and I wanted to ask those opposing for lack of mainspace contributions to consider the following. We rightly consider candidates with limited mainspace experiences more carefully because writing effectively in mainspace is hard and admins need to be sensitive to this and have an understanding of how uncaring and discouraging deleting content that someone has spent time and energy working on can be. I genuinely believe this isn't an issue with Tim Song - he seeks to preserve content where he can, he works with new users to help them do userspace drafts and is sympathetic and helpful. He is the least bity editor I regularly interact with. Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the kind nomination, Keegan. I accept. Tim Song (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2010 (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: Several things. I plan to start by dealing with sockpuppet reports at SPI and also handle reports at AIV and UAA - that is, if someone else does not get to them first. In addition, I plan to patrol CAT:CSD occasionally, and delete the obviously speediable ones. Also, as a rather prolific AFD closer, the tools would be extremely helpful. Last but not least, having the tools is very useful for writing and debugging scripts and Kissle, as I would be able to clean up any messes I make and also actually test and debug the admin functions (such as deleting a page).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm most proud of Kissle, which Ironholds used to clear Special:NewPages back on New Year's Eve. I'm also quite proud of my AFC helper script, which make reviewing AFC submissions much less painful. Other than that, there's my AFD work, which (I'd hope) made life a bit easier for other admins.
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: Well, back in my early days I was rather distressed because I made a questionable revert, other than that I can't think of a conflict - disagreements, sure, as anyone who patrols AFD even occasionally would know, but I'd like to think that I've so far avoided conflicts on a personal level. In any disagreement, I'll try my best to avoid personifying the dispute, and I'll do my best to disengage and cool down if it gets personal despite that. And most certainly I would never use any extra tools I have against the opponent, be it rollback, or (if this succeeds) the admin buttons.
4. Please explain the edit history of Liu Yong (Qing Dynasty). Colonel Warden (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: That page (orginally at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liu Yong (Qing Dynasty)) was used to debug a predecessor of my AFC helper script, which used to be at User:Tim Song/afchelper.js before its functionality was integrated into v2 of the script - I figured that no one would care if I spammed the talk page of my alternate account with "submission accepted" notices. (Unfortunately, the script has to move the page first, and only does notification etc. if the move was successful, causing the need for a good number of moves back-and-forth.) Later, that page was used to debug a modification to Twinkle (at User:Tim Song/twinklespeedy.js) for WP:CSD A10 support. Since Twinkle only does A10 (and all other article criteria) in mainspace, I decided that again, no one's going to care if I placed a speedy tag for four seconds on a stub I wrote and spammed my own talk page with speedy notices.

Question from Dlohcierekim

5. Hello Tim. Can you explain you Articles for Creation Barnstar?
A: I'm confused....can you elaborate on what you want me to explain? Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC) me too. question withdrawn. Too tired to make sense. Dlohcierekim 02:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Shadowjams
6. You had made some comments on the talk page at WP:NEWT. Did you ever participate in the project itself?
A: No, I did not.
Additional optional questions from RP459
7. Your 1st edit was in December of 2005 but you only became active on Wikipedia in July of 2009. I am curious in regards to your slow start on the project when compared to the 15,000 edits that you have amassed since July of 2009. What caused your slow start and years long absence?
A: Basically, I rediscovered Wikipedia. When I registered my account in 2005, I intended to make occasional edits only (and part of my motivation was an IP edit of mine being wrongly reverted as sneaky vandalism...). Moreover, my English was not very good back in 2005, so I'm sure you'd understand that a website in English was not very attractive to me, especially since free time is a rather scarce resource for me during high school. In late July 2009, I decided to start editing regularly, and decided to use my largely dormant account. So it's not really my intentionally taking a long break, it's that it had never occurred to me before last July that editing WP regularly is an option at all.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
8. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. I commented in the first DRV, commented in the AFD after it was reopened, and commented in the second DRV as well, so there's absolutely no way I'd be closing that AFD. That aside, after re-reading the debate, my view is that there is no consensus of any sort. There is heated disagreement over the question of notability, especially the CJR source (I actually find the pro-notability side somewhat more persuasive, but a good number of established editors disagreed, and it is not within the closer's remit to ignore arguments he disagrees with). The BLP argument is substantial, but is undercut by the fact that the subject did not wish the page deleted. Taking everything into account, then, the only conclusion I feel I can reach is that there is no consensus.

