Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trysha 2


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Trysha
Final (36/16/2) ended 03:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

– Many many many edits and a few months later I am here to give this another go. My last RFA was unsuccessful, with everyone in opposition being virtually unanimous in saying "try again later". So here I am. In my previous RfA there some said they would like to see more janitorial duties and more participation in project talk spaces, and I don't feel that either of those areas are lacking any more and my edits should show that. I have been here since 2004, but I only became really active at the end of 2005. The majority of my work since has been vandal fighting and spam fighting, both with RC Patrol pages as well as within the many hundreds of pages in the Dog Project. - Trysha (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: self nom, but of course - Trysha (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Stuff learned, withdrawing.. Thank you all for your points.  - Trysha (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: More of the same, but with the mop.   Many admins are overworked, and I often do not report vandals to be blocked because it is frequently many hours before they actually do get blocked.    As a result I, and others, reclean the same guys vandalism until he gets bored and goes away (when a 15 minute or a couple hours long block would solved the issue quite nicely and with much less work).    In addition to just dealing with vandals, I would initially branch out into taking care of speedy deletions,  I know the CSD very well, although this could be hard to see as many tagged articles I have are gone, I would like to help there.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: On my last RFA I mentioned my infobox for the dog project.  I am still very proud of that, as it standardized the many hundreds of dog related articles and made them much easier to maintain.   I am, of course, proud of my efforts to keep the encylopedia vandal free.


 * 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: Just look at my talk page, people hate those who remove spam and vandalism. As I said in my last RfA, I have not had many conflicts outside of the vandal fighting arena.    In those times that I have had a conflict I think that I respond in a friendly and fair manner to people that disagree with me.  I respect consensus, and try my best to assume good faith on the part of other editors, even when it seems glaringly obvious that they are not acting in good faith.


 * 4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --Mcginnly | Natter 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A: With hesitance.    Are they violating out of malice with a history of violations - or do they have a clean nose?        With a long established user that has a clean history, odds are you are not going to want to block this person even if they have violated the rules.    Talking with them should make them stop.    Blocks should be applied after personal interaction has been tried (without a template) and failed and they become persistent in repeating the violations (when the good user goes bad).   It goes without saying, I would never apply a block in a situation where I am involved in the dispute in any capacity other than trying to help the users solve the conflict at hand.   In cases like 3RR violations, I would not block on the first 3RR - i would give them a strong "you have violated the 3RR - you need to work this out with the other editor",  I would be more inclined to protect the article in those cases rather than apply blocks to users.   I'm having a hard time of thinking of a case where I would block a user with a clean nose, the nose gets dirty before the block happens.    Now cases where a user does not have a clean nose, those are easier.   I remember,  as well as the repeated warring on Shiloh Shepherd Dog, even after the article was protected.    Both of these cases went to RfC and arbcom and resulted in severe penalites for the users in question.   Blocks were merited all around in these cases.


 * 5. You seem to have been quite active in spam-fighting; what is your opinion of WP:CSD? How do you interpret its current wording? --ais523 12:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A: I am very anti-spam.   but this, I think that I would rarely, if ever, use this as it is written.   There is much debate about this, and I would like to see the debate settled before I use a criteron like this a lot.    Honestly, I can only think of one article where I would have possibly applied this, and I had it deleted under A7.     Really, the rule is somewhat redundant, most cases the articles can be speddied under another category  such as A1, A7,  or A8, or in the final cases AfD - but it should go away pretty quickly, waiting a few days probably won't hurt.


 * 6. Aside from CSD, are there any other admin mediums that you would help out with? IfD seems to be perma-backlogged, and WP:PP needs to be monitored for pages that have been protected and forgotten about. Voice -of-  All  14:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A: I see CSD as a good starting point, and moving into other arenas like page protection. IfD does have a large backlog, I'm not a big in the image area (as one of the comments below has indicated) so I do not see myself as hanging out there all the time, helping out with the more flagrant deletions from time to time - I would do that.   Page moves are another area that I can see myself working in.


 * General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)


