Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Addshore 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Addshore[edit]

Final (126/22/6); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 19:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addshore (talk · contribs) - This is an unusual candidate, further to the post I made at WT:RFA , offering to nominate unusual candidates.

Addshore has a lot of edits and had an unsuccessful RfA some months ago.

I've reviewed the RfA and the concern that most bothered me regarded lack of proper interaction with other users; something I have always taken very seriously when considering admin candidates.

While Addshore still clearly spends a lot of time working in areas that don't need large amounts of debate, a read through the user's talk page reassured me that they are perfectly capable of reasonable, thoughtful, civil dialogue with irritated others and is flexible enough to change their own behaviour as a result.

We need more admins and while this one is not a serial FA producer, nor an AfD junky, I trust Addshore. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Co-nom by Dendodge (talk · contribs): I have only ever had good experiences with Addshore. He is a prolific contributor, with a clear understanding of Wikipedia policy, and I have no reason to believe that he will misuse the tools, either on purpose or accidentally. In fact, I'm surprised he isn't already an administrator! He appears to have fixed the issues raised in his previous RfA, and no new ones have come up, to my knowledge. Therefore, I am honoured to have Addshore as my first admin nominee. DendodgeTalkContribs 18:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Accepted ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to do all of the basics (WP:AIV WP:CSD WP:UFAA WP:RFPP e.t.c) I also plan to keep an eye on Category:Administrative backlog and help out with anything listed there that I think that I could help with. For example now Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. I also hope to move towards closing AFD's e.t.c. I also plan on expanding on my technical side and taking a bigger part in WP:OP with trying to get rid of the almost constant backlog on the page. I also hope to be able to help all users with the little tasks which admins sometimes get asked to do (User page protection, content recovery). I also hope to be able to develop, bug fix and enhance huggle for the admins on en.wiki that use it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well one of my major contributions, as with virtually everyone these days is reverting vandalism. I'm pleased with how much I have reverted and how many mistakes I have not made. I'm also pleased with the templates I have made and the articles and stubs that I have created. I'm also pleased with my work on User:Addbot my bot which does various tasks around Wikipedia. I'm also pleased with my small works on huggle helping Gurch whenever I can. I also do work on WP:ACC and the relevant tool server pages approving new users to use the tool and creating new accounts for those that request them. I feel this is a good contribution as it is helping new users to start on their ways through Wikipedia. I try to help out on the help desks whenever I can for the same reason and welcome those I feel I should. And again I think the adoption process is valuable and useful so I help out there as well.
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 not been in an editing conflict before but as i think is probably similar with almost every user on Wikipedia there are defiantly users that have caused me to be stressed. I try to talk to people that stress me and try to settle our differences but if tat fails ill normally just log off and go and do something else. In the future I plan to deal with stress in exactly the same way as now.

Optional question from Tanthalas39:

4. While I have already supported and am still rather firmly in place, the one current oppositional vote brings up your AfD experience. It seems you participated in a glut of them in early July, and maybe only a handful since. Mbisanz notes that your arguments are better than a lot of things we see, but it does stand out that you don't tend to do a whole lot of research on each one, as the timestamps indicate; it appears (at face value) that you are simply scanning the nominations and making a bandwagon call. Since you state above that you "hope to move towards closing AFDs", can you address this user's concerns?
A With most articles up for AFD that I decide to vote in i only do a quick google search and See what turns up. If I think there is enough "evidence" in the google search or as in most cases not enough I will vote. On a few cases my google search turned up a positive results. One such article is Indulekha.com with its conversation here. This AFD that I strongly disagreed with made me make many edits to keep the article. I hope that this shows some hint towards my ways. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases:

5. In a State of the Union address, American president George W. Bush once said, "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research...creating human-animal hybrids." If such human-animal hybrids are created, do you believe they should be allowed to have Wikipedia accounts?
A:If they were to be able to be created and they were to live then I would say yes. I was going to look for a quote to support this from somewhere on Wikipedia but i cannot currently find one. If and when I do I will add it to this response.·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional (optional) question from Toddst1:

6. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do? (Note: Wikipedia:SUICIDE is an essay).
A: The first thing I would do is to make sure other people know about the threat ,probably by starting a section up on Wp:ANI about it containing all of the details. From there we can discuss which ath we should take. If it was a newly registered user it does suggest that it could just be a vandal saying meaningless words but its always good to make sure other people know and to talk about it just in case. If the threat is thought to be serious then someone normally contacts the authorities and also WMF. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 04:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Irpen
7: Content editing: Could you provide any examples of your contributions to the project in the form of content writing?
A: My few stubs are It's learning, Glype, AdBux. My contributions to TBGS, LogMeIn, Indulekha.com(rescued from AFD). Also Alvis Striker SP ATGW Vehicle(not the redirect but origional article under this name before being merged), List of countries where French is an official language(small start). Also my work on Teacher Learning Academy which has just been moved into the article space.