For BLP AfDs in general, my view is that one really ought to do one's best to discern the rough consensus - just because the consensus is not easily determined does not necessarily mean one cannot discern a "leaning" from the AfD. If the AfD appears to lean towards delete - even though there is arguably no consensus - I would close it as delete. But if there is a thorough lack of consensus, then "no consensus" would be the only possible option. As to what I would do on a no consensus, I would default to whatever the policy provides for at the time of the closure (currently keep).

9. What in your opinion is the worst BLP issue at the moment, and what would you do to resolve it using your admin tools?
A. Entirely unreferenced BLPs can be easily tracked with a bot, and most of those are generally uncontroversial information that, while ideally we should not have, are mostly harmless. On the other hand, unsourced negative or controversial information in an otherwise sourced article is sometimes difficult to detect and extremely hard to track. Even worse, of course, is intentional insertion of false offline references to support a false statement, which is difficult to detect. If I should encounter unsourced negative information anywhere, I would remove them aggressively; and if I encounter sourced negative information, I would do my best to verify the sourcing. As to the tools, repeat offenders - or even egregious first-time offenders - should be blocked, the BLP violating revisions deleted or suppressed, and the article semi- or full-protected as appropriate, depending on the particular circumstances.
10. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?
A. Posting of personally identifiable information online in general is a serious problem, minors or not. If it was outing by another user, there is little to discuss: the revisions should be suppressed and the offending editor blocked indef. However, if it is the user themselves that posted the information, I would recommend to them that it is probably best to remove the information. If the information is sensitive (a relatively common name is obviously different from a phone number or date of birth), I would delete the revisions and request suppression, and explain to the user why I have done so. Of course, individual circumstances vary, and if an established admin or editor, though legally a minor, wishes to post some information while fully understanding the risks, I would not interfere except in the most exceptional of circumstances.


Additional questions from NonvocalScream
11. Can you summarize the Did you Know? process. Why is this process important with regards to the content of the project?
A: The DYK process allows recently (within 5 days, though in practice more like ~10 days or even longer) created or 5x expanded articles of a reasonable quality (i.e., 1500 prose characters, reasonably sourced, etc.) to get a mention and a link on the main page. Anyone may nominate and propose a "hook" of a cited fact in the article for inclusion. The nomination is then reviewed by another editor, who will verify that the hook is sourced and appears in the source, and that the article satisfies the DYK requirements. The approved hooks are moved to the prep areas, and then reviewed by an admin who would move approved hooks to a queue, for eventual appearance on the main page. The last step is carried out by a bot.

DYK is important in several ways. It provides recognition in a fairly lightweight process, and therefore serves as a good incentive to create new articles of a reasonable quality, and to expand existing short articles - in short, the creation of new content. Further, by placing links to newly created articles on the main page along with an (ideally) attention-grabbing hook, it encourages our readers to read and perhaps improve them, and become editors rather than just readers.

12. Two editors are in a conflict over editorial content. They ask you, "How do we resolve this"... other than linking them to the dispute resolution guidance... how would you write a personalized note to them to explain what they should do?
A: Let me be clear first that I'm not planning to do DR anytime soon. Moreover, it's rather difficult to write a personalized note in response to a general question. If the dispute has become personal, I would strongly recommend that they disengage first, and discuss the matter in a calm, civil manner. In many cases, what seem to be an intractable dispute can be easily resolve once both sides calm down and reflect a little bit. Once that takes place, I would first suggest that they try to reach a compromise. If that fails, I would recommend that they find an uninvolved party to provide a third opinion, or perhaps provide such an opinion myself, depending on the subject. If that is unsuccessful, then perhaps an RFC is in order. I would do my best to avoid taking sides in the dispute, and make clear that edit warring and personal attacks are unacceptable, and that I would not hesitate to apply protections and blocks if necessary.
Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana
13. What's your take on IAR?
A: IAR says that one should ignore a rule if it prevents one from maintaining or improving Wikipedia. However, the question what "maintains or improves" Wikipedia must be determined by consensus. As a consequence, IAR should be limited to cases that are not within the scope of any rule, cases where application of the letter of a rule would contravene its spirit, and, in rare cases, cases where there is consensus not to apply a rule in a particular case. In cases where there is no existing consensus to IAR, it should be invoked only if one is reasonable confident that consensus would consider the action appropriate (i.e., that consensus would be that the action "maintains or improves" Wikipedia). It should never be used as an excuse to act against established consensus, at least in the absence of evidence that consensus has changed.
Additional optional question from Townlake
14. The opposition seems to be heavily based on a perceived lack of content-building. What are your best content-building contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It would be disingenuous of me to deny my lack of article-writing experience, so I won't. I'm good at neither writing nor conducting the research necessary for writing in topics I am interested in. Much of my work directly related to content does not occur in the mainspace, but at articles for creation, which allows unregistered users to submit new articles for inclusion in mainspace. I review a fair bit of submissions there. And of course when I help new users more often than not it is going to be related to content.Italicized parts added, 23:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: Ugh, that's what I get for answering while sleep-deprived. I can research easily accessible online sources (e.g., with the google family of services) just fine, but for topics I'm interested in (indeed for most non-Western-popular-culture related topics) these searches are not quite sufficient for writing, and searching in the more professional databases (JSTOR, etc.) is not my forte.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Note: I'm going to be extremely busy during the next few days and have limited on-wiki time. I'll get to the remaining question(s) as soon as possible, but please note that it might take a while. Tim Song (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closing 'crat This is about to close and since I'm a bit vague about where the passing percentage, would ask the closing crat to consider the following if this is marginal. Although very valid concerns about mainspace editing have been universally expressed by the opposing side, this is the only issue against Tim Song and there seems to be a unanimous support from those who have worked closely with Tim. I would ask the closing 'crat to consider whether the views of those who know Tim best might be weighed a little more heavily then opposing views from users who do not know know Tim and will therefore be less familiar with his work and approach. Thanks and, of course, you are welcome to ignore or discard this as you wish. Spartaz Humbug! 20:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Beat the nom (and be the first) Support I thought he already was an admin! I've seen nothing but good things from Tim, and I don't think this editor would delete the main page or block Jimbo. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Of course. From my observation, is essentially a de facto admin at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - User is trustworthy and the tools will assist in his work. Jusdafax 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I've had good interactions with this user. His tool, Kissle, is helpful for new page patrollers, and he does a fair bit of good new page patrol himself. His AfD arguments appear to be well thought out, and he seems to be able to remain calm and civil. I don't know much about SPI, but he appears to do a lot there. No blaring issues, trustworthy. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No-brainer support A completely qualified and trustworthy user, incredibly knowledgeable and helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely. Admin without the flag for a while now. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oh yes... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Trustworthy, helpful, knowledgeable admin who needs the bit flipped. Calmer Waters 21:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. This is one of those cases that I thought he was already an administrator. Well, as above, he needs a checkmark in that box. Valley2city‽ 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support flipping the bit doesn't change much in this case. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, sure. Trustworthy guy, no concerns here. JamieS93❤ 22:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support; no concerns. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Absolutely. Even without much content work, he plans to work in SPI and UAA, delete obvious speedies, and you don't need much content work for that. While he also plans to work in AfD, I'd like to see an instance where he closed a discussion incorrectly or caused some sort of massive chaos as a result of some mistake. Such an argument doesn't sway me for this particular user.  fetchcomms☛ 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I've had the pleasure of running into and working with Tim Song at both AfC and SPI, and if he shows half the excellent ethic and desire as a sysop as he has there, then we're all in for another excellent admin. His judgment is always thought out, and usually gives me pause as to my own rationale. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support I've read some of the objections such as "very small number of edits to top-edited articles" and "only 16% of his edits are to mainspace". Non-sequiturs all, in my judgement. He has been a Wikipedian since the end of 2005 and has 14,000 edits. The bottom line is that this is one of the most dedicated vandal fighters and newcomer helpers in Wikipedia.--Hokeman (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I'm suprised this user isn't already an admin. Lots of edits to the ANI. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per nom Keegan (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Absolutely —SpacemanSpiff 23:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support — user with a clue. His edits to AfC, to me, have stood out, and I can trust him fully with the admin tools. Airplaneman talk 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Passes most criteria.--mono (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nom.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Clueful, probably not insane, so meets my standards.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. About time. