Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shadow1

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

[edit] Shadow1

Final (68/16/5); Ended Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:18:33 UTC

Shadow1 (talk • contribs) - I'm nominating Shadow for adminship. He's created many excellent programs for editing Wikipedia, the most notable of which is Shadowbot. Shadow has proven himself to be acting in the best interests of the project in spending the necessary time to create this bot, he shown himself to be trustworthy in not using the bot or the bot flag to remove links wildly out with community consensus and has never betrayed the trust placed in him by using the account to make any other edits with the bot. In dealing with annoyed and upset editors, Shadow has shown himself to be civil and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy. The net benefit to Wikipedia is that someone who regularly deals with serial spammers and very damaging spambots will be able to deal with blocking editors intent on damaging the project and will be able to easily revert edits containing spam. I do trust the community will see the major benefits Shadow is making to the project and will entrust him with the tools he needs to continue this excellent work. -- Heligoland 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. Shadow1 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:

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 would definitely aim to keep CSD as clear as possible, because I've experienced the frustration of having a vanity article stay speedied for over an hour without deletion, and I want to make sure other users don't have to experience the same thing. In particular, I would try to keep categories G11 (advertisements) and G12 (copyright violations) clear, both to keep the encyclopedia in tip-top shape and to make sure that Wikipedia is close to completely GFDL (except for fair use, but that's another discussion), in line with my own beliefs on copyleft. I would also try to keep the block requests page clear, both to keep all articles free of vandalism and other edit-hindering problems, and to ensure that users can edit, instead of watching over a vandal's contributions and reverting when necessary. Along the lines of blocking vandals, I would also assist users reporting sock puppets at the suspected sock puppets page, to ensure that our XfD discussions remain clear of Keep-stacking individuals. The other task I anticipate helping with is the Open Proxies WikiProject. About a month ago, I ran into a rotating-IP spambot operating on over fifty open proxy IPs. I don't ever want to see that again, so I would gladly help to block any open proxies used to edit Wikipedia.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Well, as Heligo said, I'm the author of Shadowbot, an anti-spam bot. I feel that the bot is my greatest contribution to Wikipedia, being the only line of defense (that I'm aware of) which can combat spam. I'm fond of my anti-spam reversions, because I think that most of the links that I removed would have sat in articles until someone noticed them, and they were probably pushing the person's web site up on Google until its removal. Along that line, I really like my anti-vandal reversions, because I think that vandalism is an annoyance that prevents others from editing and collaborating on articles, and that I'm helping to allow others to keep up the great work on building the encyclopedia. Other than my anti-vandal/spam reversions, I like the cleanup I did to John the Ripper and Spectorsoft, which probably saved SpectorSoft from future deletion, and my creation of Spookitalk as a stub.

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: Being the author and operator of Shadowbot, I receive messages about the bot reverting users almost every day. I think that, in all cases, I handle the problems in a professional and courteous manner. I've had many users being extremely incivil towards me, but I help them to understand why Shadowbot reverted them, and what they can do to help solve the problem in the future. One of the best tools to stop spammers and vandals is communication, and I believe that my messages to users about what they may have done wrong is effective at building their citation skills, as well as including the citations in a more formal and encyclopedic manner. Besides the users reverted by Shadowbot, I feel that I've handled my cases with the Mediation Cabal very well. In a recent case, seen on the Brett Favre talk page, I think I did my best work, which unfortunately was unable to stop one of the editors in the conflict from leaving the project. Other cases I think I have handled well can be found at User:Shadow1/Nikon_FE2 and User:Shadow1/MLB.com. In the future I don't believe that I will do anything different to solve problems. I will answer questions and resolve conflicts in a professional and polite tone, and I will make sure that the outcome of any conflicts I help to resolve is favorable to everyone involved.

