Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BlackJack

Add links
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.


BlackJack

[edit]

Final (20/22/11); Ended 12:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

BlackJack (talk · contribs) – Nominating myself as I believe I have more to contribute than editing alone. I have taken an interest in CfD, AfD and various procedures. I am not afraid to contribute to discussions in an honest and forthright way. I am ready at any time to fight vandals and "identify trolls"! But much more important than that is that I believe in Wikipedia as a means of providing knowledge for the readers and of using categories as navigation aids. That's it for now but please ask me any questions you like. BlackJack | talk page 09:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


I accept and am happy to answer any and all questions. --BlackJack | talk page 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: I am interested in AfD and CfD. I'd like to spend more time in those areas than I do as an editor only.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: category:English cricket in the 18th century and category:Compendium of postage stamp issuers have been my biggest projects. They both record information not easily available to the readers and certainly not on the internet. I have made contributions right across the cricket and philately subjects on WP. I also rewrote History of cricket and this seemed to be well received by the cricket project. I'm currently working on category:History of cricket on a worldwide basis to ensure we have articles about every season, tour and notable player in the game's history.
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 have had a few conflicts, notably with one person who I consider to be a "troll" and I even resigned from WP on one occasion but I thought better of it and immediately returned. I took the view that it is better to fight trouble from within. If we all resigned, the trolls and vandals have won. Incidentally, vandals don't really bother me: in fact they are useful because when I do a quick revert it reminds me to check that article to see if I can add anything.

Optional question from Dar-Ape (talk · contribs):

4. Why is your edit summary usage so low, especially for minor edits (15%)? Interiots
A: Very good point that I need to take on board. The reason is that I am extremely busy on a major categorisation exercise and working at great speed, as the timings must indicate. I'm afraid it has been a case of speed first and details later. I will look to improve in that respect. --BlackJack | talk page 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can go to preferences -> editing and an option at the very bottom will remind you when you don't enter one. That pushed mine to 100%, so it might help you. AWB also enters automatic summaries for repetitive edits, if that helps in your situation.--Kchase T 05:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Kchase02 (talk · contribs):

5. What is it that you want to do at AfD and CfD as an admin?
A: I find that as an editor I am limited to simply agreeing or disagreeing. I'd like a more proactive role and I would like to close the discussions. But in terms of CfD especially, I wnat to try and ensure that structured interleaving categories are encouraged which are of value to the users as navigation aids. I am concerned about what I see as "troll activity" on CfD, especially by one individual, and I believe I could do more to counter this as an admin than as an editor only. --BlackJack | talk page 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow ups from Kchase02 (talk · contribs) (sorry to pile-on, but you said "any and all")

5a. How should an administrator handle blocking trolls in discussions that the admin is involved in?
A:
5b. In general, what is trolling?
A:

Optional question from Kukini (talk · contribs):

6. As I have noted your reaching out to the cricket editors with this edit [1] letting them know about your RfA, I was wondering if you might be able to explain how you see your possible future administrator status serving the cricket pages in particular. - Kukini 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think in terms of ensuring that we establish a structured categorisation that is of value to the readers as a navigation aid, given that cricket has and will have thousands of articles. As an admin, I will be better placed to protect and preserve the structure. I am also aware that cricket as high profile subject is under attack from outside and I think we need more admins to counter this activity. On that point, I am seriously thinking of nominating another cricket member who I see is not yet an admin, but I'm not sure if he wants to be one. --BlackJack | talk page 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Alan.ca (talk · contribs):

7. As you have nominated yourself for this review process, can you explain why you were unable to sway another user to make the nomination?
A: I think I have given the impression in the past that I am not interested as I have been an editor and contributor through and through. But I have increasingly found that I wish I was an admin so that I could do something about a situation where an editor can only revert, object or report. I haven't sounded anyone out. In any case, I believe in standing up for myself and not relying on others. I didn't actually discuss this application with any other member. --BlackJack | talk page 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

8. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:
9. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A:
10. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A:
11. What is your age? (Candid and thoughtful responses are appreciated, however if you feel uncomfortable giving a specific answer, providing an age range is also appreciated.)
(Please note some editors believe this to be an inappropriate question: see the discussion on the RfA talk page)
A:
  • I have to say that I'm concerned about the extremes that two innocuous inputs have been taken to. One is this question about age and the other is my message on the cricket project talk page.
  • Age first. I have just turned 54 years old or, as my user page says, I am an ageless immortal. At my age, I get along with all other ages. I am neither young nor old. I think people in their 80s are great and have loads to offer. On the other hand, I think kids have loads to offer too and I welcome their fresh insights and ideas. The controversy that this age question provoked on the talk page is way over the top and every time I see a term like "ageism" I just shake my head.
  • The message on the cricket talk page was just that. I simply informed them of what I was doing because I think they have a right to know in case the matter crops up elsewhere or is raised by someone else. Notice I did NOT ASK for support: I merely told them what I was doing to keep them informed. As I did not ask for support, that is not canvassing. It so happens that I've had a few arguments on the cricket project and, to be honest, I expected some of its members to oppose me! So I could argue that I was giving them the opportunity to do so.......
  • Can I ask people to realise that my intention in applying for this is not to wield power, as one person seems to think, but to HELP. I have not taken much part in the XfD discussions of late because I am preoccupied with a major categorisation exercise. As for the emphasis that some people place on fighting vandals, I tried repeatedly to expose one very obvious troll but I am too busy to do more without the necessary tools to take action myself. As for the infantiles who write rude words and then run off laughing, the quick revert does it all. --BlackJack | talk page 12:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Good record from what I can see, appears suited to the tools. Agent 86 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Joe I 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Nice record, seems like a valued editor, would do a fantastic job as an admin.Ganfon 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Good user, with good edits, deserves to become an administrator. Hello32020 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support. I'm not convinced that you actually will spend more time in XfD, but you have enough experience that I trust your having the tools. But use more edit summaries. I would recommend forcing it through preferences. Admins must leave summaries for blocks, protects, and the like, and the best way to remember that is to be forced to do it for as many things as possible. -Amarkov blahedits 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you've struck through this but it is a constructive point (re the summaries) and I must make time to fill them out and not just put "new" or "cats" ;-). --BlackJack | talk page 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Changed to neutral) -Amarkov blahedits 00:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support One of our most valuable editors and I hope he doesn't spend much time in admin stuff even if he gets through. I would have probably abstained if this was four or five months back on account of his temper, but he has improved remarkably recently. Tintin (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I have a temper! I have adopted a new approach to troublemakers and am now able to keep it in check. Grrr! At least, I think I can keep it in check.  :-) --BlackJack | talk page 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. STrong support - great editor - knows what the project is about. This will hold him in good stead. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Good tempered, focussed contributor. I think it's daft to exclude people from adminship because they're not all-rounders. We do need specialists too. I have no worries that someone so well-balanced will misuse the tools in areas he doesn't have expertise of. --Dweller 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - honestly, a monkey could close most AFDs, AFD closing is only one role an admin takes anyway, and 90% of our admins never close AFDs, so that's nowhere near a sufficient reason to oppose someone who seems sensible enough to be trusted with the extra buttons. Proto::► 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as per Proto. Replacing monkey w/ grandma though. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I'm not sure how much use BJ'll get out of the tools, but I don't see him abusing them. So long as caution and prudence are exercised in areas where experience is lacking, I see no reason to oppose. Being an admin is No Big Deal, as some like to bring up over and over again. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Participation in over 150 *fDs is far more than enough for an admin. If the user doesn't use the tools much, that's fine, but since there's no reason to think he'll abuse them, he should have them so he can use them sometimes. --Rory096 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This is a user that won't abuse the tools. King Toadsworth The Princess is in another Castle! 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per GeeJo and Rory, who make an argument similar to that which I make at every RfA of this sort and in my RfA guidelines, only with many fewer words and much more cogency than I. Proto, too, is quite right, although, pace FayssalF, I'm not at all sure that Koko wouldn't do a much better job than my technophobic grandmother at closing RfAs. Joe 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Modest Support Definitely needs to use edit summaries more often, but with that many edits, who can argue? Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Of course Imageboy1 08:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Andre (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - while lack of vandal warning is disappointing, vandal-fighting is not the only thing administrators do. We need more administrators right now to handle backlogs. Edit summaries are a bit of a shame, too, but I'm confident that advice on this rfa would be enough to help this editor use them more. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Friendly user with great edits. Deserves to be a administrator. --Extranet 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Great editor. Juppiter 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I am really sorry to oppose, as you are an extremely valued editor, with remarkable contributions especially to the mainspace and category space. However, after perusing your past 1000 edits I cannot find any particular need for the admin tools. Your participation in AfD and CfD does not seem enough to prove that you're experienced to perform admin tasks such as closing them. I see no vandal fight, no evidence that you would know when to apply blocks adequately. Also, your edit summary usage is quite below the least acceptable. Sorry, but at the moment I cannot support.--Húsönd 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's about 200 XfDs if I counted correctly. that's probably enough, as most people pile on endlessly without really bringing new ideas into the debate. As for the vandalism, I really doubt that it's something particularly difficult to comprehend, if you see some graffiti or obscene, click revert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I count 143 edits to CfD, 38 AfD, 1 TfD and 3 StubfD. Tintin (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm still not convinced. I dug deeper 2000 edits well into November and nothing indicates that this user is sufficiently involved in the areas where he would perform admin tasks. Canvassing is too much of a con anyway, I cannot abstain from opposing now.--Húsönd 19:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose- Per Husond--SUIT 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Husond. You seem like a great editor but it seems logical to gain experience in admin related areas, e.g. XfD & vandal fighting, before requesting the tools. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per very weak Q1, very low edit summary usage, and the concerns brought up by Husond. -- Kicking222 02:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Husond, needs more experience in administrative areas. Terence Ong 05:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'd like to thank Husond who has raised some valid points that are certainly constructive (and has no need to apologise!). I should point out that my most recent 1000+ edits have occurred within only the last week or so and have been centered on the cricket history project where I am currently engaged in a major categorisation exercise. That being so, I haven't really had time for activities outside the project.
    I think to effectively fight vandals you need the admin tools as really all I can do at present is the quick revert, as Blnguyen rightly points out. I think it is more important for an admin to identify and challenge "trolls" rather than vandals and I have tried to do this in the past. It is not only a case of challenging the suspect but also helping and encouraging the victim: see User:Rune Welsh. In this discussion and the one immediately following it, I decided to intervene and encourage Rune Welsh who is a good editor that had misunderstood some WP procedure or other and was subjected to an unwarranted attack by a person who, in my opinion, is a "troll". I thought it was important ot encourage Rune to keep up the good work and ignore the attack. I'm pleased to see that Rune has done so. I would look to further this tactic as an admin.
    I should point out that the cricket project is very hectic at the moment but will soon settle down. Thanks again to Husond for bringing this out. --BlackJack | talk page 07:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do feel the need to apologize, as it was not my intention to cause such a negative impact on your RfA. I hope that you don't be cross with me. Anyway, I acknowledge that the timing for this RfA didn't help. If this RfA fails, I suggest that the next one occurs at a time where you're conciliating your outstanding work on mainspace/catspace with the tradicional admin-oriented roles. The canvass shan't be repeated, it's a big stain on any RfA and even if other users assume good faith and regard it as unintentional, it still denotes adminship unreadiness. Regarding vandalfight, I really don't think that it's as simple as you and BInguyen are picturing it. There are many kinds of vandalism, from the most obvious to the most imperceptible. Although I have no problems in supporting a candidate who isn't willing to fight vandalism with the admin tools, it would definitely help dissipate my doubts here.--Húsönd 19:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I see myself as a writer who also does RC patrol. If I see obscenities, blankings, graffiti, random sentences, then I revert. It's quite straightforward. The difficulty is if someone puts in fake information in a credible way. That requires a knowledged editor in the topic to fix up, eg this was there for more than a day before I got to it. So you need to knowledgeable people to revert the not-so-brainless vandals. BlackJack fits the bill. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (Changed from neutral from weak support) I have to go with Oppose here. All my previous concerns still apply, and now there's the answers to questions 5 and 6 to deal with. You want admin tools to "protect and preserve the structure"... from whom? Your answer to question 5 leads me to believe that it's from the people who want to delete some of the categories in your structure, which makes it bad. You can not use admin tools to make things get kept when you want them to. And if you expect that being an admin will give your opinion more weight in CfD, you are sorely mistaken. -Amarkov blahedits 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment From whom is vandals, not from legitimate editors. I have no worries about the cricket categories as there is a very strong project there but I have seen categories in other projects being impacted and I would like to try and help preserve a sense of order in those too. I don't expect to "carry more weight": I meant I would like to be able to take part in closing the CfD discussions and not just offering a point of view. I think you are taking some of my statements too literally because at the end of the day all I want to do is help, not wield some sort of power. --BlackJack | talk page 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "As an admin, I will be better placed to protect and preserve the structure." I don't know how I can interpret that other than an implication that admins have more power in CfD than any other editor. They don't. Admins close the discussions, yes, but they're supposed to close them according to what the editors have said. And you're expected not to close discussions about which you have an interest, such as being a member of the Wikiproject that uses them, anyway. -Amarkov blahedits 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I was going to sit it out, but canvassing means I must oppose. - crz crztalk 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: does not appear ready yet. Jonathunder 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Amarkov. XfD is based on consensus, and an editor shouldn't feel that he needs admin tools to close them if he is unable to persuade his fellow editors in the actual discussion. Geoffrey Spear 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Hussond, and canvassing. Dionyseus 05:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per crz, I was going to sit this out too, but the cavassing was really a huge mistake. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Amarkov's concerns, particularly regarding reverting vandalism. I would like to also see more use of our vandal warning system [2] in practice, particularly with nominees who focus on their desire to protect wikipedia from vandals. -Kukini 07:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sorry Jack. I was going to support you, but vote stacking for an AFD or DRV or such is something that could get you blocked, so doing it for your own adminship nomination is entirely inappropriate. >Radiant< 14:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I'm sorry, as well. The statement you gave at the Cricket WikiProject page gives me some doubts as to your understanding and necessity of admin tools at this time. Nishkid64 02:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose John254 02:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per the canvasing and no history of warning or reporting to WP:AIVif you don't warn them and report them you can't prevent further vandalism because they could say "I didn't know not to, nobody told me".--John Lake 03:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I don't see a real need and I think that a bit more understanding relating to XfD is needed. Reporting to AIV is important for people who want to fight vandals (as you suggested relating to the cricket articles), and I think edit summaries are important for communication which an admin needs to be good at. James086Talk | Contribs 09:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. WP:WAIN, and inexperience in process. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose I am strongly saddened that I must oppose. First off, edit summeries are very important here in Wikipedia to say what you have edited and why, 2nd ALWAYS warn vandals and tell them, this is what you did, this is why you should stop. I suggest doing a little more research on the standards of the Wiki. Again I am sorry. WikiMan53 T/C edits 01:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Seems to be a valued editor and a good chap, but I am concerned that at the moment, the candidate has insufficient experience at XfD as per this answer: "5. What is it that you want to do at AfD and CfD as an admin? A: I find that as an editor I am limited to simply agreeing or disagreeing.". There's a lot more you can do as an editor in XfD. In addition, I am concerned by the canvassing message in which the candidate indicated that as he would use his admin powers to especially focus on protecting cricket-related articles. Bwithh 04:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per canvassing, lack of vandal reporting, and lack of experience in process areas. --Coredesat 06:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Sorry, but too many concerns have been raised above for me to feel comfortable. Dar-Ape 19:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. NeutralPlenty of work going on in CfD but I can find no participation in AfD to date. Additionally, the answer to Q3 mentions reverting vandalism but I see no associated warnings about said vandalism in your user Talk history. Vandals should be warned when they are caught in order to tell them that their behaviour will not be tolerated - to not do so doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the admin responsibilities towards countering vandalism. I also see no reports of vandals to WP:AIV. An understanding of policies and guidelines pertaining to the admin tools is vital for prospective admins, as is participating in the admin-related processes. (aeropagitica) 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Re vandal warnings, one reason for it is that his field of specialisation (pre-19th century cricket) attracts few dedicated vandals. The drive-by vandals who make a stray edit and never come back are usually better dealt with by a quiet revert. Issues like POV, nn-articles & speedies, dedicated vandals etc are usually brought and often solved in WT:CRIC and only the very serious ones get out from there. Tintin (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Tintin is correct here. I have rarely encountered a dedicated vandal and it is best to just revert and improve in my areas. --BlackJack | talk page 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Seems good enough to become an admin, but I really would like more thorough answers, better AfD participation if you want to do admin work on AfD, and much better edit summary usage.