Tim Song (talk · contribs · count) I registered this account a while ago, but became active only a month before. I received Rollback rights less than a week ago. Recently (i.e., about an hour ago), it was pointed out to me by two admins that one of my Huggle reverts [1] was a bad revert. Because the high potential for damage arising out of improper Huggle use, I'm requesting that other editors review my reverts and other records to determine if there are any additional problems that I should address. I will take a break from WP:RCP while this review is in progress to avoid any possibility of further improper reverts. Tim Song (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• Not sure I'd say that particular revert was a bad one, considering it was accompanied by an edit summary of "No citation needed - Jews who don't believe Jesus is Christ are going to hell :-)". Quantpole (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent argument here! Exactly what we like to see! Also, kudos earning a barnstar and never being blocked! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely helpful here. Even someone as completely ignorant of the subject as I am could understand it! Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 02:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I happened to see you mention User:Tim_Song/Standards in a recent DRV discussion, and the rationality of your scheme impressed me, since deletion is such a confusing subject. Here are a few comments generally:
  1. Regarding your question above, my comment would be that it is risky to use rollback (or an uncommented revert using Huggle) on any kind of POV edits, even if they are strange, though I know that a number of people do it. Better to give some kind of edit summary in those cases. As a rule, rollback can be done if you would feel comfortable giving the user a vandalism warning for that edit. (Though you might choose not to, you could). In the edit you asked about above, at History of antisemitism, something like "Rv unexplained edit" might have done the job, while "Rvv" would be not so easy to justify.
  2. The tone of your answer at User talk:Tim Song#Re: Chetnik-based information was very calm and measured. Be aware that if you do much editing of Balkan articles it can lead to insanity as well as premature grey hair :-). (Just search for the word 'Balkan' in Arbcom cases).
  3. I notice that you removed an IP's critical comment from your Talk page here. I suggest it is better to leave those comments, unless they are defamatory, since a highly-cleaned-up user talk page does not inspire confidence. (Though yours is reasonable). If you do a good job on anti-vandalism, you'll get lots of abuse! If you prefer peace and quiet, consider writing articles.. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  On reflection, I think I attached too much weight to the edit summary. That comment is now restored per suggestion. To be candid, I don't have much confidence in my writing skills, so I suppose I'd stick to antivandalism and deletion work for now. Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My advice is, write a bit more in the mainspace. Process is all very well, and process-focussed people make valuable contributions that I do not wish to denigrate, but I think having a few articles you've written on your watchlist gives helpful perspective when it comes to process.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Mostly RC patrol and NP patrol. I started with NP patrol when I became active. Then, once I got rollback rights, I switched to RC Patrol mostly. Nothing particularly pleasing, though I was amused to discover by accident earlier today that the subject of this revert managed to stay on Wikipedia for a month.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   Well, yes, because of the bad revert linked above, mostly. The editor also left two comments on my talk page [2] [3]. Following that, I dealt with it by requesting comments on the IRC channel, and, when informed of the bad revert, I'm requesting this review and taking a break from RCP. I also stopped patrolling this user's changes immediately before requesting comment on the IRC, given the risk that my judgment would have been clouded. In the future, I expect to deal with conflicts in a similar manner.