Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyrenius 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Tyrenius

Final (60/1/1) ended 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius (talk · contribs) – I was impressed by Tyrenius when I first started editing. He made me feel welcome and also looked over my shoulder, tidying up after me when necessary. He is generally helpful to others, has a very good attitude and is always civil, giving a reasoned response. His self nom [1] was 3 months ago. In that time he has made over 3,000 edits and taken on board the advice given then, showing by this great respect for the community response he received at the time. He has been editing for 10 months now altogether. He is a participant in different areas, including WikiProject Arts, Reference desk/Humanities, Articles for Deletion, Requests for Adminship and Administrators noticeboard, as well as starting new articles to help fill gaps in contemporary arts coverage. He has been closing (near-)unanimous AfDs, so is already showing admin responsibility. He very patiently and skilfully negotiated with several editors on Xeni Jardin to resolve an edit war by gaining a consensus agreement.[2][3]. He has already proved he is an asset to wikipedia and will continue to be so as an admin. VeraHutchinson 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and I'd like to thank VeraHutchinson for prompting me into doing so. Tyrenius 04:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support per nom. I've seen this user doing a good job with AfD, and I expect that this user will become a good admin. DarthVader 04:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. I'm very impressed; I haven't seen a lot of self-noms improve the way that this editor has. The fact that this editor gets stressed and knows how to deal with it impresses me greatly, and he seems to keep a cool head on AfD, which impresses me. Captainktainer * Talk 05:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support I am very impressed by the way he presents himself just looking at the answers to the questions below. Though, i do not usually vote for users with less that 5000 edits, he has showed the responsibility needed for the job. (Plus he is almost there- 4800+) --WillMak050389 05:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support brilliant editor. Rama's Arrow 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. {{RfA-cliche1}} Kimchi.sg 06:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Great user. Easily meets my criteria. Grandmasterka 07:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support User's contributions appear to be strong. With a cool head when under stress, would be useful with a mop and bucket.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support. Need I say more? RandyWang (raves/rants) 09:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support good edit summaries, vandal fighting and editing of a wide range of articles, I see no problem here.--Andeh 10:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support No reason to oppose really. — The King of Kings 11:17 July 01 '06
  11. ... and I thought... --Nearly Headless Nick 11:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support - No worries, very good contributor. Afonso Silva 11:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support since no reason to oppose. --WinHunter (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong support great user who meets all of my criteria. —Mets501 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support seems a good guy abakharev 13:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support excellent editor should make a great admin. Eluchil404 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Will be a good admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support ON WHEELS! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Merovingian {T C @} 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support with a side order of fries! TruthCrusader 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. I hate to resort to the old RfA cliche, but I swear in this case is absolutely true! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support per nom. Roy A.A. 21:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support good editor with an interesting angle, not a POV angle but a unique sphere of contribution. DVD+ R/W 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support - Iolakana|T 23:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. SushiGeek 23:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Strong support seems levelheaded -- Samir धर्म 01:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support will put tools to good use. Yanksox 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support yes ma'am - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support impressed by his/her contributions Aleenf1 07:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support! Looks great! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support I like this user's style! --Guinnog 16:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Fine candidate -- Avi 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Titoxd(?!?) 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, will make a great admin. SorryGuy 01:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support, seems to be a positive editor and should make a good admin.--blue520 07:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Can be trusted with the mop. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Yes. --Bhadani 16:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support per seeing this one around a lot. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. supportper nom, no reason to oppose user:bob000555 16:52 3 Jully 2006
    User's 12th edit, with unusual knowledge of Wikipedia procedures in all of them. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support, good work on the Satchel Cohen hoax. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. Great team work [4] and massive respect for Yanksox. Then Just zis Guy speedied them. Just the sockpuppets to sort. Tyrenius 23:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Update - sockpuppets are now all blocked. A sophisticated hoax. Tyrenius 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support: yes, absolutely. Excellent admin material (just don't forget to keep working on articles... have to remind myself of this too :-) ) Antandrus (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    OK, it's hands up on that one ;-). I admit they've suffered as the janitorial side has increased.Tyrenius 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 07:33Z