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

4. What are each of the five pillars of Wikipedia and why is each one important?

A:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia--Exactly that. Wikipedia is a place where you can gather information that is organized in a professional and formal manner. It's not a web site where you can put arbitrary, random information about you and your friends, or your web site (although if you're notable enough you can).
• Wikipedia has a neutral point of view--No article on Wikipedia should be biased, period. If you pick up virtually any hard-copy encyclopedia, you'll notice that all articles are written without any bias towards any one view. If Wikipedia is ever going to be regarded as an official source of well-written information, we need to work to resolve disputes and make sure that everyone is editing the best way that they can.
• Wikipedia is free content--Since Wikipedia is GFDL, we need to work to remove copyright infringements, which are starting to become a problem here. It's OK to use information from someone's web site, but everyone editing should probably have a good knowledge of the GFDL and when they need to cite their sources, and from which web sites to cite.
• Wikipedia has a code of conduct--Everyone on the wiki needs to cooperate, no questions asked. If you're an uncivil user and argue with editors whom you disagree with, that's an edit-hindering problem that needs to be addressed immediately, to ensure seamless collaboration on articles.
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules--My favorite. While that doesn't mean you can go off and do whatever you like to any article, regardless of what others and Wikipedia policy say, you can be bold! Add interesting information that Encarta doesn't have, cover what other encyclopedias don't. It's what sets Wikipedia apart from other sources of information, and it's ultimately what will make Wikipedia an ideal encyclopedia to read.

5. Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and what steps should be taken to avoid it?

A: Simply put, wheel warring is bad because it impedes editing. If you have two administrators fighting over, say, the protection of an article, then regular users probably won't be able to edit the article for a while until the "war" simmers off. That's bad. The easiest way to stop wheel wars before they happen is to communicate. If you're going to take action that might be opposed by another administrator, make sure you discuss it on WP:AN or WP:ANI first. Get outside opinion, maybe there's an easier way to fix the problem that you didn't see before.

6. Who has the authority to ban users?

A: The community. The entire point of Wikipedia is that it is community-based, and the community should decide whether to ban a user. While the Arbitration Committee does have the power to ban users, remember that they were elected to their position by the community. Being in ArbCom means that the community trusts you enough to decide on their behalf. Other than the community, Jimbo is the only other person who can the authority to ban users, but he created Wikipedia, he should probably get some say in what goes on.

General comments

• See Shadow1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. -- Heligoland 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose. Was incivil to me on IRC about !voting before all the questions are answered, I'm really sorry I have to do this, but Alex would have made a good admin. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC) PS: just kidding. Support actually.
3. Supportper nom. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Even if Shadow has a low XfD count does that matter? I think I have had maybe 100 XfD edits since becoming an admin. Admin work is far more than XfD's. And I fully support this user Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Regardless of "low AFD participation", I think he has demonstrated knowledge of policy in other areas, such as building and operating User:Shadowbot, User:Shadowbot2, User:Shadow1/ShadowTool ect ect. I don't think every admin has to have the same experience before getting the mop. We are all not the same. Frankly this is one hell of a good wikignome laboring in the dark, and certainly can use the tools to do what he does. He is a tool maker, and wikignome. As far as trust goes, I find him trustworthy. Lets all remember that the mop is not a big deal. Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - valued contributor, obvious need for the tools, lack of substantive reason to oppose. We need more admins and anti-spam work more than makes up for a lack of XfD participation. --BigDT 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support per the simple question, would this user as an admin make WP a better place? Yes. Okay, so XFD's are lacking but should that really be the only criterion for voting these days? Good luck Shadow1... The Rambling Man 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support- This user's answers to the questions above show that the user would make a good admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Before I became a sysop (only this past July) I doubt I had more than 15 XfD contribs. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

