The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Tyrol5[edit]

Final (65/0/0); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 13:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Tyrol5 (talk · contribs) – Greetings! I have been here since November 2008, but the bulk of my contributions have been in the past year or so, after getting involved in the maintenance side of Wikipedia. Although many of my edits are in the areas of anti-vandalism, new page patrol and gnomish activities such as categorization, file moving, processing redirect requests and helping out at WP:UAA, I consider myself to be an exceptional content contributor with four good articles and four DYK articles. Although these numbers are modest by some standards, I believe that I am proficient in the areas of referencing and writing. Should the community approve of this request (my first), I plan to use the mop in the areas where I am already active and exceptionally confident/proficient enough to do so. Thank you for your consideration. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As I tend to enjoy the more gnomish/routine tasks on the wiki, I would remain largely on the same path as an administrator. This, for me, would mostly include assessing WP:AIV/WP:UAA reports, assessing speedy deletion requests, processing permissions requests over at WP:PERM, and protected edit requests/help editors requiring the assistance of an administrator (i.e. rollback requests). As I've said before, I would use the mop only where I am proficient enough to do so. The mop would also be useful in the work that I do on a day to day basis; there have been instances when I have moved files, for example, where the ability to move over redirects would have been helpful.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Although I participate primarily in keeping the wiki clean, I do enjoy adding content; my primary interest in this area being science, specifically space science. I have four GA’s, two of which I re-wrote, but did not create: Taurus-Littrow (lunar valley) (of which I am most proud), Fra Mauro formation, Soyuz TM-30, and Mir EO-19. I also have four DYK’s: Taurus—Littrow, Descartes Highlands, Organelle biogenesis, and Pavel Petrovich Parenago. I will also occasionally find an article and rewrite it/add sources, as I did to two of my GA’s: Fra Mauro formation (before) and Soyuz TM-30 (before); see also Ivan Bella (before), Toyohiro Akiyama (before) and Valeri Polyakov (before) for examples. I am also currently working on the Apollo 15 article, but it is a work in progress. I also, of course, take pride in my efforts to maintain the encyclopedia, specifically my work in anti-vandalism. I believe both of these contributions to WP (article writing and maintenance) are crucial to maintaining a large encyclopedia where people have free, unlimited access to accurate, high quality and unabridged information. Having said that, I am proud of both my content creation and content preservation.
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: I’ve never had a "heated" dispute with another editor thus far, aside from being labeled various expletives by vandals (it comes with the job), and I hope to keep it that way. I’m not infallible and have certainly made mistakes before (who doesn’t), but I try to accept criticism and advice in an objective way.
A specific example is a situation in the past month or so where I should have tagged an article as SD criterion G10, instead tagging it G3 vandalism. The deleting administrator contacted me about it and I explained my viewpoint. In retrospect, I should have tagged the page G10 in lieu of G3; although it was borderline for G3, G10 was more accurate for the page in question and would have prioritized it for speedy deletion.
In my interactions with all other editors I strive to approach issues objectively, rather than subjectively, and realize that although third-party intervention is sometimes helpful and necessary, the most effective method of collaboration and dispute resolution is through active, objective, civil discussion, enabling all involved parties to be heard and a resolution to be reached.
Additional question from 28bytes
4. Several editors have recently left the project following RfAs that failed because of plagiarism and close paraphrasing concerns. As a member of the RfA reform task force, what are your thoughts on that?
A: Although these concerns should be brought forward and addressed in a civil and productive manner, it is ultimately up to the candidate to abide by site policy (and, sometimes, the relevant laws) when dealing with content. The objective of the task force and RFA reform in this regard is to ensure that these concerns are addressed with the candidate before his/her RFA even begins. When these concerns become part of an RFA, however, they should be regarded with as much civility as possible and the candidate should be given constructive criticism that is helpful when it becomes time for the candidate to address these concerns.