8: Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors, particularly in the discretionary rather than direct action? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for general edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Also, do you plan to enforce WP:3RR by patrolling WP:AN3 and the arbcom decisions by patrolling WP:AE? Particularly, would you enforce the so called "general sanctions", "discretionary sanctions", "civility paroles" or other wide scope measures that the arbcom frequently passes lately with a significant administrator's discretion being allowed?
A:
9: What's your opinion of IRC? Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel?
A: I do use IRC and I personally like it. I do plan to join #admins. I don't know much about the channels past but the channels present seems rather shaky due to the topics on AN/I. I think the channel will stay in the future and also I hope that it will. Proper use of an IRC channel is using the IRC channel for whatever it was made for. #en.wikipedia is meant to be on topic discussion about wikipedia. Other channels, such as bot channels, you are not meant to talk in at all as they are only for bots output.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Really, I do hope Question 5 isn't serious. —Animum (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. That question is pretty weird. --Banime (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Nom --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nom --DendodgeTalkContribs 18:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -- Addshore is quite knowledgeable about Wipipedia. He also adopts a lot of new users, something that's sorely needed. --Sultec (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - With so many edits and such a long history of quality edits, this man must become admin! He has my support and respect! J.B. (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support Excellent vandal-fighter who will make a fantastic administrator. Good luck! PeterSymonds (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support - Do I trust this user to use the admin tools carefully and thoughtfully? Yes. [ roux ] [x] 18:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support Have worked with him extensively and he clearly understands what is required of being an administrator. MBisanz talk 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Most concerns from the last RfA have been addressed; user now has much more experience in many more Wikipedia arenas. Oh, and as long as you never type "e.t.c." as an abbreviation for "et cetera" again. :-) Tan | 39 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Coming out of Wikibreak support - user has plenty of clue. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I've seen him around I guess. Seems like a solid editor, contributes only for the good of the encyclopedia, not for self=gain. —Ceran♦(Sing) (It's snowing in NJ already!) 19:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Huggle. Synergy 19:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Has been around since Dec 2005 and has over 34000 edits with over 14000 mainspace and see no misuse of tools as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I was neutral last time as I was on the fence over one or two issues, after reviewing you again I am happy that these issues have resolved themselves, hence I am supporting. I have no concerns that you will abuse the tools and you have experience where it counts, I note that you have now been very active for the past eight/nine months. I was particularly impressed by your adoption work, you clearly have a good knowledge of Wikipedia and you are not afraid to share it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I think, as noted above, that the candidate has sufficient clue to be a good admin. I'm not seeing a whole lot to be concerned about, frankly. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Reasonably sane. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Dlohcierekim 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Concern from last time is mollified. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Of course. Malinaccier (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. bibliomaniac15 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support and tag userpage with Category:Thought was already an admin. iMatthew (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - no concerns here. –xeno (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I have came across Addshore on a couple of occasions and I have no doubt he would be a good addition to the Admin community. No doubt in my mind that he would not abuse the mop. BigDuncTalk 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Why not? America69 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - No concerns. Xclamation point 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - AfD is an area about which I feel strongly, and the candidate's work there may reasonably be questioned, but in all fairness, he listed at least five or six admin areas in which he'd work first. I don't think I need to hold his stated desire to work towards closing AfDs against him when the other indications are that he will be responsible with the tools. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - AfD is not an always on thing. The "per nom" votes were where someone has already constructed very good arguments and really it came down to being accepted or not. I'd like to see more work on AN/I , but there's nothing here to alarm. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the main criticism (regardless of the arguments/outcome of the AFD) is that there is no need to cast a delete per nom vote so late in the discussion. It doesn't really add anything. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here since it's not giving me pause, but just thought I'd take a stab at the mentality/rationale behind the opposition. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Why the hell aren't you an admin yet? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support editor has made plenty on contributions, a committed vandal-fighter, AfD work is ok (if what others say is true, you might want to do some more in depth research of AfD nominees, I.e. Try google news, books and scholar as well, they turn up results that google doesn't.), all in all, would be an excellent admin. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per default, pretty much. AfD might be a little lacking, but that's really OK in my book. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Some of the AFD comments by Addshore are a bit empty but nothing in my opinion that is more then minor, so I support. SunCreator (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Great user, even with helping develop Huggle. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Hello, I'm Othello and my wife insists that I sign up for anger management class...oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: Support for a class act editor. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support – It's about time actually. Addshore will make a great and fantastic administrator. The opposes don't concern me much. – RyanCross (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support: I know from personal experience that Addshore is very helpful and enthusiastic. I think he'd definitely make a good admin. Another plus point if it helps him in developing huggle. Chamal talk 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Tentative Support - While I am slightly concerned by the AfD arguments, I sometimes do the same thing. Also, the candidate has specified multiple areas in which he would like to work in. He has answered the questions well and has enough experience in admin-related areas to justify a support. As long as he can try and think over his AfD closes/discussions more carefully, I can give a support. Again while some arguments below are concerning, I believe that this user will be a net positive as an admin. RockManQ (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Nothing but positive interactions with this user. I'm J.delanoygabsadds and I approve this message. J.delanoygabsadds 01:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, nothing wrong with this user. macy 02:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Helpful, kind, considerate and respectful... this is the kind of administrator Wikipedia is in need of. If you need diffs for any of these, you are blind to facts. — neuro(talk) 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Valtoras (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Addshore has been extremely helpful on every occasion that I've approached him, even to the extent of trying to add a task to his bot to help out WikiProject Orphanage. I've never seen him get cranky with anybody, and his programming contributions to Wikipedia are among the best. I definitely trust him with the tools.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per nom, and per BigDunc. --John (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support he knows he way around and is an extremely pleasant user to interact with. The weak AfD voting is a bit displeasing but I don't think he would make any real mistakes. I don't see any problem with giving this long time user the tools. Icewedge (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Since when have you not been an admin? Fully trust this editor. لennavecia 04:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Courteous, helpful, and trustworthy. Seems like a real mensch. Shirulashem (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Incredible amount of edits, well rounded help, really positive contribs. FlyingToaster 05:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support Always had postive interactions with the candidate. Be a bit careful with the AFDs. Many of my concerns at your last RFA have changed and I trust you. Hopeing to see Addbot Task 200 from you. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I actually thought him to be an admin already. Meh, well, then be one now. Contributions look good and I do not find the opposes convincing, because I am sure you will make yourself familiar with deletion policy before you go around closing difficult deletion debates. SoWhy 08:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, the RfA contribs highlighted by User:SashaNein gave me a brief pause, but then again this user has templated the regulars, which I think balances that out. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  50. Support, trusting my guts. I am not impressed by your replies but I know you are a sound editor. Best of luck! -- lucasbfr talk 11:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support —Reedy 12:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I see no possible abuse issues. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Change to oppose after a more careful review of issues brought up by other editors. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Yes Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per Gurch. :P GlassCobra 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I've been aware of this contributor for a while, and I think he'll make good use of the tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: As I did last time. Good luck, Addshore. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - I analyzed the contributions of Addshore, and his contributions raises no red flags for me. AdjustShift (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Kbdank71 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per User:Addshore/awards, which shows that he has worked well with others and takes pride in what he does here, and as he has never been blocked (if you are around long enough, it seems sooner or later you may be accidentally blocked even, so I would not automatically hold blocks against anyone, but I do give those without them credit). Also, in the discussions in which we both participated, he seemed reasonable enough. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support No reservations whatsoever. He will make a great admin. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Your AFD calls for keep or delete are almost all now blue or red as you !voted, which implies to me that you would close AFD correctly. I have no objections to being templated if it is a friendly reminder about a minor point as yours were. ϢereSpielChequers 18:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, looks good. I'm not a fan of the "Fails WP:MUSIC" type AfD votes with no further elaboration, but in your case it at least seems that the articles you say that about do indeed fail the relevant policies. While I may dislike the exact style of your arguments, it does seem that you know the policies you're quoting and would competently close AfDs. I have no concerns about any other areas, so no reason not to support! ~ mazca t|c 19:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - change from a neutral back in May - due to now meeting my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I've been waiting for this. Addshore has my complete trust. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I'm not persuaded by the Oppose votes so far, and I remember having only good interactions with Addshore. Wouldn't be out of line to say I trust him.--Koji† 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Absolutely. Garden. 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Seen this user around, would trust him with anything administrator-ish. Absolutely, support. IceUnshattered [ t ] 22:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Addshore's contribs indicate high standards of civility and Wikiquette and an admin-like grasp of policy and guidelines. I see nothing in the "Oppose" section to convince me otherwise. — Athaenara ✉ 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support No problem for him to become an admin per his contributions.--Caspian blue 02:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Per answers to questions, particularly #1. User has good background, and very few reasons that opposing should even be considered. Voyaging(talk) 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Don't see anything remotely disturbing in the oppose section. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Good editor. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support owing to my trust of this editor. We need admins for all kinds of volunteer tasks here. Please try not to wade too deeply into helping out with content disputes or disruption worries until you've done more meaningful article building (but I also trust you to have thought about that already :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Good contributions and good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Yay II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ 13:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - I thought Addshore was already a cliché. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support No doubts. LittleMountain5 Happy Halloween! 14:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support →Christian.И 18:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - another good, polite, experienced Wikipedian who, I have no doubt, will make an excellent admin. – Toon(talk) 19:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. · AndonicO Engage. 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - yep.   jj137 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Dedicated editor with significant contributions to multiple admin-related areas. VG ☎ 03:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Criticism in the oppose section is unpersuasive. We always need more serious RC patrollers. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Super-Strong Support great editor, and I have faith he will be an even better admin! Sam Blab 11:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Fit's my criteria. P.S. No RfA spam on my talk page please.--intraining Jack In 12:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - I trust him, he's been around. 'Nuff said. DavidWS (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Not concerned by anything in the oppose section. Epbr123 (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (change to neutral) Jimbo quotes on user pages are a bit off-putting imho, but seems like a good candidate overall. Everyme 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Fixed everything that looked concerning to me from last RfA, I see nothing else wrong, and is definitely a dedicated editor. Firebat08 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support per above comments. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 22:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Weak Support. Not entirely impressed by endless Huggling, but concerns from previous RFA have pretty much been allayed. Useight (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support plenty of experience in relevant areas, no real concerns. Hut 8.5 15:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - Addshore has, and always will be, a user I respect and admire - based on prior experiences. Caulde 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. *Huggle* (translated: Support) —Animum (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - Of course. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. I don't get how this is an unusual candidate, but Support. Wizardman 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Give him the mop. Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support per WP:WTHN --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support But of course! Addshore's a great user and I trust him with the tools! :) The Helpful One Review 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Mario1987 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's Numberwang! Or at least WP:100... Xclamation point 19:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC) jo[reply]
  100. Pile-on (should be doing coursework right now) Support. It's about time you got those buttons. :-D Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support No concerns for me at all. Ollie Fury Contribs 22:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. support Interesting concerns by the opposers but none are enough to make me want to oppose. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support I have known this user to be trustworthy. CWii(BOO!|Eeek!) 00:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Yes, Yes, Yes ,Yes ,YES!!!! I supported this user on his first RFA and I still think that he is a great candidate. He has already done many many good things for the wiki and I am sure he will continue to do many more. Addshore is a wonderful user and I am please to support him on an RFA. Mww113 (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. I would trust this user with the tools, therefore I must (and enthusiastically do) support. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - И i m b u s a n i a talk 05:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support I trust he will do fine. I've seen some of his edits, and his edits are enough to make me have faith that the will use his tools properly Leujohn (talk, stalk me?)
  108. Strongest support possible — Possum (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - I've kissed him a couple of times on IRC and I liked what I read back so... of course. But, seriously, he's a great guy who really wouldn't abuse the tools. He has my unconditional support. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Strong Support Seen this user and his edits, both excellent. Andy (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - congrat.s and good on ya' add :-) Privatemusings (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - no problems here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. --cremepuff222 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support- Addshore has done a great job on certain articles    Juthani1   tcs 23:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support without hesitation. Toddst1 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. Per noms, per answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to this project. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support, thought he already was an admin. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - lack of mainspace contributions would only be a problem for me if the editor in question was not showing skill in other areas. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. How the hell is he not an admin already!?!?!?!?!? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 18:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support- I'm not too concerned about the lack of article writing. Although the ultimate goal is to write an encyclopedia there are, unfortunately, a great many things that need to be done that don't involve writing article content. Addshore does some of these things and does them well- and I believe this candidate would be a net gain to the project if invested with the tools. Reyk YO! 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support- Many of the 'oppose' rationales are fairly silly--not the reason for the support, but worth noting nonetheless. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Seen this user around a lot, good participation throught Wikipedia. ~AH1(TCU) 16:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support: a trustworthy user who will make a good administrator, in my opinion. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. I won't say I had it watchlisted, but I've seen Addshore around and contributions definitely look positive.  Frank  |  talk  18:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. I supported last time, and am supporting again. Both vandal-fighters and article-writers should be welcomed. Acalamari 18:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - an excellent user who will make an excellent admin. All my experiences with this user have been highly positive, and I find them helpful and thoughtful. Opposes do not bring up any undue concern. Good luck, Addshore! Ale_Jrbtalk 19:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose You have cited in Q1 that you wish to close AFDs. I have gone over your AFD work since July 1st, 2008, and it has been very poor. Almost every single one of your votes is either
    "Per nom" - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
    "Not notable" - [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
    "Fails WP:SOMEPOLICY" - [30][31][32][33]
    or a combination of two out of three. Your votes add no weight to the discussion at all. I cannot trust that you will use the tools responsibly at this time, and have no confidence in your ability to close any XFD. SashaNein (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally citing a guideline like notability or a policy is considered a good AFD contribution, as opposed to citing something like ILIKEIT or IVENEVERHEARDOFIT. MBisanz talk 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Merely citing a policy, yet not expanding on the rationale to tell us WHY it fails the policy is completely unhelpful. If everyone believed that it was helpful to pump out these votes, WP:JUSTAPOLICY and WP:JNN would not exist to discourage that type of voting. SashaNein (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if an academic bio doesn't meet any of the nine criteria in WP:PROF it would be "completely unhelpful" to !vote "fails WP:PROF"? You would prefer that each of the nine criteria are explicitly specified, and then a sentence like "Fails WP:PROF criterion 6, because criterion 6 says ... and the subject hasn't ever ..." so that each delete !vote would be a paragraph of a dozen or so sentences long? Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose, I agree with SashaNein. Lack of elaboration on rationales for AfD nonvotes is a sign of an editor who goes with the flow rather than developing own opinions. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