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 01:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. yes! — JoJo • Talk • 01:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - I was pondering nominating him myself, after I discovered that he was not already one (which I had assumed). Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support You bet. :) BejinhanTalk 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. No concerns, not even about mainspace edits. --Kbdank71 02:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support-His conduct is very becoming of a potential admin, and his lack of contributions to wikipedia mainspace are made up by his contributions to the wikipedia mainspace.Smallman12q (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support Review of talk page shows an intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable editor that is receptive to feedback. Reveiw of deletion log shows a considerable number of successful speedy taggings. Already working at AFD with no talk page complaints about it. With the profoundest respect to Durova, Candidate has only been truly active since August, and has a huge number of edits in that amount of time. Candidate will use the tools effectively and will be an even greater benefit to the project with the extra buttons. Dlohcierekim 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I've seen him around, and I have no reason to believe he would misuse the tools. Timmeh 02:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I understand the opposes, but I guess I set the bar lower for content contribution. I look for any evidence of actual article creation, and creating a reasonable sourced stub of a notable subject passes for me. Aside from that, Tim has had plenty of great contributions to non-article space and I've seen firsthand his temperament and good reasoning. No reason to object to adminship. -- Atama頭 03:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Per nom, and experience of helping new users.  Chzz  ►  03:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, opposition is unconvincing. Song will make a good administrator. Blurpeace 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Normally I look for a little more content work and (shock horror!) Tim has never edited the portal talk namespace! However, from what I've seen of Tim, I believe he is more than qualified to work in the areas he wants to and intelligent enough to ask for help when he needs it. Admins (and RfA candidates) should not have to be perfect and Tim obviously excels in the niche he has carved out for himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Been expecting to see this for some time. Opposes not convincing - I'm not a content producer myself, and I'm a native English speaker. Key qualities are good judgment and trustworthiness, and he has both. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support had nothing but positive interaction with him - no reason not to.  7  05:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Per nom. Will not abuse tools.--Banana (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Amongst his other talents, has been very helpful as an SPI clerk, where I have seen his work. Risker (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Was going to nominate him soon. Darn it! Hobit (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support One of the easier RfA !vote decisions - looks like a terrific "behind the scenes" Wikipedia worker. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, an excellent candidate, will benefit the project in many areas. --Taelus (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I was under the impression Tim already had administrator rights, and am surprised to see his name here. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Tim just got Keegan-ed. Poor guy... —Dark 10:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support light on content but I've often seen this user around doing good stuff so on balance yes. Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Well, good to see my nagging has paid off. The ideal candidate, Tim is clueful, intelligent, levelheaded, and always has something valuable to add. ceranthor 12:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. At first I thought Durova's oppose had some merit, and then I read the talk page discussion and laughed out loud. Tan | 39 13:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Excellent and qualified candidate. Pmlineditor ∞ 14:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Tim has demonstrated that he is a clueful and trustworthy editor. He has a clear use for the tools and I have no doubt that him having them would be a net positive. He is light on content work, but his contributions in other areas have been excellent and have been beneficial to the project nonetheless. I certainly see no reason to think that he doesn't understand policy or is likely to delete the mainpage. Rje (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Good answers to questions. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Stereotypical thought-he-already-was-one support. I have seen him a lot in AfD making sensible decisions. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support TNXMan 15:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Tim Song. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support OK the candidate is a specialist, and hasn't ticked all the boxes to get adminship in a more fashionable way. But in my view his contributions are are good and I actually prefer that he hasn't come via some sort of admin coaching scheme - a bit of skill diversity in the admin cadre is healthy. ϢereSpielChequers 15:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support While I agree with the basis of the opposition rationale, I believe in Tim Song's case it does not apply. Tim Song has demonstrated through thoughtful XfD and AfC work that he appreciates what we are here for: to build an encyclopedia. Jujutacular T · C 17:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. The opposition may have a point, but Tim Song is a great editor whose judgment and temperament is sound. I feel he can be trusted with the tools. decltype (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. belated co-nomination support. yeah, you all beat the co-nom :-) Spartaz Humbug! 18:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Absolutely fit for adminship. Your work at AfC overrides any hesitation I would have about "content contributions". ThemFromSpace 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support long overdue; Tim has been working his ass off at WP:AFD and doing it well. I said I'd co-nom him at his last editor review, and that still would have stood, but apparently someone else beat me to the punch. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, no evidence user would abuse the tools, and I totally reject the peculiar notion that you have to have extensive writing experience to correctly interpret an AIV, XFD, or somesuch. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  63. Support. Already a valued contributor in areas where admin tools would be useful. More article content contribution would be great, but the fact is that we have a number of current admins whose article edits at the time of RFA were fewer than what Tim has now (there have been over a half dozen such cases just in the last few months). --RL0919 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. See my RfA criteria. Peter 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  65. Support Trustworthy and experienced user. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support as I see no reason not to trust the user with the tools -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support and happy to do so for a level-headed editor whose efforts improve the encyclopedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. I can understand Durova's oppose, but Tim knows the ropes and I don't need an admin to have FA, GA and DYK plaudits. You don't need to be a content-creation machine to use the tools wisely. Fences&Windows 04:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. as per RL0919 -- MaenK.A.Talk 08:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Wikipedia (and its content) will benefit from having Tim as an admin. He has an interest in doing behind the scenes work, and he has thus far done it well; I have no reason to believe that will change. Wine Guy~Talk 09:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support See no concerns and feel the project will gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support – won't abuse the tools, is experienced, but a bit light on content. Pepper∙piggle 14:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support – Appears clueful and he communicates well. I can understand the opposition, but I still find him to be sufficiently experienced in relevant areas of the project. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I understand the rationale of some of the "oppose" !voters. Lack of real content work was one of the reasons I declined a nomination last year. However, he does a lot of good work in AFD and he has a clue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Has sufficient CLUE. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Clueful editor who will certainly do well with the tools. In fact, I was under the impression somehow that he already was an admin. While I understand where the opposes come from, I don't think every admin needs to have X GAs oder >XX% mainspace contributions or >XXX mainspace edits - they just need to know how it's done, not spend their time doing it. I think, despite his low activity in that area, Tim has demonstrated that he does. Regards SoWhy
  77. Support Good answers to the questions, understands policy, and I've seen some excellent and insightful comments from this editor. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 23:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. To be honest, I was just wondering a couple of days ago why you aren't an admin yet. The concerns about your content contributions surprised me somewhat (and that's something I usually give a lot of weight to), but I've seen enough of your work in other valuable areas to convince me to support. Jafeluv (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. m:Katerenka (d) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Absolutely support Valued and sensible contributor I've run across a fair bit. RayTalk 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, of course. Dedicated user, no problems whatsoever. — The Earwig (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support wholeheartedly. Gosox(55)(55) 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support--NotedGrant Talk 07:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Positive prior impression and answers to questions are more than satisfactory (my own opinion is that answers to questions far more often serve to disqualify a candidate than to qualify one). Regarding automated edits, while I'm not a fan at all for myself, they definitely have their place, and anyone who takes the time to navigate the intricacies of the API cannot be said to be unaware of how Wikipedia works. That technical knowledge, combined with AfD and other policy work, provides a candidate with great all-around experience. It takes all kinds here just as in life.  Frank  |  talk  18:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Per answer to my question and overall support above. I think Tim would be an asset as an admin from what i've seen here. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Knowledgeable, sensible, and trustworthy editor. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Will make a good admin. Cloudbound (the new name for Wikiwoohoo) (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support...I thought he was one already! Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Does not seem like someone who would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support I trust that with Tim's courtesy and compassion in helping new users at AfC, as well as his solid rationales at AfD and DRV, he will be an exemplary admin. The administrative tools will aid him greatly when he closes or participates in AfD and DRV debates. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Hard-working and trustworthy administrator candidate. Has my support. -- Marek.69 talk 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Tim is a reasonable, thoughtful, and articulate candidate at AfD and DRV; in my experience, he is unfailingly civil and helpful. I'm surprised to learn that English isn't his first language. In any case, in spite of his general lack of content work, I feel that it's fine to promote such candidates when they are clearly exemplary in other areas. Tim is exceptional at AfD and DRV, and that's why I support promotion. As a dedicated and trusted user with an excellent grasp of policy, he'll do fine with the tools. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support I rarely support a candidate with as little content work , but Tim is an exception. His work at AfD and DRV--regardless of whether i always agree with it--is so intelligent and reasonable that he would clearly make a good admin, and the overall quality of his judgement is so manifest that he would not try to intervene in areas that he is not yet prepared for. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support I'm new to editing on wiki so there are a lot of things that I still don't know. I really appreciate Tim's edits. Thanks! --Filmnmusicritic (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Level-headed and trustworthy. LK (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. As with DGG, I am also initially somewhat sceptical of candidates who do little in the field of article building, simply because that kind of experience, with the problems that brings, is useful when dealing with discussions and content disputes. Nonetheless, there are a handful of candidates whose maturity, intelligence, and fundamental respect for the article writers make them suitable for adminship anyway. Tim Song is one of those who have demonstrated all those qualities. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Will make a good admin, and content contributing never used to matter in RFAs, don't see a reason for it to matter now. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support As Tim's somewhat absentee trainer at SPI, I was impressed with how quickly he learned and how consistently he kept up with a relatively boring but still key set of tasks. Tim looks before he leaps, is careful about doing his research and always has clear and thoughtful reasons for his actions; not much more we should ask of admin candidates. Nathan T 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 Şłџğģő 16:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Make it 101 :) Great editor; no reason not to support in my humble opinion. Difu Wu (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support —Soap— 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. support JoshuaZ (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - easily passes User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - I particularly agree with Spartaz's nom statement. While opposing over a lack of content focus is not a new thing, I feel it's particularly unfair on this candidate. Tim does indeed tend not to work heavily on articles, but his work with new editors and on preserving content has a direct, immediate, and tangible effect on our encyclopedic content. When you combine this with his mature and calm attitude and his wide range of project-space experience, I can think of few more suitable admin candidates. ~ mazca talk 08:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - Good guy to be around with when you're a newbie. --TitanOne (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - I mostly "know" Tim Song from his clerking at WP:SPI, and "I thought he was already an administrator." I have found him to be consistently sensible and clueful. Furthermore, although most of his article-space edits are related to vandal-fighting and other maintenance activities, edits like this one give me confidence that he is cognizant of content creation issues. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Net positive. I don't think the lack of content work would have too much of a negative effect on this user's ability to perform admin tasks. Probably, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Strong Support: Close to an ideal candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Belated support – I'm not worried about the lack of time here on-wiki, as the user has clearly demonstrated a sense of clue in his short time here. –MuZemike 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - He will hopefully not abuse the tools, like deleting the main page, blocking Jimbo, and being compromised. The lack of experience in July 2009 and earlier does not concern me as he already has over 10,000 edits mostly to admin-related areas. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 01:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. The relation between content contributions and adminship is dubious at best, and I have no other concerns. Aditya Ex Machina 09:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - No concerns. Tim's work shows good judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Not everyone is an article writer. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. Yep. Swarm(Talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. As he is already a user who works behind the scenes, Tim would be a great asset as an Admin. Jarkeld (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – has an idea what he's doing, and shouldn't abuse the tools. Pepper∙piggle 12:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but you !voted already (#72). Tim Song (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support both polite and adminly. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. A university needs cleaners as well as researchers. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I frequently run across his comments and contributions and have never seen him use bad judgement, will use the tools to better the encyclopedia. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Sensible, knowledgeable contributor whose work in various areas makes him a strong candidate.  Gongshow Talk 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Sensible, experienced, constructive contributor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Very small number of edits to "Top edited articles". Would first like to see a bit more experience in this arena, particularly some quality content article work. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
    Discussion on this oppose has been moved to the talk page
  3. Oppose Has only been editing actively for a little over six months and still seems green. As he is especially interested in scripted editing, we should be cautious in extending access to dangerous functions. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I only have positive memories of what I have seen of Tim Song's work, he has a clue -- but Durova's reasoning is very sensible and Tim Songs edit distribution is extreme. Admins must have some hands-on experience with rowing the boat, in particular in a volunteer-run organization like WP, they should not jump right into the ranks of policy wonks (I'm no Maoist) - and Tim can easily rectify that situation. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose severe lack of content contributions. -Atmoz (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose The edits to mainspace are lacking. An administrator's job is maintenance and janitorial-ship. To understand the maintenance of a project (sysop), you have to understand the mechanics of the project (editor). Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted some questions above that I will use assist me in revaluation of my recommendation. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for answering, I have some concerns about Q12 and I think this is the type of thing that light editing can cause, not a full understanding. So I do note that the you don't plan on doing DR soon, but DR is going to be unavoidable in the course of being a sysop, unfortunately. Any editor who heavily edits mainspace will realize this. I was looking for a basic understand of the dispute resolution process, and I found none. You mentioned only third opinion and requests for comment. How about having the parties ask the subject's wikiproject (if there is one), what about editing with a cool attitude? What happened to looking at relevant policy and noticeboards, should they be available like this one? mediation? Those are not directed questions, but thoughts I have (I think in questions, sometimes, so they don't need a response).