   I lied, it was seven. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

10. Support Different editors, and different sysops, have different intersts and different skills. And very few people can spend all day supervising every aspect of the project. This user spends less time than some in AfD. And a lot more time in other places. Needs the tools, and will not misuse them.--Anthony.bradbury 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Supportish - low XfD participation and I'm not seeing any quality articles, but we need more sysops and I'm not seeing anything particularly broken. Should this RFA pass it's probably a good idea that the user should wield the tools with care for a while. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - Low XfD participation is a bad reason to refuse adminship, and the quote mentioned by User:Misza13 (specifically, this) has to be taken with a grain of salt. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. I want XfD for policy discussion, not just for the sake of being XfD, and he's got plenty of policy discussion. -Amark moo! 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - Shadow1 is a great editor and a valuable asset to the wiki. As an anti-spam user, he clearly needs the tools for blocking and deletion, he is almost always on IRC and therefore available should he be needed, and he runs several bots, including a bot which automatically reverts spam. ST47Talk 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Both Shadowbot and Perlwikipedia are very valuable contributions, I guess Shadow1's work would benefit from using the tools. You have a reasonably low experience with the mainspace, so please stay away from attempts to police experienced users, rather use your tools against spammers and to support development. Alex Bakharev 23:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support--Wikipedier 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong Support - Mass AfD participation is not needed here (for case and point, see my own RfA and the concerns and counter points raised, User:Curps had a good explanation) nor is making 50 trillion edits a day, lots of our sysops don't make 50 trillion edits a day and still do a fine job. There is a clear need to utilize the tools in spam fighting. Now, an automated CSD mass delete would be fine, but most pages are a 5s glance over before hitting the delete button, I just don't see it to be a concern in any way shape or form. -- Tawker 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Support, nothing problematic in history, concerns raised by opposition are trivial or irrelevant. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Support I understand the oppose and neutral comments that you could be more active and have more XfD participation, but your answers show competence and familiarity with the aspects of Wikipedia for which you desire the tools, and I trust you and the other supporters. Dar-Ape 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. I don't have to explain this one. Shadow1's contributions, especially the bot, help keep Wikipedia clean so that the rest of us can do our work here. YechielMan 01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
21. Support per Argyriou. Jkelly 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
22. Support his knowledge and experience more than earn my support. he's done some pretty amazing things. he'd be an asset to adminship. JoeSmack ^Talk 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Support — Lost^(talk) 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
24. Support This user knows what he's doing, no question. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
25. Terence Ong 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
26. Support trust-worthy. - Anas ^Talk? 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. I trust this user to use the tools wisely. Proto::► 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Outstanding spamfighter.--Húsönd 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. WJBscribe 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
30. Support, -- Shyam ^(T/C) 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
32. Support I have no problems with this nominee's participation rate, particularly in that most of it has been in the last six months. The nominee demonstrates trustworthiness and potential to be a good admin. Agent 86 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Weak Support I would have liked to have seen a bit more in the nominee's contribution history to demonstrate the necessary foundational experience and a bit more of well-roundedness, but what is particularly important is trustworthiness. I'm struck by Pascal.Tesson's "neutral" comment in which he comments on the nominee's trustworthiness. I think that if we trust this nominee, it very much ameliorates whatever minor weaknesses the candidate might have. Agent 86 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Well, aren't I a...moron. That'll teach me to post before I've had my morning coffee. Agent 86 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