Additional questions from Salvio giuliano
5. What is difference between a softerblock and a spamublock and when would you employ the former instead of the latter?
A: Softerblock is for users who appear to be editing in good faith, but his/her username may reflect a conflict of interest or affiliation with a specific organization. Meanwhile, Spamublock is for users with promotional usernames who have been explicitly introducing spam onto pages in a manner that has been identified to disrupt the encyclopedia. Softerblock is more appropriate for users who, after having been notified of a possible username policy vio, have displayed a willingness to become a productive contributor/have not blatantly disrupted the encyclopedia, but appear to have a promotional username.
6. As an admin patrolling WP:PERM, what would your criteria to grant the account creator flag be?
A: A displayed need for the tool. What this means: being active in the account creation process and hitting the account creation limit at least two or three times (6 per day currently) and otherwise have a good contribution history without any outstanding concerns that suggest the user might misuse the tool.
Additional question from Mitchazenia
7. Above you mention you have four good articles. How influential do you feel it is in a request for admin-ship to have at least a couple good articles or a featured article in handling content disputes?
A: Having contributed significantly to any number of good or featured articles is certainly an indication that a user is familiar with the process of content creation and the relevant policies. Although this is beneficial in a request for adminship and may be taken into account during the resolution of a content dispute, it should not be utilized to give one's own opinion undue weight in a dispute; however, it is certainly indicative of the user's familiarity with Wikipedia's policies governing content and the addition thereof.
Additional question from Kudpung
8. My question is entirely optional and the community will not perceive it negatively if you prefer not to answer it. Many New Page Patrollers cherry pick the articles they tag - perfectly understandable if they are not sure what to do. How would you define, in your own words, the difference between vandalism, nonsense, and attack pages, and what do you do when you come across them?
A: Vandalism is just what the name implies: plain, pure vandalism which includes blatant misinformation and hoaxes; these pages fall under CSD criterion G3. Nonsensical pages, however, are comprised only of incoherent text/random characters and the page contains no stable/encyclopedic revision to revert back to; these pages fall under the criterion G1, which does not include poor writing or pages that are even somewhat legible. Attack pages fall under the criterion G10. These pages purposefully harm and/or attack the subject of the article, contain only unsourced negative information about a living person, contain legal threats aimed at the subject, or aim to harass the subject without serving any other purpose. While G3 and G10 can be tagged very shortly after creation (and courtesy blanked in the case of G10), I usually wait an extra several minutes when dealing with G1 articles, as these may be the result of inexperienced first-time article creators (i.e. exploring the content addition process) who may wish to become productive, good faith contributors to WP.
Additional question from B
9. When thinking about our fair use policy, how do you evaluate whether an image complies with criteria #1 and #8? Consider these three scenarios for use of non-free content under a claim of fair use. If asked to close FFD discussions, how would you resolve them?
  • A photograph of Miles Stadium (which was torn down in 1965) published in the Washington Post?
  • A photograph of a popular French politician who died last week used both in an article about him and about a company that he founded?
  • A photo of the largest watermelon ever (which earned that title according to Guinness World Records in 1986) in the article watermelon? --B (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: As for criterion #1, I would perform a search for a free/freer alternative photo to illustrate the subject in question, and if none existed and the subject is deceased/no longer in existence, the image would be deemed "not replaceable". As for criterion #8, I would assess whether the image actually serves the article's purpose by illustrating the subject directly, or illustrates someone/thing other than the subject of the article (thus deeming the use of non-free media unnecessary). As for the second part of your question, do let it be known that I do not plan to participate at WP:XFD in an administrative capacity, as I do not have enough experience to do so. However, I will answer for the sake of the question. For the Miles Stadium illustration, I would perform a search for a freer alternative to the photo and, if none existed, would deem fair use of the image acceptable, on the grounds that it serves to further the reader's understanding of the subject. In the case of the politician, although further images of him cannot be reproduced, there would likely be a freer alternative photo available due to the contemporary nature of the subject. In that case, the image could be uploaded to replace the non-free image. The use of the non-free politician image in the business article would not be warranted, on the grounds that it does not further the reader's understanding of the article's actual subject: the business itself. It would be acceptable to use the picture in the politician's article, however, if no freer alternative existed. As for the watermelon image, I doubt that the non-free image file of the largest one on record would serve to advance the purpose of the article, to inform the reader about watermelons rather than a specific one. In that case, I would deem the use of non-free media unnecessary.
10. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you? Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR. He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views. (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do? --B (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would apply the description "involved" quite broadly and would avoid conflicts of interest to the best of my ability. Although the community has previously endorsed obvious administrative action by involved admins, I would still handle the issue cautiously. As for your specific example: regardless of how much time has elapsed since said dispute, I would contact another administrator, requesting they give a second opinion or endorsement regarding the block and explain their view to the 3RR offender in question to appease the concerns of of the 3RR offender and others.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Seen the editor around and have a good impression. GAs look good and cited material looks accurate and paraphrased correctly. CSD tagging also looks impeccable, shows good understanding of A7, A3, and A1. Has my support.--v/r - TP 15:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - this candidate will be able to contribute much more effectively with admin privileges. Good to see someone working on the spacefaring articles. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I really don't see any reason to oppose. Clearly shows experience across the board as opposed to focused on one or a few articles. –BuickCenturyDriver 15:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I don't see any reason not to support. Monty845 17:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Seems good to me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Definite support from me. Plenty of experience, including a great deal of solid article work and a large number of contributions in the Wikipedia project space. Good communication skills, a clean block log, and with GAs and DYKs. A solid all-around candidate. -- Atama頭 17:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Good all-around editor, though it seems user has peaks and plunges in editing.--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Will be a great addition to the admin corps. Connormah (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support - A person must not just be judged on how he cleans things up, but on how he writes, and how we judge his writing. (a weird response meaning: Am content after getting a response to my question.) Mitch32(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support —SW— gab 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support User is experienced in several areas of admin tasks, and I don't see any conduct issues. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good contributions which show solid grasp of Wikipedia, and is willing to do the mundane sweeping up that is a large part of admin work. Articulate and level headed. Can walk and talk. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support – A user that has both cleanup and article experience deserves to be an admin. —mc10 (t/c) 01:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Keepscases (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I just have an excellent impression of Tyrol. Don't quite recall any specific interactions, but there it is. Swarm X 03:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. A clueful and trusted user with whom I have interacted on multiple projects. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No concerns; happy to support. 28bytes (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Looks good to me! SQLQuery me! 14:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Seen this user around for quite awhile. I see no problems, why not. Mlpearc powwow 17:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Nice guy with fair experience. He comes across as calm and friendly which means a lot for being the better sort of admin. He has done some article work (our product) and has also engaged in a lot of good policy and article talk discussions. I kinda also like that he has some topic breadth experience (both medicine and space). I looked at his page, nom statement (not the questions, being honest!), edit stats and a few articles he's been on. Also, went back and looked at some of his policy comments in the RFA reform 2011 discussions, where he was well composed and also providing real ideas and "paths forward" (not just a complainer, but a provider). BTW, I probably disagree with his conclusions on RFA reform. For example, I don't think drive by "not" [is that what the exclamation means?] votes are the problem in RFAs. More the contrary really...and I find the rubber hits the road on the opposes (where a candidacy is decided) and they better research and thought and debate/discussion than the supports. But I liked how he worked even if we disagree. P.s. Anyone who doesn't like my TLDR vote should realize that the candidate advocates more discussion and less voting structure in RFAs and even just sort of making that happen without waiting for a rule...so there! ;-) P.s.s. I wish there was some way for me to put paragraphs into my "comment of a vote".TCO (reviews needed) 17:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    About paragraphing your RFA votes: there is.