 * Answers to questions do not suggest that this user has enough site experience IMO. Voice -of-  All  23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Support, no problems here. Nacon kantari  23:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Nominee demonstrates need for tools and trustworthiness, seems to have taken advice from last RfA very seriously and went above and beyond to address those concerns. Agent 86 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. John254 00:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - per nom -- Tawker 00:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. The user obviously needs admin tools and is a good editor, who helped with the dog project. -- Esteban  F.  (con.)  00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom and above. Hello32020 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per nom. Michael 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Though I've never interacted with her, Trysha seems like a trustworthy editor who will not abuse the tools. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Passes My Criteria †he Bread  01:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Yup. Needs the tools; has clean nose. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Meets my criteria as well. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support meets my standards.-- danntm T C 02:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support needs the mop to block vandals, nuf said. Stubbleboy 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Shows need for tools, has sufficient history, and has learned from previous RFA. Good candidate.  -- Merope Talk 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per nom. Rama's arrow  05:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Seems like a good candidate, plenty of vandalfighting in edit history, so tools would be useful. (aeropagitica) 05:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Low edit count, but adminship isn't a big deal, so Weak support. J o r c o g a  06:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - go for it. SMC 12:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Seems like a good candidate. See no reason to believe would misuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. No reason not to. &mdash;Xezbeth 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Absolutely. Especially since she(?) is not a bot. Jcam 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Should pass this RFA --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count ) 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, no Portal talk edits. Kusma (討論) 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support No reason not to trust this user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I like what I see in the contribs. Subject specialists admins are a benefit, in my opinion.  Eluchil404 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support I am for specialist administrators having expertise in particular subject area. Lets have an admin specialized in dog-related problems, I guess there are many problems required admin attention there. abakharev 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Excellent spam fighter, good edits... and adminship is no big deal, right? --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - I accept what this user has to say; we need more vandal fighters as admins. Also, there is enough experience and edits. -- Casmith 789 07:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Merovingian - Talk 08:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. It's a mop, not a gun. No big deal. Femto 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Michael Snow 20:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Trysha knows enough to work as an admin. She may not be material for an ubersysop, but that's not what she wants. I'm happy to support. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support --  Mike  |  trick or treat  18:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose - lack of experience with images --T-rex 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I am sorry, I just don't see either the community involvement or a showing of familiarity with policy that would permit me to support. User participated in seven AfD discussions since February. Of those, apparently all were of user's own starting and all were dog-related. Of the 307 WP-space edits, very few are substantitive - most are to Wikiprojects Spam and Dog breeds, CVU, and WP:List of images. I could not trust the user with deletions or blocks (evidence of spamfighting notwithstanding). - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I am in agreement with the CrazyRussian. Eusebeus 13:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Crzrussian, I can't see the need for admin tools. I glanced over Trysha's contribs, and I don't see much there that sysop rights would help with. Removing spam certainly doesn't need sysop. Most RC patrolling doesn't need sysop either. An FA is only a nice-to-have, but I think any would-be admin should have experience at xfD/DRV. As for CSD, either Trysha is a great deal better than me at identifying valid speedy candidates (which is more than likely), or she's been very lucky. I'm not much of an AfD-opener, but I have opened a few when speedys were rejected, or prods removed, or neither appeared to be suitable. I applaud Trysha's war on spam, I just don't see that admin rights will help in it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Abstain. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 09:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose reasons pointed out by Crzrussian. As much as I love vandal fighters and spam fighters such as yourself, please get more experience at AfD and maybe other places related to admin chors.-- Andeh 16:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Crzrussian. He brings up a good point. With a lack of AfD experience, I am not totally sure how you would conduct yourself in situations like heated discussions regarding blockings and other stuff. AfD experience provides users with a premature sense of what admins experience day-in and day-out. I think if you try maybe in a month, with a few hundred AfD discussion edits, then you can definitely count on receiving my vote. -- Nish kid 64 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Crzrussian and Andeh. I don't see any major encyclopedic contributions besides an infobox. T REX speak 21:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose No worries with attitude to blocking - but I need to see more adminlike experience. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, the nom fails my criteria. Insufficient article talk edits shows lack of involvement in true article building; and 307 project edits, while technically over my minimum of 300, is mostly wikiprojectdog related and does not reflect a real experience in AfD, DRV, etc etc. I will certainly support on the next go-round if these these points are addressed (which I am sure they will be). Themindset 00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose lack of necessary experience, particularly in potential administrative areas and contributing to writing articles, which is the most important thing a Wikipedian does  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 03:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Upon further investigation, not sure how user would handle admin tools with such relative inexperience in the project space. – Chacor 17:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose as above, lack of experience in substantive matters. Vandal reversion is valuable, but not broad experience. Pete.Hurd 21:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Insufficient wiki-space and process experience, a problem easily remedied by waiting a bit longer before the next application. Xoloz 23:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose have to go with the crazyrussian. Too little experience with policy.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. I appreciate the editor's contributions on spam removal, but feel encyclopedia building experience is rather narrow. Espresso Addict 02:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, mostly per crzrussian. While it's true that WP:AIV is sometimes a little slow, I haven't seen it take literally "hours", the slowness is also intentionally built into the system (hence tests1-4) to insure as little BITing goes on as possible. I disagree with abakharev: just as in most areas of learning, IMHO it's better to start broad and then specialize afterwards. I am not confident that trysha has much wiki-wide experience. --Storkk 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak oppose per crzrussian and Nishkid64. I see absolutely nothing wrong with your edit history up to this point, but we just don't have any idea how you would act in very many situations requiring admin intervention. Get some experience in AfDs and the like, and my guess is you'll sail through with flying colors in another 60 days or so. --Aaron 20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) On the fence for now; I would prefer a candidate with some more experience with the various processes.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Radiant. – Chacor 05:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No compelling reason to oppose, but I'd like to see you in the maintenance/administrative/process areas a little more, and then apply again. Regards, &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 12:01, 7 October 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.