Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThinkBlue

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndreNatas (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 21 March 2008 (→‎Oppose: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ThinkBlue

Voice your opinion (talk page) (10/6/2); Scheduled to end 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) - ThinkBlue has been an editor on Wikipedia since late 2006. She is a part of Wikiproject Professional Wrestling and has been an active member for a long time now. She has over 10,000 edits, and has adopted five users as a part of the Adopt-a-User program. She is very kind, and always assumes good faith. She is a part of multiple other Wikiprojects, as well as the Birthday Committee. She is constantly involved in AfD's. I'm positive that ThinkBlue well never abuse the tools. iMatthew 2008 15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would intend to work on pro wrestling articles, as they become vandal-joy to vandals. I would intend to use the tools, if they are needed, if a user disrupts Wikipedia in anyway. I also take part in at the Baseball project, as I check the articles standards and elevate the articles progress. I would also help out with the recent changes patrolling, as seen from experience, that not only are wrestling articles targets, but other articles are being vandalized. I would also help out with Protecting articles, if needed. I would also help out with another task that I do and that is patrol recently created articles. If I feel that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, then I place it for deletion. If I feel that a recently created article is notable, but not sure on the notability, then I would ask fellows admins on their thoughts.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions would be editing pro wrestling articles, as I am currently working on expanding past and present pay-per-views from results to articles. Since at the pro wrestling project, it came to a consensus that it'd be best to expand them, than rather leaving them as results. The ones I've worked on/currently working on are: Vengeance (2006), Unforgiven (2006), Unforgiven (2005), Unforgiven (2004), Survivor Series (2002), SummerSlam (2004), No Way Out (2003), Vengeance (2005), Judgment Day (2005) and Royal Rumble (2008). Aside from the pay-per-views, I am proud to say that I co-helped in getting Shawn Michaels article to Good Article status.
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 have been. I know it was a bad thing to be involved in, but I somehow dealt with it. The way I dealt with it was acting calm, I let others help me out with the situation.
A: Yes, I have. I tried explaining to an individual about what to add and what not to add; the user kept on adding a return into the biography article and I kept stating that Wikipedia is not a news site but an Online Encyclopedia. I did, however, revert the edits and got a smirk reply from him at the article's talk page. I replied, but I informed him to read another user's comments that were left on top of his. The situation seemed to stop and everything went back to normal. For the future, I would try to be bold and try not to blow it into proportion.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A. Alright, the difference between a ban and a block is that a ban is being able not to return to Wikipedia, as per all the rules that a user has disobeyed. A block, its temporarily; meaning, that you are able to block a user withing 24hrs, a week, or even a year. The difference is that you are unable to come back and edit on Wikipedia; the other, you have been blocked for abusing editing privileges.
Note: This answer has been modified since some of the comments below... which is fine, but generally, when changing answers, it is best to leave the original version as now, comments below may not apply or make sense.Balloonman (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? Why/when are/aren't you willing to use it?
A. Um, I think every rule applies when it comes to making a decision here on Wikipedia. If you chose to "ignore" a rule, then that's you. But, when it comes to "ignoring" policy, if say a user wants to vandalize and according to this is not permitted here, then yeah choosing to "ignore" the policy, then yeah that's bad. I, would be willing to use it, either way. See, I chose not to go by it, and it resulted in me being blocked three times. So yeah, I would go with it wisely.
6. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A. My thoughts on it are that if anybody believes that a user who was given the adminship responsibility and its not using the well, then I think that the open to recall would be a good idea in the situation. Would I add myself to it? Absolutely. I'm not trying to "suck-up" or anything, but I do feel that if I did something wrong and if fellow admins think that too, then I'm always happy to know what I did wrong and try to fix it. To finish, yes I would add myself to the category.
7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A. Hmm, good question. I believe that cool down blocks can be used when, let's say as an example, that a user adds details to an article, let's use SummerSlam (2007) and at the time, WWE Champion John Cena; the user would in his/her mind, add that Cena was booed throughout the match, and consensus was made not to add that type of detail into the article. If the user's edits are reverted and the user goes on to add his/her edits, then the user would be given a warning. If the user continues and let's say that the user gets angry and leaves a statement in the Edit summary on how adding this is really important, even though it came to an agreement that adding the booing details is not really important, then I would have a talk with the user on how this is not really important and that the pro wresting project made a rule about this and if the user continues with his/her actions, then I would block the user to calm them down.
A. Case in point, they should never be used, as it will stir more problems between yourself and the user.
May I point you to WP:CDB. Cool-down blocks should never be used. Rudget. 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I do remember a user being blocked for that type of situation. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, in all fairness and I wouldn't want to abuse the tools in any way, I would not block the user, but instead try to reason with them on what they are doing wrong. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from RyRy5