    So you're really suggesting that just because the candidate has voted, correctly, but simply used 'per' rationale or cited a guideline (again, nothing wrong with either of these), that he/she will not make a good administrator? Come on... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why so convinced that they have always voted "correctly"? In my opinion, simply citing a policy or guideline or refering to does not help in establishing whether or not an article should be deleted - policies and guidelines can be interpreted in widely different ways and used for many different purposes, which is why explaining why an article should be deleted, without pointing to a guideline with no further explanation, is so vitally important. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do appreciate that policies and guidelines can be interpreted in different ways but in most cases (in AfD anyway) voting "per someone" or "per WP:XYZ" is straightforward. Have you checked to see the user didn't vote in such a manner in the majority of his/her AfD's? I know I haven't, it's tedious, but we should be assuming good faith. Just because this user may or may not always make his/her point clear at AfD deletions does not immediately make them a bad adminship candidate. Let's try and weigh up the other stuff which they've done well, and ask yourself whether he/she is likely to intentionally misuse the tools. Honest mistakes can be fixed, an unhonest editor cannot. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that my oppose is weak. If the candidate answers the many questions they will inevitably receive in a satisfactory way, I may remove my oppose or even change it to support. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it was your intention but I found your oppose rather amusing,; you cite "I agree with X" (synonymous with "per X") when the argument of the person you are agreeing with is that the candidate makes too many "per X" arguments. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it that difficult to read the text after the full stop? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Candidate adds automated templates to well-established users, even to some administrators. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Note to other editors: these templates were added when Huggle, Twinkle and Friendly were down. Sure, a couple of us made mistakes when manually adding warn templates, we forgot as we have these scripts do it manually for us, but automated templates aren't very helpful and don't really explain where the problem occurred. Mainspace edits aren't too great either, with the largest contribution to a single article is 27 edits in Torquay Boys' Grammar School. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 04:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Just... wow. When did people's RfA criteria get so askew? I realize "no big deal" kinda went by the wayside, but this is what we've resorted to opposing for? Some template reminders about substituting our templates is an oppose reason? That means you either would have rather had him type that out manually every time, or it means you are against his (rightful) reminders that we need to substitute our templates. Either one is astounding. And you spent some time cutting and pasting those in, too! I'm all for letting people have their various pet RfA criteria, but this one is a whole new horizon of "wow". Tan | 39 04:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Type it out manually once, cut and paste to people's talk pages would have been a little more helpful, but still vague. Yes, I cut and paste diffs; far different from cutting and pasting automated templates. Are we not suppose to do this with opposing? Also note how I also opposed because of his lack of article work. Honestly Tan, you don't have to go around ridiculing my oppose. I have every right to voice my opinion and you calling my criteria askew comes off as rude to me. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So instead of using a template, he should have done something that looks like a template? Eh, I don't know, I've never understood this dislike of templates other people have. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing against you opposing about my lack of article work. I have attempted to gain more and in my eyes I have but for other people tat is still not enough. I don't really get why you would oppose for the "templated" messages to users. Do you really want to write out an individual message for about 100 different people? Also In this mixture of people the message changes about 10 times to try to make it more helpful for the set of users I was giving it to. Also seem as these messages have been planned to be part of my bot just they have not been implemented et due to technical issues would my bot be turned down? The main aim of these messages is to try to reduce to amount of needless bot edits. Here is a link for 81 edits that needed a template substing in. [44]. Again i have nothing against your oppose for my article work but I have said something about the messages. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody beifly explain to me this substitution business. I never bothered to read thoroughly about it, and the times that I tried, it simply didn't click. I'd like to understand the controversy surrounding this oppose rationale. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well to subst something you just add {{subst: to he beginning of the template name. For example {{Welcome}} to {{subst:Welcome}}. If you were to just add {{Welcome}} to a page save and go to edit the page again it will just display as {{Welcome}}. The content you see on the page is taken from whatever is on Template:Welcome. If you use {{subst:Welcome}} on the page instead the content is taken directly from the template page and saved to the page you added {{subst:Welcome}} to. If you go into edit the page again you will see allot more content as it has copied what was on the template page. Sorry I might have over complicated it a bit :P So here is the response i had from someone.Just figured it out myself. It means instead of adding a {{welcome}} tag - use a {{subst:welcome}} tag. This injects the words permanently instead of just leaveing ((welcome)). ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 09:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, to put it simple: Substitution copies the template's source to the place where you subst'ed the template, i.e. creating a personalized copy that lasts no matter how the template is changed afterwards. SoWhy 09:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Substing templates accomplish several things: it helps reduce server load, makes it harder for newcomers to remove such templates as well as help prevent new users from vandalizing the templates. For instance, it is customary to subst the {{spa}} template when tagging a user in an AfD as a SPA. It is also customary to subst the {{welcome}} template when greeting a new user. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add my own 2p to this pile of change, I also raised my eyebrows over this, but I thought that the ensuing discussion about it showed the candidate in a very good light. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose for "me too" AFD "voting". Maybe Addshore knows the real deal about AFD rules (he/she has been long enough to know), but Addshore spoke at AFD as if completely unaware of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. There is a difference between Delete Per RJFJR (no refs) [45] and the policy: Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. Yes, Addshore was right, yes, the articles were uncontroversially deleted, but no button from me. NVO (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't per votes just like saying "I agree with another editor and I won't pile on"? — neuro(talk) 23:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    that's exactly what thy are not. They are saying, I agree with another editor and I am piling on, without bothering to say just what I think in any specific way that might help other people decide. DGG (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am utterly confused. You think that the !votes themselves help other people decide, but would rather not that people who agree with another editor simply note their name? — neuro(talk) 14:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose Oppose based of all on the following from your talk page "Records: 48 Edits Per Minute @ 16:25, 2 July 2008 " This is exactly the way no editor should edit, let alone an administrator. We're not certifying machines by speed of performance, we're selecting humans with judgment. No one who edits this way can possibly be sure of what they are doing. I recognize that this particular one was a bot making a form change-- but why should a prospective administrator be proud at how fast as they can run a bot. I am also not all that happy about other signs of ambition, such a [46]. And I share previous commentators' disquiet about the overall value to the encyclopedia of placing templates telling people how to place templates. Given that this was 2 days ago while this application was pending, I would have thought a candidate would want to show some understanding of policy by edits in Wikipedia or wikipedia talk space, but except those related to Huggle, there are almost none, now or earlier. (I should note that Addshore challenged my dislike for Huggle and other automated tools on my talk p. earlier today, but even accepting the apparent general feeling that Huggle is very valuable to Wikipedia, there's no correlation between skill in programming it and the sort of think an administrator needs to do. The buttons are not a reward for proficiency.) DGG (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was actually User:Gurch who had asked about Huggle on your talk page. Chamal talk 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    oh dear. I won't ask next time :( -- Gurch (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    changed from strong to regular oppose, to indicate that I may possibly have some atypical feelings aboutthe usefulness of these devices, and in recognition that Gurch & I have started an off-wiki discussion on this. I'm continuing to oppose base on other favors also-mainly the lack of experienced in discussing policy. "Per x" responses at Afd may possibly be based on a firm understanding of policy, but hardly demonstrate it.DGG (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    atypical feelings are fine, thinking Addshore is me is not :) -- Gurch (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to apologize for my foolish confusion. DGG (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask what was on [47]? User requested deletion and if its one of the reasons you are opposing Id like to know what was on there.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 09:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose You've been around a lot and seem to be very trustworthy, and usually I would support. However I have to oppose in this case because of the lack of enough article work that I like to see with admins, and most of your contributions seem to be minor. The AFDs are slightly concerning as well although I think you could improve that pretty easily. Good luck. --Banime (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger you, but what does article writing have to do with pushing a few extra buttons? Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just like admins that may work in AfD to have a really good idea of what goes into articles that people write. Not saying that he doesn't but I think you gain a better appreciation for that sort of thing when you put in a lot of work on articles yourself. --Banime (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Julian, you've been around long enough to know that when dealing with vandal fighters, it is a common expectation to see a modicum of article work. People like to see that the person who is about to be entrusted with the tools has some clue as to what it means to build the encyclopedia. They like to know that the person who is going to delete articles can relate to the pains of the person who has put effort into building the project. Without it, there are concerns that the person doesn't know or understand this facet of the project---plus, our primary purpose is to build the encyclopedia. While vandal fighting is needed, it is a secondary role.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but Addshore does have article experience. He might not have a string of FAs, but even a few article creations usually show that an editor knows what goes into articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    have you actually taken a look at the so-called article experience?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they're not perfect by any means, but they're still articles (except for a couple, whose notability I question). I guess this is more a matter of opinion, as I believe if an editor is excellent in what they do, vandal-fighting in this case, article writing is a bonus. I've striken my reply to Banime after further consideration. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't demand perfect articles, but I want to see an investment of some sort in contributing to the project in a manner in which one puts one's heart and sole into it... it doesn't have to be article building, but I do want some sort of building activity (EG article, template, images, etc----something that shows me the candidate can do more than delete/warn/tag the work of others.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree with the above about the template thing. It's bad form to template regulars, and while I agree that reminders about substituting templates are fine, Addshore could have gone about it better. There's also this signature page and this guestbook, which seem immature. My main concern, however, is his U1 deletion of User:Addshore/notepad/noms, after DGG referenced it in his oppose above. While you're certainly allowed to delete/request deletion of things in your userspace, I view the timing of the deletion to indicate you're trying to cover it up. The deletion notwithstanding, I agree with DGG about what the page says about Addshore. seresin ( ¡? )  21:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose DGG (and DGG alone among the opposition) made a convincing argument. Quality is more important than quantity, and looking at the character of your contributions, I honestly don't trust you to wield the tools with the absolutely necessary amount of forethought and due consideration. Steven Walling (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose - Regrettably. While I agree 100% that Addshore is a good vandalism fighter, and feel that he has improved the project by the use of automated tools, I also feel that is where he needs to stay.