33. Support. I trust this user and believe he will use admin tools responsibly and reasonably. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Programming a bot to deal with problematic edits, then dealing with angry comments the bot's reversions and warnings generate has probably given Shadow as keen an appreciation of much of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as if he were commenting at AfDs daily -- just a different set of policies and guidelines. Shadowbot's processing about 200 edits/day with a very, very low error, but still non-zero, error rate. Some of the more vocal complaints come from spammers who deserved warnings and reversions. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Have shadowbot online more, please. It does good work. alphachimp 01:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
36. Support PeaceNT 10:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
37. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
38. Support per nom--Hu12 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
39. Support You seem to have a good handle on things. Your edit count is pretty good and so's your determination. Ganfon 13:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
40. Support looks like he knows what he is doing.-- danntm ^T _C 14:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
41. Weak support. I trust him to make a good use of the tools, although I am not very satisfied of his encyclopedic contributions. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
42. Strong Support • The question in RFA is simple and single: do I trust this user? With Shadow, my answer is an unequivocal HELL YES! ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
43. Strong Support --BozMo talk 19:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC). Useful helpful contributor.
44. Support per nom.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
45. Benefit of the doubt. >Radiant< 09:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
46. Strong support: no reasons to oppose. Causesobad --> (Talk) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
47. Support this great editor. It's sill to demand that every admin be an AfD denizen. Cool Hand Luke 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
48. Support, I've seen enough out of Shadow to instill confidence in adding my support. Daniel.Bryant 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
49. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 11:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Excellent user, would benefit from admin tools, won't abuse them. --Aude (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
51. Support: I for one am someone who recognises that each editor has different interests around Wikipedia, and therefore should not be knocked for lack of participation in certain areas. I also feel this user would make very good use of admin tools, as part of their continued effort to improve Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
52. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
53. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
54. Support - Absolutely Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
55. Support. Seems to be a good contributor. The fact that his opposition seems to be made almost entirely out of editcountitis solidifies my support. If the worst anyone can say about a user is that he doesn't spend half his waking hours on Wikipedia, that's a pretty good sign. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 11:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
56. Ditto Rspeer Spartaz 14:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
57. Support ~ Arjun 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
58. Rettetast
59. Support Good work with ShadowBot. You will make a good admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
60. Support- I'm not convinced. I donm't believe article writing is an important part of being an admin. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)04:11, Sunday, 11 February '07
61. Support good admin candidate...--rogerd 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
62. Support. I can only see good coming out of this. If he has low XfD participation, I doubt he'll suddenly jump into it tomorrow and start deleting pages against consensus. Grandmasterka 01:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
63. Support Excellent candidate, well-versed in his specialities. J. Spencer 02:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
64. Why The Hell Not? Ral315 (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
65. Support no reason not to :) 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viridae (talk • contribs).
66. Support per Ral315. Kusma (討論) 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
67. Support Great admin candidate, and should be given a mop swiftly. Somitho 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
68. Support NoSeptember 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Infrequent and low amount of AfD participation. The user has participated in about 8 discussions in the past three months. I would feel more confident about this user if I could see a bit more AfD participation in the future. Nishkid64 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

   What makes AfD so special? There are many other ways to help the project. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 11:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose I prefer new admins to be more active here. Sorry. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

   Here? On RfA? Why? --Doc^g 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

   On Wikipedia in general. His activity level is too low for it to be worth him being an admin, imo. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

   Um, he's averaged 449 edits a month for the last 6 months, not counting February since it's only the 6th. How high would you want his activity level to be anyway? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

   More like this user's and this user's to start with. The amount of edits he makes a month me and most other active admins could make in a week. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

   Arjun appears to have some tools installed in his monobook to make things like reverting vandalism faster, but that doesn't explain AnemoneProjectors' edit rate. I don't think it's reasonable though to expect potential admins to average 2,000+ edits a month. Not everyone has or wants popups or vandalproof installed, and even those who do might not have 7+ hours a day to devote to Wikipedia. Good grief, the last few months have been really slow for me at work so I've been spending 6 or so hours a day on Wikipedia and I'm only averaging 740 edits a month (since October when things at work slowed down dramatically and I acquired internet at home). If I were to run for admin, would you object to me because I'm not active enough? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

   It's like with Werdna, who I also opposed. I would support in the future, but I just get the feeling promoting him would not be beneficial; just another admin who has the buttons but isn't using them. As for you in an RfA, surely if you've been busy at work an RfA at this moment would be bad timing? For me, an RfA should really be the peak of the user's time here, when they are making at least 50 or so edits a day, every day, and I don't think it is Shadow's. And please don't find an exception where I may have voted differently, as every request is unique. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think the consistency of your position is at issue so much as the fact that your demands for activity are unreasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