  47. Support due to his wonderful history with wikipedia and his response to NSLE comments, civil, humble and intelligent. - Patman2648 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. I hate to go against NSLE, a knowledgeable and valued editor here, but the oppose vote is, well, wrong. This user was assuming good faith - indeed, assuming it beyond the level we generally require, trying to find a reason for the edits in question rather than making an assumption about them. There's no crime in asking a question or seeking calm, reasoned debate in others. But the main reason for supporting is the high-quality, well-thought-out answers below, revealing an understanding that Wikipedia decisions are rarely black-and-white, that Tyrenius will be wrong some of the time and is prepared to be wrong some of the time (a Good Thing) and, above all, that this user is can be trusted with the extra buttons and will use them to good effect. An ideal candidate on that basis. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Good editor Abcdefghijklm 21:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  50. Jaranda wat's sup 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  51. I'm in agreement with the many editors in support, and in disagreement with NSLE. I think Redvers puts it quite well... Tyrenious was trying very hard to help do the right thing. Support, but mostly because of all the other reasons to support. Excellent editor. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support will make a fine administrator, and I am not swayed by the little assume good faith issue, because everyone deserves a little bit of breathing room, especially in something as tense as a joint encyclopedia construction. — Deckiller 05:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support - --Klemen Kocjancic 11:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  54. Strong support I'm embarrassed not to have added my support earlier. A wise and judicious editor who will make good use of the admin tools. Gwernol 14:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support - A good editor and one of the few voices of reason in the HRE debacle. pschemp | talk 15:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  56. OH NO, I'M GOING TO GET SUED BY SASQUATCH FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT ON ALL CAPS SUPPORTS :) - per all above -- Tawker 17:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support will use the mop well. --Alf melmac 22:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support...will make an excellent admin Alphachimp talk 03:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support - excellent editor with a good sense for dealing with things like the HRE Hoax --Vengeful Cynic 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support Highway Batman! 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. STRONG OPPOSE - failure to assume good faith in a very sensitive situation. I cannot support a candidate who made such insensitive remarks in good faith. Absolutely not. NSLE 02:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    He isn't the only one to express their opinion that the circumstances in this situation are slightly suspicious. I wouldn't oppose just for that. Grandmasterka 02:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    You wouldn't, but I have. Please don't post such a comment which may be taken as trying to sway my vote. NSLE 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    I fully accept NSLE's or any other editor's right to oppose on whatever ground they see fit. That is the diversity that creates wiki as we know it. He has a point that my remarks may turn out to be offensive, in which case obviously I would be very remorseful. However, it is not the first occasion in my life when I have experienced these circumstances, and the evidence that I saw was that this communication was a hoax, designed to exploit trust and genuine emotion in order to cause distress and grief, which it was certainly starting to do.[5] I was not prepared to see this take place over what I judged were, with the greatest probability, needless grounds. In crisis situations one has to make the best judgement one can. That may not be the right one, but all we can do is make it with the right motives, and, if necessary, be prepared to learn for next time. If I'm right, then I hope NSLE will be prepared to learn also. I would also point out to him that it is not a vote. It is a discussion towards a community consensus. I have absolute faith from my experiences on wiki that the community will respect my motives as stated, even if they do not agree with all of my actions. I would also like to point out that the remark cited was taken out of context, as it was preceded by over 3 hours of various attempts by different editors to gain some evidence to reassure us that the statement of HRE's death was true.[6][7][8] (Also see later Please confirm - removing an error.[9]) None was forthcoming, not even the name of the poster or the apparently deceased, just wiki handles, and, having spent an hour [10] posting grievous news/a malicious hurtful lie (it can only be one or the other), Sad News disappeared and left the aftermath to sort itself out. We can see the consternation this has caused. Verification of the news communicated could easily have been provided, which would have at least have removed the uncertainty, but it was not.Tyrenius 03:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment, It would appear that the rumors of HRE's death have been greatly exaggerated. I'm not familiar enough with Tyrenius to have an opinion on his adminship, but it appears in this case his assumption was correct.--Isotope23 12:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I respect you highly NSLE, but, as the incident in question was a clear cut case of a hoax, Tyrennius's opinion should be lauded -- Samir धर्म 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 09:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Username        Tyrenius
Total edits     4816
Distinct pages edited   1859
Average edits/page      2.591
First edit      21:57, 22 August 2005
        