    • My first concern is that of the majority of the opposes above: quality over quantity. I can not support a candidate who has close to no article contributions to his name. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while I am certainly not the greatest article writer and by no means spend the majority of my time writing, I feel that it is a important thing to have accomplished and ultimately improves how the tools are used. The tools are here to improve the encyclopedia, by other means that just blocking people who choose to vandalize it.
    • My second concern was the answer to question number four, it gives me the feeling that Addshore does not completely understand how AfD works, or how one should choose to !vote. (ie: Simply checking google is not the only thing that should be done when making decisions relating to AfD). While I could look past that fact, Addshore has shown a interest in working around CSD's and areas of administrative backlog where AfD will come up. One other interesting thing I noticed was that all of Addshore's deleted edits (speedy tags) appear to be R1, and I see very little evidence that Addshore understands or is able to determine what is notable and what is not (all the R1 taggings appear to be okay). Addshore, would you be wiling to provide some evidence of your understanding of our notability policy?
    • The third issue I had was Addshore's answer to question number six. Personally I feel that starting a AN thread does nothing but create drama, and does little to really improve the situation. And the foundation has already made it clear that they will not handle such cases. (I am aware Addshore may not have been aware of this, and would be willing to strike it if he states so).
    • The last issue, which is by far the least important, is Addshore's sentence structures and spelling. While I make my occasional typo, or grammatical error I have noticed (especially in question four) numerous spelling errors. The sentence itself required me to read it twice before I could really get the intended affect. As a administrator, interacting with users is an important aspect of the job, and most of the times that requires a ability to form strong sentences. Tiptoety talk 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose DGG and Tiptoety and say what needs to be said, but it's superfluous as my comments on the earlier "discussion" Addshore 1 still appear to stand tall and strong. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I wasn't going to chime in on this RfA, as I generally don't get involved with RfA's that are essentially decided (whether they are going to pass or fail.) In fact, I wouldn't have looked into this if it wasn't for Julian's question above. But Addshore has a serious dearth in contributing to the project. He claims to have started five articles. Unless he changed his name, and failed to disclose the name change, one of the five, one he didn't start. One is a fairly well developed list---of course, this was almost 3 years ago and his original edit was pretty weak. The other three articles are all in the STUB level. He then lists 5 other articles where he has made contributions--again nothing major. In fact, he lists articles where his contribution is virtually non-existent. In other words, in over 3 years of working on this project, it appears that he has edited less than 10 articles. Anti-Vandal Admins should have some experience building the project. They need to have some idea as what people feel when they work on a project only to have somebody place a dozen tags on the project. Addshore's dearth of contributions, makes it impossible for me to support this candidate. I have no doubt that he is a fine vandal fighter, but IMHO his lack of building the project makes him unqualified.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. Firstly I will point out that Alvis Striker SP ATGW Vehicle and FV102_Striker have been merged into FV102_Striker and I originally started Alvis Striker SP ATGW Vehicle. I agree that all of my other article contributions do not go a long way. I tend to keep a link to List of countries where French is an official language as it was also the first article I ever edited and ever created, even if it was a small and badly formatted start. Thanks for your comments. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 07:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck comment about not starting one that he claimed per above, my apologies...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 12:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, per DGG. east718 // talk // email // 06:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per DGG and Tiptoety. Luck of interest to article writing, preference of using automatic tools and templating regulars, plus love to the IRC channels is a mix that often produced bad administrators in the past Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Sashanein and Banime and Alex Bakharev. In addition to that, this user supported Giggy and CWii becoming admins — displaying an overall lack of judgement. I could not trust this user to be an administrator. --Pixelface (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, supporting a person for adminship is not, IMHO, a valid reason to oppose. People can support for no other reason than they believe that EVERYBODY should have the tools.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but remember Riana's RfB? It was shot down mainly because she co-nommed Kelly Martin for adminship. Everyme 16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two distinct differences: 1) She was a nom, not a run of the mill pariticipant. Noms do bear more burden. 2) If I remember correctly, Kelly was a former admin, who lost the bit, and had a lot of animosity towards her.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose: IRC is not Wikipedia. Every minute spent there is a minute that is taken from, not added to, Wikipedia. As long as it is not portable, not recorded, and not admissible in a deliberation at Wikipedia, any use of it for conducting, considering, or deliberating Wikipedia matters is abuse. Additionally, this candidate appears to have little interest in what is "between the covers" of the encyclopedia: the articles. We need less socializing and more working, especially among our administrators. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I find that to be a gross overgeneralization of IRC. I use IRC mainly to chat with friends... while working on wiki stuff (sometimes IRC even informs me of what I should do, such as being alerted to a rename request or an RfA that has just passed its closing mark).