-- danntm T C 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Changed from weak support). This isn't particularly bad, as canvassing goes, but it's still inappropriate to advertise your RfA on a Wikiproject's talk page. -Amarkov blahedits 00:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Changed to oppose) -Amarkov blahedits 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. I was trying to make it known rather than seek support. I think the cricket project needs additional admins and, as I've said elsewhere on this page, I'm thinking of nominating another member. --BlackJack | talk page 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn't need Cricket administrators. Wikipedia as a whole needs admins. If you've got a problem with vandalism, any admin worth their salt will look at trusted editors in the field, listen to the comments, especially when regarding content and deal with the problems appropriately. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True if you are talking about obvious vandalism. But a non-specialist admin will have no clue whether a person making edits like this is a troll or not (in this case he is). This sort of thing happen a lot in cricket articles. Tintin (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That diff is definitley not something that needs a mop and a bucket to deal with. Warn the user and off you go. If it happens again, warn again, once you've warned three times, head for WP:AIV and list the offender who will be blocked, or use IRC and ask for an admin in one of the channels to block. Ideally, an admin should be working at present in most or all of the areas behind the scenes and have a good working knowledge of policy and some idea of how they will have to use the tools. There really is no point in appointing admins who will work solely on cricket articles because they will not know how to carry out other admin actions if requested to by another user. There are massive backlogs with images and often lengthy delays in having vandals blocked at WP:AIV - we need admins who can sort this stuff out first before we start worrying about appointing admins who will police just one project.--Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this has been addressed in his answers where he says that "I have increasingly found that I wish I was an admin so that I could do something about a situation where an editor can only revert, object or report." Also see the answers to Q.1 and Q.5 which I suppose are not specific to the cricket project. Tintin (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BlackJack isn't the only editor who wishes "I was an admin so that I could do something about a situation where an editor can only revert, object or report" but that's not reason on it's own to promote. A candidate needs to express a need for the tools as well as a want for the tools and reverting vandalism on cricket articles isn't really a need for the tools. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You want at least a few topic writers with tools in every topic so that they can catch the non-obscene stuff and the not so obvious. All the anti-vandal specialists I see around seem to only revert new changes, whereas subject writing specialists tend to revert things which are many hours and even days old. This shows that they are checking their watchlists rather than relying on a computer to prod them. This shows they can catch the non-trivial stuff. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Husond. I looked at your record via Interiot's Tool, and although you are quite active on Wikipedia, you don't demostrate the abilities of an Admin. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral as I am awaiting a response to my question to decide. Kukini 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral A really good user who won't abuse the tools but shows little need for the tools.--Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I would like to see more participation in the AfD process. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per other neutral comments. --teh tennisman 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per other neutral points. bibliomaniac15 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - great edits (tho not so great diligence with summaries), a long time valuable contributor, clearly; but the points brought up by the opposing users are all valid.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. I'm mostly concerned about the usage of edit summary-- or lack thereof. Nephron  T|C 17:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Love the high edit numbers, but the answers to the questions were very weak. Not oppose-worthy, but I can't support you. --Wizardman 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral I recognise your efforts to improve the information to cricket related topics, but this "As for the infantiles who write rude words and then run off laughing, the quick revert does it all" while it removes an immediate problem, I struggled to find any instance since September where you reverted such infantiles, with the what I did there was no follow up warning placed on the users talk page the lack of warnings before listings at WP:AIV are a consistant problem Gnangarra 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BlackJack&oldid=1089066840"