Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shaddack


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

Shaddack
'''Final (13/10/8) ended 10:26 November 9, 2005. (UTC)'''

– He has not been around long, but seems a good and active user. Ian 13 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * I hereby accept the nomination, with bigger than small dose of surprise. Let's see what comments it yields. Shaddack 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support per nom. Ian 13 10:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Positive contributor.  Martin  10:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Evil Support He's been here since June (where did the 2 days idea come from?) and has more than 3000 edits. He's also self-described as evil (see User:Shaddack for his excellent logic).  That's enough for me.--Scimitar parley 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not against anybody but the 2 days idea relates to Ian13 who nominated Shaddack. Ian13's got a good start at WP and I believe they will do very well here but I don't fathom the fact that someone relatively new can nominate someone they barely know (nominations are the result of too much interaction between a nominator and a nominated)! -- Svest 19:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Please see below Ian 13 20:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I think you did yourself a disservice by allowing an unknown member of the community to nominate; when people don't know you directly, they often use the reputation of the nominator as a vouch for your good behaviour/intentions. Nonetheless, you seem to do a lot of good work. Good luck. --NormanEinstein 20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I see nothing in this editor's history to give me any pause.  NormanEinstein: it was clear that Ian13's nomination was a surprise to Shaddack, so I don't think it's a question of 'allowing'.  Be that as it may, we should evaluate the candidate on his own merits, nobody else's. &mdash;Morven 20:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Be bold! Tedernst 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Looks ok to me. Could edit more when feeling has good content to contribute. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 00:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Seems fine, was helpful with my request. Walkerma 20:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This is a spoiler vote in opposition to those who oppose a nomination based on the nominator and not the nominated. There is currently space for an additional 8 spoiler votes. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - the reasons for opposition here are weak. We need more admins. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 07:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, no reason to believe this user will abuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support weak reasons for opposition to position that is "no big deal." I think user will be a fine admin.Gator(talk) 13:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose - A very good editor. However, I'd have supported if Shaddack were more interactive with other users and in talk pages as well. I am also surprised by the action of the nominator Ian13. He's just joined 2 days ago! I'll follow up the comments here as this is may not be my definitive vote. -- Svest 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * It may be worth noting that, yes, I have only been registered 2 days, but this is because I wish to take a more active part in Wikipedia, and help support and expand the community. I have edited for over 10 months, and been reading even longer (my edits are hard to track, due to AOLs IP system). Andthrough my reading before creating a character,I have encountered edits and developments by Shaddack, which I felt highlighted him as a good user. This is one of the many reasons I created an account. I also see how some may think he is not interactive, but I feel all his edits have assisted Wikipedia, and have been good for the community, nonetheless. Ian 13 20:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is your opposition also based on the fact that the nominator is new? =Nichalp «Talk»=  02:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as per Svest. --Monkbel 12:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Good mainspace contributions, and reasonable Wikipedia: space contributions, but extremely few of them. Kate's tool isn't relevant here; I can count them by hand. They are a few V/AfD edits and not much else. One of them is a merge during an otherwise deleting AfD. This is allowed, per WP:BOLD, I very well know, but I don't like it being done since it renders all the other editor's opinions irrelevant, unless someone is going to un-merge after the AfD. I think only one or two of them were 'engaging' edits i.e. not actually discussing but just stating his opinion. This is fine, and what most people do in AfD, but some debating/discussing is essential to be able to see how an editor conducts themselves. So I think I'd like to see considerably more user and community interaction, just because there is too little on which to judge how Shaddack may respond when under pressure or in disgreement etc. Broaden your scope of participation a little, see which behind-the-scenes stuff you do/don't like and how it does/doesn't work. -Splash talk 14:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Splash. Privat  e   Butcher  19:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Splash freestylefrappe 21:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Splash. Xoloz 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose due to extremely odd nomination: produced by 2-day old account, and did not sign their own acceptance. Sorry, but that last point seems to show a lack of Wikipedia knowledge or attention to detail, both important traits for an admin. Turnstep 19:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Shaddack signed his acceptance on the third of the month, a day after he accepted and before your comment. If forgetting to sign a comment them remembering a day later is the worst thing he's ever done then I really don't see any problem. Also, the nominator has stated that he has been editing anonimously for over ten months. Do you have any reason not to believe him? Raven4x4x 23:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for now. I would like to see him interact more on the talk pages. It is important to be able to see how he interacts with others in discussions.  This probably explains his answer to number three below.  Conflict with others is not a bad thing, it is how you resolve the conflict which is what I want to see, a key attribute of an admin. --Holderca1 01:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Splash. Tony the Marine 07:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This is a spoiler vote in opposition to those who make spoiler votes in opposition. There is currently space for an additional 0 spoiler votes. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) * Sorry, I couldn't resist making that remark :) I feel that Shaddack is too inexperienced as of now to become an admin, but would be happy to reconsider in the future. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Too few Wiki namespace edits particapate in AFD and RFA more --JAranda'' | watz sup 01:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral user seems on the right path to adminship, but I will not oppose based on lack of talk page communication.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 08:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Oppose because of: curious nature of nominator (obviously an old editor come back and it all seems a little odd); almost total absence of Wiki edits; somewhat spotty use of summaries, i.e., using them regularly and then forgetting for 10 or 12. Support because of: an exceptional number of distinct articles hit relative to over-all edits; an excellent attention to categories and attempt to sort things out in this regard; some good clean-ups to obscure topics. In sum, I am neutral. Marskell 12:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral concur with much of above.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   04:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Very good editor, but too few Usertalk, Project, and project talk edits.  Or an   e   (t)  (c)   (@)  05:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Come back in a couple of months, show some interest in the Wikipedia namespace, get involved in discussions and I may support. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 06:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral, good editor, but still needs some more experience. I will certainly support in the future. --Sn0wflake 17:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral, editor looks good; I would just like to see some more talk page activity so I could better ascertain how he would handle conflict situations. -- M P er el ( talk 07:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Hi Shaddack, please sign your acceptance of the nomination using the four ~'s. An unsigned acceptance of nomination sends out a bad signal.--Gurubrahma 14:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Suggestion followed. Thanks! --Shaddack 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Where did the two days idea come from? He's been here since June.--Scimitar parley 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is likely to be relevant to my nominator, not to me. --Shaddack 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have only held my account for two days, dispite being an active editor in the past, and I can see how this can be viewed badly. I have just replied to this question above (Oppose 1). However supporting other comments, surely, the votes should reflect the user, as the nominator is irrelevent in many ways. However I am open to answer questions. Ian 13 20:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: The nominated candidate is User:Shaddack, not User:Ian13. Just thought I'd point that out, as some of you seem to be forgetting.-- Scïmïłar  parley 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. More or less anything that comes in my way, with particular focus on watching over vandalism of obscure topics on my eternally growing watchlist.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Some of my chemistry and material science based ones.
 * Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene, for how interesting a "mere" polyethylene can get with proper molecular orientation
 * Secure telephone and IMSI-catcher, for their importance for communication security in comparison with how little known technologies they are
 * Sodium percarbonate, sodium perborate - important sources of oxygen radicals in household stuff, again rather unknown in comparison with how commonly used they are
 * Purple plague (intermetallic) - an interesting phenomenon in chip manufacture
 * More here. I prefer my work to do the talk.


 * 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. Nothing I would rate as a real conflict. I prefer finding solutions over waging battles, and there are too many topics to work on to stress over something specific.


 * 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.