    By your logic, every minute spent in the bathroom is a minute taken away from Wikipedia. We aren't bots; we deserve to take breaks from the site. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, this logic points to the conclusion that the decisions reached on closed-circle mailing lists (oversight-l, checkuser-l, etc.) are abuse if enacted on-site. Actions discussed over IRC should be judged on their own merits, just as actions discussed over e-mail, on this Web site, and by other means should be judged. —Animum (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak oppose Lack of content editing. I don't demand a lot, but more than this. I probably would not oppose for this alone if everythign else looked hunky-dory, bit there are other concerns here too.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose — Could use more time in the trenches working in the mainspace. I also partially agree with some of the AfD reasons as stated by several above. For me, citing "fails WP:SOMEPOLICY" as a reason to delete/keep is fine, but not major AfD pitfall arguments such as "not notable" and "per nom" without providing any additional insight. There is also something about the IRC situation that does not make me comfortable that this person would use the tools properly (i.e. seriously). MuZemike (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - per nom-ing at AfD shows candidate is unready for adminship. WilyD 18:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Too much interest in policing and too little in content writing, too many RfA's too soon and IRC habits combined show the wrong set of priorities. --Irpen 19:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for the other points, but for the record, Addshore's first (and only) RfA before this was in May, nearly six months ago. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. per DGG. Giggy (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Althought I hate casting "per X" !votes in an RfA, my full rationale would have contained elements from Balloonman's, DGG's and Tiptoety's rationales but, in all likelyhood, mine would not have been as eloquent. Addshore is an invaluable asset to the project as a spectacular vandal fighter. I do, however, fear that the liability of someone with no experience and/or interest in article building having access to the delete button does not make up for the benefit of him being able to block vandals rather than reporting them to AIV. To sum things up: oppose per Balloonman, DGG and Tiptoety. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Good guy and a good Wikipedian, and it looks like this will pass, but I can't support based on what DGG and Tiptoety have written above. We have a lot of really valuable, key contributors who aren't admins. Whatever the outcome, I hope we can continue to count on Addshore's involvement in Huggle and anti-vandalism etc. Avruch T 16:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - hate to be the first user not to support, and I'm willing to change my mind. Can't oppose because the user seems trustworthy and in need of the tools for the good of the project, and I do think he should become an admin one day. However, I also can't support because there is virtually no article-building experience, and entirely too many automatic/script-assisted edits. The user should consider doing some research about subjects he's interested in and writing articles—even if he spends only half the time he does now fighting vandals, he'll still be a very effective vandal fighter, but also likely a great author and content contributor. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Contributor is too cute to be an administrator -- Gurch (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying that administators cannot be cute? ;-) J.delanoygabsadds 01:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    wtf, how has that not been reverted yet. I guess female ones can -- Gurch (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. As a general rule I do not like the proliferation of templates in wikipedia, I abhor "template throwers", and I do not like editors who make "speedy" edits either with or without bots. However I am not convinced that this candidate will not make a good admin. that is not the same as sayng he will make a good one. Mjchesnel (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - He fights vanadlism a lot. This is not a bad thing, but it seems he needs to focus on adding info more. See the 25 mainspace edits on http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Addshore . Yowuza Talk 2 me! 13:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Mojska (m) 06:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Changed from support per Balloonman. I should probably look a bit deeper before supporting. Nothing wrong with specialists and I for one am not demanding an FA (or even GA, for that matter), but the content contribution record is indeed a bit too meagre to feel entirely comfortable. Everyme 06:47, 4 November 2008 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Addshore_2&oldid=1208496010"