(main)  2676
Talk    413
User    166
User talk       531
Image   112
Image talk      3
Template        1
Help    1
Wikipedia       850
Wikipedia talk  59
Portal  4


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: The first obvious port of call for me is closing AfD. I've closed "keeps", but haven't had the authority to go beyond that. See AfD backlog discussion on AN. I've been participating in AN and AN/I discussions and would respond there where I could. I revert vandalism most days, and would like to take this further, helping out on AIV, keeping it clear. I've only reported a couple of things there, as most of the vandalism I've encountered hasn't got to that stage, so this will be an area with some learning for me. My approach is to take things cautiously, watching how others do things, asking advice if necessary, and building up experience. I certainly don't intend to go in with all guns blazing. Other areas I have an eye on are protecting pages and CSD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: This always seems like a trick question to me, as they're not "my" articles. However, I feel I've done a good job on Stuckist demonstrations, which I started from scratch and which is (as far as I know) the definitive survey of this on the internet. Damien Hirst I built up considerably. I think these are heading for FA, and I've taken the first step in that direction.[11]. I've been able to fill in gaps in contemporary UK art coverage.[12] 3 of this year's 4 Turner Prize nominees didn't have an article on them. I created these, even before they were announced in the next day's papers. I turned The Mersey Sound from 2 sentences into a more credible article. Vincent van Gogh when I first saw it was in a very muddled state. I put in more hard facts and gave it a logical structure. I've also rewritten some articles in the middle of an AfD and this has resulted in them being kept, e.g. Tin Can Sailors and Anna Svidersky. I'm pleased with these contributions because I feel that I've been able to strengthen wiki in these articles and make it a better resource.
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?
A: Saatchi Gallery was a conflict. As soon as that started happening, my first recourse was reasoned debate on the talk page. When that failed, third party participation was my next avenue. On that occasion it solved the problem. As soon as there have been a couple of reverts, I stop reverting, as I think it's pointless and worsens the situation. By talking to people you can encourage co-operation, and often take the heat out of things. If people turn out to be deliberately disruptive, there are appropriate solutions. I intervened in an edit deadlock on Xeni Jardin via a RfC and used my talk page as a neutral zone to encourage a compromise, which was agreed to in due course.[13][14]. I have to admit the prolonged intricacies of this did start causing some stress, particularly when it was on the brink of being resolved and looked as though it was going to fall apart at the last minute. I backed off and took a walk until I could feel more detached again. I intend to deal with any future conflicts in a similar way.

Optional AOL questions from Hort Graz

4. Detail your blocking plan when you are dealing with a persistent vandal who uses AOL. How long do you block? How often must he return before you start to do longer blocks?
A: As I've indicated above, I see this as an area of learning and building up knowledge through practical experience. At the moment I'd block long enough to stop vandalism in progress, and, if necessary, bring the matter up with other admins to get some good advice. As I understand it, AOL IP addresses are reassigned with page changes, so once that's happened it's not going to help blocking the same address any more. I would follow Blocking policy, but going for the minimum recommended times (or less): "Vandalism — For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last up to 24 hours. Normally, AOL IPs should be blocked for about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and typically topping out at 24 hours."
5. If you block a range of AOL addresses, will you commit yourself to stay around during the block to help the innocent victims of the block?
A: I have no intention in the near future of doing a range block, as I don't meet the criterion in Idiot's Guide to Range Blocks: "It is important that you do not try to block ranges of addresses unless you are really sure of what you are doing." However, should I ever do so, I would certainly take care to watch out and assist those trapped in it through no fault of their own.
6. After you have blocked an inappropriate user name, will you check the Special:Ipblocklist to see if this block is creating massive collateral damage?
A: A lot of names seem to need debate (see discussion about Jesus on Wheels). However, if it was a blatant violation and I blocked it, I'd follow the guidance in Autoblock for "admins to check Special:Ipblocklist regularly". I'm always concerned about the repercussions of my actions.
7. Have you ever experienced being autoblocked because another user was blocked? Are you empathetic to those who may suffer this way, or do you not care?
A: Only on one occasion, using a friend's computer. It was an unexpected experience, and put paid to any editing at the time. I do care about the inadvertent effect of autoblocks on genuine editors. I think it's important that this issue is sorted out, and I hope the Blocking policy proposal will do so.

Optional questions are welcome and all will be answered within 24 hours. Tyrenius 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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.