Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trysha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Trysha

final (21/15/3) ending 07:50 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Trysha (talk · contribs) – Trysha has been on Wikipedia since Oct 2004 and has made over 1300 edits (per Edit counter), over 800 in the article space. She's been very active in the dog-article area and extremely helpful. She's taken on herself to learn more about templates and is being very careful in the dog-breed table implementation, which is not a simple task. We don't always agree on things but she's always civil and rational in our discussions. She spends a lot of time reverting vandalism. She'd make a great addition to the admin team. Elf | Talk 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. Trysha (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Reasons as above. Elf | Talk 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Trysha is a very responsible individual and would make a fine admin. Franzeska 08:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Appears cordial enough and good contributions. Cookiecaper 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Great contributions, very even handed in other admin tasks, good admin selection. --GoNINzo 11:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    GoNINzo's 8th edit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:34, Jan. 13, 2006
  5. Support. --Interiot 12:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. King of All the Franks 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. --Gayle Madwin 08:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. I found her to be very helpful and friendly in the small amount of interaction I had with her. She has good contribs and will make a good admin.--Dakota ~ ε 18:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Can use mop to block all those darn Dog vandals. --Jay (Reply) 00:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Arf-Arf!! Fellow dog lover support --rogerd 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Knowledgeable in her field. :-D --Chris S. 09:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Contributions are spread out, no problems noted, please see additional question below. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. A benefit to Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Rob Church Talk 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Cursory examination of this editors edits reveal a good egg. Hamster Sandwich 07:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good user. --Kefalonia 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Solid community contributor, good person. Would make an excellent administrator. dcsohltalk 17:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - I can't remember where we ran into each other, but you left the right impression. Kafziel 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Good specialist editor, would fight doggie vandals. Youngamerican 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Few edits. Yodo 13:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    discounted for meat puppetry (Wikipedia:Sock puppet). Sciurinæ 14:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    Unless evidence is provided, please leave this decision to the closing bureaucrat. Guettarda 15:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Since most of your edits are in articles and very few have been janitorial I see no need to give you janitorial powers. I am also concerned about so many problems we've been having and how it used to be that admins were typically above it. Now, it seems that admins are just as often the cause of it. So, I am tending to hold people up to higher standards and think about whether or not giving sysop to the user will help out with some of the back logs. You seem like a fine editor but I don't think you've proved that you should be an admin. Sorry. I do want to add keep up the good work... you seem to be very valuable and all. I feel mean. :( gren グレン 13:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Too few edits for me to make a valid assessment of this editor, and too few edits for the editor to have learned what an admin needs to know. BlankVerse 14:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Not enough edits.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Blank Verse and Grenavitar. Definetely nothing personal, but I also believe more experience would be desirable. Will surely support next time. -- Phædriel *whistle* 18:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Need more experience. Olorin28 20:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - not enough edits Astrotrain 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - not enough experiance. Been here for over a year with less than 1500 edits, and far less than 100 in the project namespace. Can't support. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 23:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Ditto to above. Nothing personal, but I'd like to see a little more experience. I'd like to see you nominated again sometime in the future though. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Looks like a fine editor, but I'd like to see more experience and more participation in policy, vandal fighting, etc. vs mainly work on articles. Johntex\talk 01:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose until more janitorial experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 13:13Z
  12. Oppose per Blankverse. Editor needs somewhat more experience. Xoloz 19:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Per everybody above. Especially needs more edits in project namespace. DaGizzaChat (c) 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per above. Edit pattern does not indicate familiarity with administrative processes. Will reconsider when edits to "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:" spaces total at least 500. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:28, Jan. 13, 2006
  15. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I do feel you need more project namespace edits. I would be willing to support a future RfA in a few months if you do so, since you seem to be on the right track. I do like your percent usage of edit summaries. — TheKMantalk 08:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, looking through the individual project contributions, though perhaps smaller than some, the feeling I got was that she's very cordial and is a quick learner. In my opinion, a handful of admin-like actions that indicate a good understanding of the admin role can count for more than a large number of AfD votes. Examples: 3RR report, AN/I notice. --Interiot 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Trysha didn't really start to become active until last month. A few more months of experience and I will be in support of an RfA.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 14:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Trysha seems to be a good editor, and her answers to all questions (including the one I asked) sound sensible. But on thinkign it over i am trouble by the relatively short time sice Trysha started major contrivutions, and the lack of project namespace edits. I would probably support a later nomination after Trysha has more experience. DES (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 95% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 08:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Monthly edit summary report, namespace report. --Interiot 12:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • She is a good editor and she deserves more support votes.--218.232.104.29 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with that, although poster is anon. Requirements and expectations certainly have become more stringent since I became an admin and I'm wondering whether we're asking too much of contributors who would've been considered perfectly lovely candidates a year ago. If one is going to be a bad egg because the power of an admin goes to one's head and not before (which seems to be at least one concern voiced above), then no number of edits in any name space will demonstrate that. Just IMHO. Elf | Talk 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (Huh, sorry, today this sounds whiney. But it does seem that standards have changed over time. Elf | Talk 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC))
  • I agree with Elf, Interiot and the anon user. It isn't the quanity of edits but the quality of them the should be considered. We should get over this editcountitus and do more quality checking.--Dakota ~ε 10:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. 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. Most of my time these days is spent reverting vandalism, removing spam, fact checking, and improving dog articles. Having admin rights would certainly help me deal with the first two tasks much more easily; being able to block a vandal (by policy of course) rather than have the Wiki live with a rampant vandal running loose while I report them and wait.
If I had admin privs, the first thing that I would start doing that I cannot do today would be to would be to help out processing delete and undelete requests after the Rf*s. I'll take on more of those type of tasks after the dog project templates are done. I actually seem to enjoy repetitive grindstone type work. I'm very interested keeping our encyclopedia clean, polished, and garbage free.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. A new project that is just beginning that I am very happy with is setting up the infoboxs for the dog project and applying the templates to the dog articles. This involved some scripting (but not a bot, rules you know!). That is going very well. I've worked with many people and have been careful in planning this transition. This is very important to the dog project, and I all of the dog articles will be much better off when it is complete.
I feel bad that I don't have a featured article. I tend to do more janitorial type work and small edits across a large numbers of dog project articles. I am happy with this work, if this sort of work were not done, there would be so much misinformation and advertising all across the dog project articles. Early on I did create some small articles such as the article on the Japanese Chin, I'm not especially proud of them, but I am glad that I did them.
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. I do not recall having been involved in anything that developed into a true argumentative conflict. I would like to think that I am polite in my interactions with all users, I do respect the rule of consensus and assume good faith by all parties. If I feel someone is doing something against policy and they disagree with me, I pull in the opinions of others on the subject before proceeding. If I'm out voted - I'll learn and move on. Like any vandal-fighter I've been flamed by vandals, but those conflicts are easy to resolve by either being polite and logical or simply ignoring them. Feeding the Trolls is always a bad idea. I think that I will continue in this fashion as it has worked very well for me in the past.
4. What do you think of these questions?
A. I think these are a good set of questions to ask of a prospective admin.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

5. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. Which one I use depends on the nature of the "faith" of the edit in question.
  • One case where I used {{bv}} was this one. The edit was obviously and clearly intended to cause harm - the individual used explicit language to corrupt the article, They re-added the vandalism after it was reverted. it was hard to assume any good faith on the part of the editor for that change.
  • I use {{test}} most of the time - for simple gibberish, or newbie edits - I would like to think that most edits like this are cases where the user is new and doesn't understand what wikipedia is and are playing around with the "unlocked web site".
6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. These are tough cases, the user may be obeying the letter of the law in order to defeat the spirit of the law or they may not know what the 3RR rule is at all. My first course of action would be comment on the user's talk page like I did here. Let them know about the rules and then see what they do, but the real thing to do is to try to resolve the underlying reasons for the reverting. Using the article's talk page as well as talking to the other parties involved would be good tools to get started. Communication is key, but if they won't talk... If they are knowingly and repeatedly working around the 3RR, something needs to be done, user blocking could be an option to force the user to calm down, or page protection could be another solution. It's hard to apply a general rule to these cases because it is very situational.
7. In your opinion, when would you delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. I'm not a Deletionist and I'm not an Inclusionist. I'm a moderationist when it comes to deletion. Our encyclopedia should not be filled with junk, but it is not paper and has plenty of space for the unusual and obscure. If it is an article is in my area of expertise, then I would make a decision based on what I know and a few google searches. I will probably do some web searches before deleting anything in this category. I tend to think that a good test initial test for this is notabilty over a geographical area. If the group or person is notable outside of its own community it should probably into RfD instead.
8. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
A. The only true way to know is to formally accuse the person and have someone with log privs tell you. But, sometimes it is obvious due to slip ups - for example, they use the wrong account for an edit or sign the wrong name. In the absence of slip-ups, it usually requires behavior analysis over a longer period of time. Sockpuppets tend to be malicious agenda pushers, so they will often edit the same sets of articles over and over in the same way pushing a specific POV. There can be other cues like similar user pages, same commenting style, etc... All these things add up over time.
9. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. Of course making sure that all sides of the argument are presented is key. One thing that I would especially take note of when writing or NPOV-izing an article is to ensure that the language being used is not biased. Different sides of a debate often have keywords that they use that make themselves sound good and the other side sound bad. These terms can often become very charged, it is easy for someone outside of the debate to use these term. For example, if I were writing an article about Abortion, I would avoid using both of the terms "Anti-Choice" and "Pro-Life" except when defining the terms used by each side of a debate, I would use a more neutral phrase like "Groups who are opposed to abortion" instead. Most people will understand why to avoid those examples, in a dog related people may not realize that "Back Yard Breeder" is an inflammatory term - so being careful with language is important.

Additional Questions for the candidate

10. How long do you feel that sprotection should be applied to an article? Question added by xaosflux Talk/CVU
A: It seems that you are asking for how I would vote rather than what policy says - so I say Forever.  :) No, not really. I would say that an article should have the semi-protection removed when it ceases to be a prime target for vandalism - that is to say, we should disable it periodically (weekly? less?) until there are no vandalfloods.. I realize that this means that long-term targets like George W. Bush will end up protected for a very long time, weeks, months, maybe longer (until 2009 even). I feel that locking down articles is somewhat anti-wiki therefore we should temper semi-protection by making it rare - only high-vandal target articles get semi-protects.
Thank you for your reply. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
11. I would like to ask the candidate's view on Wikipedia:Process is Important? DES (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A: I think this is a nice essay, and I agree with it. I tend to like rules. I was a systems administrator for many years before I became a programmer. I have much experience in granting admin privileges to multiple individuals. If you give such rights to especially large numbers of individuals, process is very important else severe problems arise. Administrative actions should always follow policy whenever we have as many admins as wikipedia does. I realize that there might be some cases in which policy cannot be followed; emergencies, unusual circumstances, etc... in these cases I think that one should at least consult with other administrators before taking action.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.