Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyrol5

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (13/0/0); Scheduled to end 13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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]

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.

• Links for Tyrol5: Tyrol5 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tyrol5 can be found here.

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

• Stats posted--v/r - TP 15:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]