    • And something bothers me, why would we not be hesitant to apply blocks and protections? Not all disputes involve blockable and protectable issues. Perhaps we should hesitate on the blocks and locks until editors can be warned? So with all that... I don't feel comfortable and would like to continue my oppose. Please continue however, with enough experience I think you will make it. Warm, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was clear that I would only block/protect "if necessary". In case it wasn't clear, it would not be necessary unless there are blockable/protectable issues, and the editors have previous notice of the problem. Tim Song (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Durova. There is a yin and yang to article creation and destruction, and I really prefer to see balanced candidates who have both a good handle on the deletion process, as well as the article creation, improvement, and/or rescue processes. That just isn't there yet, Tim, but put forth the effort to get something to a GA and I'd be enthusiastically supporting you. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not yet. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Eight months editing is generally considered not long enough for a RfA. I'd be happy to look into supporting after 12 months continuous contributions. SilkTork *YES! 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Generally considered"? He has seventy three supports. Tan | 39 19:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is generally considered that less than 12 months contributions, unless the editor has made outstanding contributions in that time, is not quite enough time for someone to be given the extra tools. What we have here is a specific case in which the majority of people are prepared to overlook the short time that Tim Song has been actively involved in the project, and are also prepared to overlook the low involvement of Tim Song during the eight months he has been active. People have their reasons for !voting the way they do, and in this specific case some people appear to be prepared to overlook Tim Song's minimal involvement for other qualities they perceive in his contributions. I haven't seen those additional qualities, so I am opposing on the generally accepted grounds that we need substantial evidence of someone's character and abilities, especially under stress, before giving someone the tools to block another user. SilkTork *YES! 08:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Durova and Lar. --John (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak oppose- Although I do not believe that admins need to be huge content creators - there's plenty of room and need for wikignomes and policy scrutineers - I think you need to have done a big content-creation push at least once. That will give you insight into issues and disagreements arising between article writers and enable you to administrate with fairness and experience. Reyk YO! 08:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose please come back later after build some decent amount of contents. Wikipedia is after all to write articles and admins are to aid the purpose.--Caspian blue 15:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose This is one of the toughest calls I've ever made. Everything I've seen of Tim says that he has his head screwed on straight. But the lack of content contributions ultimately leads me to oppose. Wikipedia is in danger of growing a "political class" that is detached from actual content building. We already have too many people filling administrative and other roles while contributing virtually nothing to content. In my view, it would be better to have those roles filled by people with first-hand experience of what it's like down in the trenches. If Tim had more extensive content-building experience (not necessarily GA or FA) I'd support without question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose Not yet. Give this user another 6 months-1 year, and I'd support in an instant. But I feel that 6 months isn't quite long enough to have the tools. This is a very tough call, however. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he's been active about eight months.  fetchcomms☛ 06:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Durova. Sole Soul (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose — lack of content. —Aaroncrick (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, somewhat regretfully because I appreciate the candor in response to Q14, and Tim Song seems to be sharp and well-intentioned. However, the fact the candidate says he isn't adept at doing the research involved in article-writing raises a concern - we don't all need to be article writers, but volunteering that he's not a researcher makes me wonder if he should be hanging around AFD. Additionally, the end of the belated co-nom gives me pause, because my lone interaction with Tim Song outside of this RFA ended with unconstructive sarcasm. I asked a good-faith question and essentially got a "duh" in return. Townlake (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Short Brigade Harvester Boris. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and that consists of organised content. I am alarmed by Tim's lack of experience in building that content. I don't care whether he has been anywhwere near a GA or a FA, but I do think it's important that an admin should have real personal experience as an editor: article-writing, working with other editors, dealing with disagreements, arguing over the weight and applicability of sources, and so on. Tim seems to have a lot of experience in dealing with project issues, and to have been calm and fair in doing that work ... but wikipedia will be dead if editors are not at its core, and from what I have seen Tim has hardly any experience at the coalface. I would be delighted to be able to change my mind at a further RFA if Tim has gained real experience in content creation, but right now he looks far too much like a process-oriented civil servant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - candidate is on the right track, after another six months with varied experiance I could reconsider. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, user claimed to me that he found it difficult to write anything in articles. Given he can string thoughts together in places other than mainspace, I find it just too weird. Why not ask for guidance, or pick a topic from Wikipedia:Requested articles? How about uploading photos of landmarks in one's local area, if writing is not one's bag? Also, user greatly enjoys early, non-admin closing of AfDs. Abductive (reasoning) 04:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - per above comments - all editors should have decent main-space experience to be considered for adminship SteveRwanda (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral Until I'm shown otherwise, I'll vote neutral. I really appreciate Tim Song's contributions to the project, and I really like his work in admin areas, but he hasn't contributed semi-sizeably to content. To me it feels like even a little more wikignoming around mainspace would be fine, because of the weight of the other contributions. (Or get a featured topic too?) Until shown otherwise, I stand neutral. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I think Tim Songs has great programming skills, a definite plus for an admin. My reservations are on only three measures. 'First, I'm worried about recent-edits, really only since August of 2009, about 8 months of admin-level editing. Second is the relatively low edit count when you consider the automated edits. When you design your own tools they don't always show up in the toolserver automated edit system. It's pretty easy to do that, and the 2,400 odd article edits are probably the more accurate article count, although determining that exactly is hard. Third, the lack of hard choices in AfD, among other places, the lack of broader opinion seeking (echoing Durova here) and a few comments at WT:NEWT that bother me, are all especially acute here. I would like to see some more opinions, which will undoubtedly lose some !votes either way, but would at least give us a better idea broadly. But the programing skills and general decorum keep me from opposing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I have seen him around and I think we can trust him to use the tools properly. Unfortunately, he does not meet my criteria for participation in article making. He might be a good behind-the-scenes editor, but the goal here is to make an encyclopedia. I'd like an admin to be primarily focused as a regular editor of articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. This is an intelligent editor who has shown consistently good judgment within Wikipedian policies and guidelines, with which he very quickly became familiar--and I personally do not believe that editors need substantial content contributions before they can participate in the back-office, processy parts of the encyclopedia. Also, I usually agree with Tim Song and I find him likeable. These factors would normally have pushed me to a "strong support" position.

    However, I am concerned about the very speed with which Tim Song picked up Wiki-culture, and with the fact that he has never to my knowledge expressed a controversial view. There's a nasty, suspicious part of me that thinks that if I, knowing what I know now, created a new account specifically in order to become an admin, its edits would look a lot like Tim Song's.

    My previous remark is unfair, because if Tim Song is innocent of this there is no way for him to prove it; and it utterly fails to assume good faith; so I cannot in good conscience oppose this, but I am afraid I'm too suspicious to support.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, if you look closely at the early edits there is clear evidence that Tim edited as an ip editor first. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He also says he edited as an IP in his answer to question 7 above. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, and those were among the many considerations that prevented me from opposing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have had good interaction with the candidate and can remember no bad behaviour from Tim Song, but there ware some areas that should be tried out a bit more, such as file uploading. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never uploaded a file in my life; do you think it has been detrimental to my work here? DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am shocked DGG! But I have sen no detriment. My opinion is that admin candidates should try out a range of activities, including file uploads. suppose I myself have never done anything with DYK, or proposed anything for the spam blacklist. But anyway there can be some big holes in contributions that can easily be filled by trying out most of the buttons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Generally good contributions. However the limited content creation gives me concern. [I have read the extended discussion regarding Durova's !vote.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:21, 10 March 2010 (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/Tim_Song&oldid=1142506558"