   Not unreasonable. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Sorry, but oppose. While Shadow1 might be a competent technician/bot operator and well rounded in Wikipedia policies etc, my personal interactions with him do not make me comfortable with him holding a mop. As he himself admits (quote removed here), he's always angry at something and I can only guess he'd have an equally angry approach to "lowly" non-sysop contributors as an admin as well as be careless with the banhammer (Fire in the hole!) and [delete] button (for example, by keeping CSD "as clear as possible" by simply mass deleting everything). Миша13 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
   1. Seems a little far-fetched, but okay. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Copyright paranoia, and wants to be too quick with speedy deletions. Argyriou (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Low level of participation in wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose while I don't agree with the other delete votes because of lack of AFD participation, there is an obvious lack of article writing, the 3 articles he created are just stubs. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Low interaction in wikispace. If fixed, looks a goody for a future run, so if you're unsuccessful this time, Shadow1, please drop me a line when you are next nominated. In my flick through contributions, I've yet to see "angry"ness manifest as incivility. --Dweller 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose As per above (fairly low activity) Dinojerm 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Jaranda. Jahangard 05:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose I feel as though potential administrators should be moderately well-rounded in a variety of areas on Wikipedia. As such, the candidate's lack of adding content to the mainspace is a fairly major concern for me and is not consistent with what I look for in a candidate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose This user has no more than 8 mainspace edits to any article, and only 49 total edits to talk pages.[1] Quadzilla99 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose 49 talk page edits is about 1/4 of what I expect as minimum level of interaction. 1500 mainspace edits would be at the low end even if it weren't all mechanical reversions. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Jaranda. Dionyseus 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I don't think 1BOT is any better a rationale for supporting a candidate than 1FA is for opposing them, and that seems to be what the case for mopping Shadow1 comes down to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Very weak oppose I am not, to be sure, in any way disinclined to support here in view of the candidate's being (relatively) inactive in mainspace and article talk or his being innately "angry", and I think Shadow, on the whole, to comport quite well with my conception of a solid admin; there is, at the very least, much to recommend him. I am a good bit concerned, though, by Shadow's avowed intention to work to clear CSD backlogs, his explanation of which leads me to fear that, his otherwise sound judgment notwithstanding, he might be too hasty to delete pages tagged for speedy (for all of which at least a cursory review is in order); in view, then, of my abiding belief that we generally need to be more circumspect in tagging, reviewing, and deleting CSDs, I cannot, I regret to say, support. Joe 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Xoloz and Jahiegel - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I won't go as far as opposing because I fundamentally trust Shadow1 and I think he has shown sound judgment and ability to interact well with other users. But I think he also has insufficient experience not only at XfD but in the Wikipedia namespace in general. It's good for new admins to have some familiarity with the basic processes going on there and I'm not sure shadow1 has that. I'd be more than happy to support in a couple of months, once that is settled. Pascal.Tesson 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

   Just a comment, I think Shadow has quite some experience in the wikipedia namespace, just check out his hard work on User:Shadowbot2, which was designed to spot unprotected pages on the main page. Of course that is now done by the cascading protection that we have in place now, but it was relativity useful when it was needed. In addition if you trust Shadow1, why not trust him to learn on the job. I'm even willing to help mentor him in a way during the first few weeks, to advise him on what to do and more importantly what not to do. :D —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

   I see what you're saying but since (unfortunately) there is really no way to demote admins unless they are blatantly and repeatedly harming the project, I'd rather see admin candidates show a little more familiarity with process before starting out. I also think it's important for the community to have a good sample of what a candidate's work on the Wikipedia namespace would look like and I find it hard to do with less than 250 edits on that space (and actually much less if you discount the Sandbox edits and the edits related to the approval of the bot). Pascal.Tesson 18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Almost Oppose Neutral per opposers. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral due to lack of experience. Edits have been consistently rising a little at a time over the last few months, which is great. However, the user has not planted a solid foundation in talkpage experience and a few other minor areas. This would probably be a support by late March if the positive trend continues. — Deckiller 12:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral, leaning towards support. Seems like a good user, but I don't really care for his edits. Lack of XfD participation hurts, and his edits don't make up for that miss.--Wizardman 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral, leaning towards support per some of the concerns raised here. Insanephantom(my Editor Review) 05:50, 9 February 2007 (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.