Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThinkBlue

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.

Contents

[edit] ThinkBlue

FINAL (16/21/2); withdrawn by candidate,[1] closed 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)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)

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


[edit] 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)
I know, I know. I'm sorry. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
NP, I mentioned it more for people who might come along later and ask, "What was so and so talking about below" because the old answer was referenced below.Balloonman (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
True, but I do remember a user being blocked for that type of situation. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
True, but it is possible. I asked this question because I and I'm pretty sure other people would like to know what this user would do if he ever got into a situation like this.--RyRy5 talk 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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: I feel as though my "criteria" to becoming an Admin has put me in jeopardy, as per the ways I've answered the question on top. But, I do feel that I am prepare to overcome any obstacle that comes my way. I would say that I've prepared for this RFA for about 75% and the 25%, I'm still working on that.


Question from Nothing444

13. If you had a question about Wikipedia and you couldn't answer it yourself, would you be to embarrassed to asked the help desk?
A: No, I wouldn't be embarrassed to ask at the help desk. If they can answer the question that I can't answer, then I'm satisfied with what they tell me. Like I've told, don't be shy to ask questions because you will wonder why you didn't in the first place.

Question from User:WarthogDemon

14. How would you handle an admin who suddenly makes a legal threat at another admin?
A: Again, I find that hard to believe that an Admin would do such a thing. But, if the situation came to play, then I would ask the Admin why the threat was made. I would try to reason with the Admin, but I would rather file a report at AIV and see where the situation goes from there.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support Very nice and has a great amount of good contributions. Deserve these tools. NimiTize 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  3. Support As nominator. iMatthew 2008 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support Very helpfull and experienced editor S-PAC54 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  7. Support. Good contributions--El Quebrado (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    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)
    A complete lack of participation in admin-related areas is picking about little things? Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    On reviewing Wisdom's statement I must go over to the dark side. Sorry...perhaps an admin coach would be a good idea here...--Camaeron (t/c) 20:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. -- Naerii 17:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support You have the potential. Go for it! Togepi 987 (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Weak Support Even though there are some concerning answers to questions, I have had good experiences with this user. SpencerT♦C 03:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support, some shaky answers to the questions there, but I see no evidence that this user would misuse the tools if given them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC).
  13. Support Well, those questions are really not the best, but I don't see anything telling me I shouldn't trust this user. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 11:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Epbr123 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Weak Support Needs a some tweaking in some areas, such as not focusing on just wrestling articles but as many articles as can handle. But you got overall, my support.--RyRy5 talk 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support Adminship is not a big deal, meets all my standards. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
    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)
  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)
    If I explain myself better, would that help? You gotta understand that this is nerveraking. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  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)
  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)
    Promote other people to what now? --Charitwo talk 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    My mistake there. D.M.N. (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  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)
    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)
  6. Oppose User does not seem to have a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  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)
    Is it every question? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Weak oppose, leaning towards neutral/weak support. Interesting case here. ThinkBlue does have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and I don't believe she would abuse the tools. I think there is a good chance that tools might get misused though based on policy knowledge, leading to unneeded drama and cleanup. I spent a lot of time on the talk pages of TB, and about 3-5 wiki-friends. Dizzying. Lots of chatter and lots of off topic, non encyclopedic back and forth. But then a funny thing happens in the conversations. One or another of the perennial talkers says something along the lines of Hey, let's go cleanup article X! And then they go right to work fixing up an article (usually in the pro-wrestling project, but hey, that's ok by me we've all got hobbies and projects here). So this is interesting. Lots of camaraderie=good. Seemingly lots of article building/cooperation between friendly, non-threatening users=good. Admin tools though? Gives me pause at the moment. Best of luck to you ThinkBlue, you're a great editor with good wiki-friends. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Its alright. What I work on seems to be the problem, as I only work on "one" project. But that's cool, though. What I do, is what I do. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Bonus points to you for your continued civility. I disagree with D.M.N and I agree with you that RfAs are nerveracking. They are brutal, and in my experience, more stressful than adminship itself. Keep your head held high, do what you do well on and off wiki. Sorry I'm not supporting, I would recommend if you really wanna help out Wiki with admin tools, find a good admin coach to help you understand what the extra tools are really about. Best to you Blue, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks, Keeper I really appreciate your feedback. And hopefully I can come to you with questions or advice and stuff. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Anytime, my talkpage is always open. I don't edit weekends though. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Advertising plug---Keeper recommended Coaching above. We are in desperate need for new coaches on the Admin Coaching pages. Anybody interested in taking a look? There has been revived interest in both the process and among potential candidates!Balloonman (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: Per my above comments... --Camaeron (t/c) 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Joke Oppose, not to be added to any tally and totally not to be taken seriously — User appears to be a New England Traitors fan. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    HAHA, dude. Colts suck. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    That has always been my rationale for ignoring Kurt's votes :) Balloonman (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. ThinkBlue is a popular, friendly and helpful editor, and it is likely that given more experience with a fuller range of admin activities would make a productive admin; at the moment the answers to the above questions reveal a poor grasp of admin responsibilities, and a lack of understanding of general Wikipedia procedures. SilkTork *YES! 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Er....uh...I hate to do this, but dude I have to oppose - While I think ThinkBlue (:P) is a great user and have had wonderful enteractions with her in the past I just feel this RfA is a bit pre-mature. ThinkBlue has not shown enough participation in administrative areas to clearly demonstrate a understanding of policy, and it shows in her answers to the questions. There are a few questions that worry me the most, those being #4, #7, #10, #11, and #12. They all show a lack of understanding of policy. Might I recommend that you wait a few months read up on some policies, work in admin related areas, and continue to do all the other great work you do then come back and pass your next RfA with flying colors. I will be happy to support in the future, and once again: Thank you for all of your hard work here. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 22:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Weak Oppose I would intend to work on pro wrestling articles, as they become vandal-joy to vandals This seems to evidence a rather "narrow" level of interest. Adminship is not about protecting articles you like or have contributed to.I agree with Tiptoey above - a premature application, and certainly a candidate who is a net positive with or without the buttons. Pedro :  Chat  00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    When did I "state" that I "own" articles in any sort? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    You didn't and that is a valid response from yourself. It is more that your Q1 answer is so specific on what you want to do with the tools. Not a bad thing as such, and hence my weak oppose. I'll reflect further on this and I admit your thoughtful and civil responses to this RfA do you credit. Pedro :  Chat  00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Note - Struck part of my initial oppose - premature is very much the wrong word. Pedro :  Chat  00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Just out of curiosity, what do you think would be a better word? Tiptoety talk 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    On balance "premature" implies (to me)editors going to RFA with < 1k edit and/or <1mth experience (trying not to set arbitary figures here). I think this candidate could do with a broadened outlook. I'm not disagreeing with your comment, just clarifying my response. And if WP is good enough to keep me loged in for a second then you will know it comes from Pedro :  Chat  00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm...well said. Maybe it should read that I feel this RfA is just too soon. Tiptoety talk 00:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, before your vote can count, 81.151.79.118, you need to create an account. SpencerT♦C 00:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    I was gonna ask if IP's could vote, but Spencer beat me to it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    (ec'd} The main page also shows me as logged out but I am certainly logged in. Atempting to fix this thread again. Weird. Pedro :  Chat  00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC
  14. Oppose, unfortunately. I feel that you don't quite "get" policy that well yet, and I think you should try and further involve yourself with relevant areas; this will give you many opportunities to exercise your administrative judgement. Cheers, Spebi (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Your right, I guess I will have to work on that part. Thanks for the feedback, though. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per this FLC where she supported after she was clearly asked to. True, the user that asked him is more at fault, but an administrator should not participate in vote stacking. -- Scorpion0422 04:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    I'm a she. Thank you very much. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Fixed. Sorry. -- Scorpion0422 04:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Another difficult oppose since this user is obviously experienced, but I'm concerned they may not understand finer points such as a Legal Threat from an admin not being Vandalism, but being something that should immediately go to AN/I if not IRC:Steward. Also, I'm disappointed they did not address what they've learned since they were blocked multiple times early last year (not linking in case there is an RTV issue) over image issues. And I'm concerned with the cool down block issue as well as the idea of wanting admin tools ot use in one's primary area of content editing. MBisanz talk 09:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Definitely admin material wikipersonality-wise, but still needs to do some reading and some practicing. Also, try to do some work on articles with subjects that you are not the expert about. A variety of contributions shows that you care about the Wikipedia itself, and not just about fun stuff like professional wrestling.--MrFishGo Fish 14:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - Much of the Wikipedia-space contribs are to wrestling related projects, and not central to the workings of Wikipedia itself. More experience needed in crucial areas yet. Lradrama 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Seemingly incorrect answers to questions #07, #08, #10 and the first bit of #11, which too isinsufficiently answered. Overall, you're a good editor, but this RfA seems way too early and rather rushed. Qst (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Answers to the above questions leave me questioning her knowledge of Wikipolicy. Good editor with strong contributions, but I'm wary to trust her with the tools as yet. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    I do appreciate what you guys are saying and stating that I'm a good editor. I'll probably work more in other areas than what I do right now. Again, thanks for the feedback. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, sadly. You seem completely trustworthy, but in order to have the tools, you have to have a thorough understanding of policy. The answer to #7 is the most telling, as this is a question that's pretty much asked in some way on every RfA - not knowing the answer shows not only an incorrect understanding of WP:BLOCK, but a lack of prepardness. Start participating in RfAs, learn your policy inside and out, and your second RfA should pass with flying colors (if this one doesn't). Also remember that your reactions here are as much of a barometer of your mettle as your objective qualifications. Please keep up the excellent work - people like you are what make Wikipedia work. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral

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

  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)
  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)
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.