8. If a user vandalized your userpage while they already had their final warning, how long would you block that user? The user vandalized you by saying one curse word and blanking your userpage.--RyRy5 talk 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, to be fair and all, I would block the user for 48hrs., because if I go to the extreme and block the user for a month, I'm pretty sure the user would come back and vandalize my page. If its only consisting of my userpage, then that's how I see it. If the user, however, is only on Wikipedia to vandalize articles and they so happened to go by my page, then I would indef block the user for their edits.
Would it make any difference if the user was an admin? Why or why not? --RyRy5 talk 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from ArcAngel

9. Do you feel WP:COI comes into play at all in your first scenario on the previous question? ArcAngel (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I believe so. Because like D.M.N. said, it would be a COI if I were to go and add a protection on a certain article I happen to edit on. Like I said, I wouldn't go out of my way to take matters into my own hand, as that's not allowed.

Additional questions from RyRy5

10 If an admin vandalized your userpage while they already had their final warning, how long would you block that user? The admin vandalized you by saying one curse word and blanking your userpage.
A: I sorta find that hard to go by. But, if the situation came to place, I would well, report them to WP:AIV for their actions for not being civil.
Actually, for the record, an admin would be very unlikely to vandalize your userpage. The time in which an admin would be most likely to vandalize any page is if their account had been compromised, in which case, the matter would be raised on WP:ANI, and the account would be blocked indefinitely until the real owner was back in control of it. Acalamari 19:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Tiptoety talk

11. When should you full protect a article on the mainpage and why? What bout semi?
A: The only time you should fully protect an article, is when an editing situation gets out of control and it will cause problems among editors, then I think its the right time to fully protect that article. Semi? Well, when IP's decide that they want to have fun and start either removing content or vandalizing, I think its the appropriate time to add the semi-protection to the article. But, IP's are sometimes not the problem, but when newly registered users decide to do the same as the IP's, they have a greater advantage, as they are able to edit other articles that have a protection template. But, that's how I would see the situation.
12. What do you feel you have done to prepare for this RfA?
A:

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ThinkBlue before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Very nice and has a great amount of good contributions. Deserve these tools. NimiTize 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support. Strong candidate. Well experienced, excellent mainspace contributions, but Nothing to worry about, in the slightest. answers to questions are concerning. Rudget. 16:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support As nominator. iMatthew 2008 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Very helpfull and experienced editor S-PAC54 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Maybe a bit weak in the projectspace areas, but I respect what you've done and think you will do fine with the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - in all my dealings with ThinkBlue, she has been very kind and supportive. She knows what she doing and will be an excellent asset to the community as an admin. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Good contributions--El Quebrado (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I think the opposers are mainly "picking" on the nominee about little things. Seems a fine editor to me...--Camaeron (t/c) 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A complete lack of participation in admin-related areas is picking about little things? Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Naerii 17:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - It's very unlike me to cast an !vote before any questions are answered, but, looking at you contribution history it appears that while you're a great editor, there is an alarming lack of project space contributions. Almost non-existant. Unfortunately, this means you fail my personal criteria for balance. Lack of experience is the issue here. Sorry, but good luck! Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My oppose stands. User really doesn't seem to have a solid grasp of wikipolicy - the answer to the Q's about block/ ban and WP:IAR for example. Also, given the answer to Q1, my oppose remains steadfast. There is more to being an admin than just going after vandals. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. VERY weak oppose, and likely to change - I'm sorry, but per the answer to Q4, you didn't get the difference between the ban and block (the answer was too vague). Very sorry, but I'm gonna have to say oppose. Jonathan 16:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I explain myself better, would that help? You gotta understand that this is nerveraking. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the whole point behind an RfA - to see how a candidate does 'under pressure'. How you deal with it in your RfA could be an indicator of how you might react once 'the game' begins for real. ArcAngel (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blue, when you are an admin, you will have your user page vandalised more than ever before, you will make mistakes, you will have people ask you questions from all directions. If this is nervewrecking, then I suggest you withdraw this nomination. I suggest you guys also take a look at this discussion where it seems like some are attempting to change the outcome of this RFA. D.M.N. (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant is that for me, as of right now, I gotta answer questions from other people, and it's making me sorta "jumpy". Wow DMN, haven't you ever been through a moment of getting nervous? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been through three RFA's. I had a lot of opposes (although all were down to one stupid and pathetic action by me April last year). Not once did I get nervous. I guess it varies from person to person. D.M.N. (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you said you've been through three. This is my first one and not everyone is the same. Sorry if I sound like a dick. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I'm sorry, but Q7 is the dealbreaker for me. Judging by your answer to the question, I feel that you may use a cool down block at some point, and I don't feel comfortable with someone who would think about using that power. ArcAngel (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Sorry Blue, but there is more to it than simply vandals. If your going to be an admin, you need to do other duties than simply "block vandals", for instance close WP:AFD's, promote other people to admin status, keep a very close eye on discussions at WP:ANI and WP:VP, protecting articles etc. You would also not be able to protect professional wrestling articles that you edit, as there would be a huge Conflict of Interest that other users may not like. I would also prefer a more, stronger answer to Q3. Also, I would like to see more contributions on other areas of Wikipedia, apart from within "the professional wrestling circus". D.M.N. (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Promote other people to what now? --Charitwo talk 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Close RFA's when they have finished and promote them, or decline them. Or even snow an RFA, when there is no chance in hell of them succeeding. D.M.N. (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Promoting other users to administrator or bureaucrat status is the right of a Bureaucrat, not an administrator. Administrators can only assign rollback rights. --Charitwo talk 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake there. D.M.N. (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that D.M.N., its not that as soon as I become Admin, I'm going out of my way to go and protect wrestling articles. All I'm saying is that if I see an article that needs to be protected because of heavy vandalism, then yes, I would add a protecting to it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand it correctly, if you did go ahead and protect a professional wrestling article, even if there is heavy vandalism, it would still be a conflict of interest, and as thus, you should let an outsider protect it, to let them determine whether its heavy vandalism or not. If you protected a professional wrestling article, e.g. WrestleMania XXIV, and then went an edit it, you would be wheel-warring to gain an advantage in conflicts. D.M.N. (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but, if I would to add a protection to the article once, its not like I'm going to re-add the protection, even if the article gets high on vandalism. Instead, I would make a report to the page protection and see what they can do about the situation. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The answers to the questions above are very weak. She would delete if she felt the article wasn't up to wikipedia standards? What does that mean? Does she understand the criteria for deleting articles? How can we tell? Via her participation in AfD and CsD. I looked at her last 4000 edits and could only find 2 times where she has participated at AfD. One of her AfD !votes, no sources, no article. The ONLY other AFD this. So how about her CSD activity? For somebody who uses twinkle, there wasn't a lot. But a surprising number of those articles that are tagged are not deleted. This leaves me very concerned about giving her the tools when one of her stated reasons is something she doesn't have much experience with. Then there is the complete lack of experience in areas outside of wrestling. There is nothing that shows she understands wikipedia policies and guidelines. In fact, the fact that she has over 1500 edits on 4 wikifriend talk pages is also a concern. Sorry, but I can't support at this time. I am also troubled by her answer to the question about a person who vandalized her talk page---admins should not use their tools to block somebody who vandalized their own talk pages. At that point the admin should report it to the appropriate page and let a third party do the block.Balloonman (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see if I can explain this a lot better; A. If I were to see a newly created article and it so happens to have nothing but nonsense, as per this article I marked for deletion, then I would delete it. If I came by an article that I'm not sure of, I sure as hell would not delete it, but instead ask a fellow admin on their opinion on it. Hope I made that clear. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose User does not seem to have a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose- the lack of policy knowledge worries me, plus the answers to the questions don't convince me. AndreNatas (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

Neutral Pending answers to questions. ArcAngel (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral. Waiting for answers to the first 3 questions. I want to know where the editor is planning on working so I can take a closer look at their contribs in related areas. Useight (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Was going to support until I saw the answer to Q7. Doesn't warrant an oppose though. --Charitwo talk 17:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ThinkBlue&oldid=199889068"