    Just use a <p> tag. However, brevity is preferable, and a few sentences or at most one paragraph is even better. Regards, AGK [•] 00:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks man. Srsly. Only "a few sentences" IS "one paragraph".  ;-)TCO (reviews needed) 20:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, not again, the abuses of using <p> as a carriage return. It's a good thing that Wikipedia uses HTML Tidy to clean the code, but Tidy makes mistakes, especially with unclosed and wrongly nested tags. See, for instance, the HTML5 documentation on the <p> tag. —mc10 (t/c) 02:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Per TCO, since I don't get to say that very often. My76Strat talk 18:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support If there's a reason not to set the bit, I haven't spotted it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Blurpeace 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Candidate has a solid record and is clearly trustworthy. Good answers to questions, and no obvious other problems. AGK [•] 00:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Tyrol5 has made good contributions to Wikipedia. -- Marek.69 talk 00:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Sure! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Approximately four more GA's than I have and around an excess of four DYK's to my total... Not to support may be considered peevish; that and there is no indication they would abuse the flags. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Looks good to me. MJ94 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support — Waterfox ~talk~ 19:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Good contributions. However I would like to see more activity in pulmonology-related articles. ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 21:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No issues from me. ThemFromSpace 23:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak support. I'm not really satisfied with your answers, but I haven't seen anything that might lead me to oppose. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support mabdul 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Secret account 04:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Wield the mop well, and with care. :) Steven Walling 04:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Clear discussion here and apparently good content creation. So far, there seems little discussion of the candidate's articles, alas. I would ask another editor to examine one of the candidate's articles for copyright violation problems, the way I and others have examined articles by earlier candidates. This RfA needs a comment like "I examined article XYZ for a good 30 minutes, checking for copyright violations and found none."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Qualified candidate Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Fully qualified. Courcelles 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Time for another mop to be issued.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Seems fine to me. --B (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Good luck with the mop! I wish you the best!! America69 (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support - Don't see any concerns. No Wikiquette issues about this user. Lots of good edits to most edited article Pulmonology. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support No evidence presented to oppose at this time. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. No problems here. Per above comments and contributions it is clear that this candidate will be trustworthy as an admin. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 04:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I like your AFD voting and contributions. Pulmonology is certainly better than it was before you came along. Ryan Vesey contribs 04:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Seriously, when one is faced with this answer from a prospective janitor, the call becomes a no-brainer, does it not? "A specific example is a situation in the past month or so where I should have tagged an article as SD criterion G10, instead tagging it G3 vandalism. The deleting administrator contacted me about it and I explained my viewpoint. In retrospect, I should have tagged the page G10 in lieu of G3; although it was borderline for G3, G10 was more accurate for the page in question and would have prioritized it for speedy deletion." Clean block log, more than 2 years experience, no indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, looks good. I'm sure the admin backlog will benefit from having another wikignome on board. --Taelus (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry--but what backlog is that precisely? I don't see any in the areas that the candidate is wanting to work in. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I've noticed Tyrol5 around, and after a quick skim through his contributions (should be more, I know) I see nothing to concern me. A good editor who will transfer well to being an admin. WormTT · (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support; I think that creating highly-polished articles is rather orthogonal to most mop work, so - although impressive in general - they don't sway my opinion very much at RfA. However, I'm confident that the candidate is competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the mop. After a little snooping around I didn't see anything concerning. bobrayner (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support; a competent, thoughtful and calm editor, good interaction with others. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Solid answer to Q3. All admins have to learn from the mistakes they made in the past. Minima© (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 13,000 edits, high-quality article work, sufficient WP edits, autopatroller, reviewer, and rollbacker. Registered as user since 2008, so he's an old hand here and has proven his record. We need more scientific experts as sysops. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Clean contributions and no blocks. Good luck!--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Comes off well on talk pages related to pulmonology, good gnomish work, and if that discussion about CSD criteria was the worst drama, well, I'm envious! Clearly an intelligent and trustworthy candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. A quality contributor and good answers to all questions. Congrats on your forthcoming adminship. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I'm not familiar with your work, but your deft handling of the questions (especially B's questions), your upfrontedness in regards to CSD tagging issues in Q3, and the fact that this has gone six and a half days without an oppose or even a neutral, all lead me to support. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I guessed this RfA was coming up and I had already done my research. If I had known when it would be coming up, I would probably have been the nominator. He beat me to it. The answer to Q3 probably alludes to this diff. Golly, that's just a standard "Im just letting you know..." message sent as a courtesy - not a criticism, and nothing to worry about whatsoever unless you're getting ten a week of them. A thoroughly qualified candidate; I've been watching since voting opened and I'll just make my !vote now before it closes and wish Tyrol all the best for the promotion that should be coming in a few hours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Unanimous Support Congrats! —Terrence and Phillip 08:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support – No reason to deny. — Bill william comptonTalk 12:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]


Neutral[edit]
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.
Category