Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Addshore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Addshore

Final: (64/34/19); ended 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Addshore (talk · contribs) - Today I have the distinct pleasure to nominate User:Addshore for adminship. Addshore has been with the project since 2005, but has shown his best work in the last several months. Along the way to contributing over 21,000 edits, he has shown himself to be well respected by his fellow editors for his dedication and determination to further the goals of the project. One area I was surprised to see him pop up in was bots, as that is usually an area for more advanced users. To my surprise, he is an expert coder, running some very useful tasks on User:Addbot. Addy has shown a well balanced project-space contribution with 599 edits to AIV and edits to Open Proxies, Bot req, and Req Articles. Among his content contributions are Alvis Striker SP ATGW Vehicle, TBGS, and LogMeIn. Further, he is very skilled at using Huggle, and contributing bug reports for that tool's improvement. I've worked with Addy over the last couple of months and am amazed at how far he has come. I recommend strongly that the community support this request for adminship. MBisanz talk 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to help out with clearing backlogs at Category:Administrative backlog as i know there is normally always a backlog somewhere. I also like working on WP:AIV and would like to work more at WP:UFAA. I have also being doing a lot of work on Open Proxys and finding the many that have not been blocked from Wikipedia yet so i would like to help in finding and blocking these and also on WP:OP and with requests on WP:RFPP. Also I have started work on WP:ACC and the relevant toolserver pages and hope to help out on the "Admin Needed!" section.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am pleased with my contributions to TBGS as i vastly expanded this article and corrected facts on there making the page better and more informative. I also added images to the page to make it appeal more. I also started the stub Alvis Striker SP ATGW Vehicle. I have also uploaded the imagesTBGS crest, New Xfire style, Palm105.5 Logo, Volcano Pink Field, Chicken In Snow,Fuerteventura sunset, Logmein Logo, Surfing in Fuerteventura, Logmein Website and the Image:TBGS_crest_GoodQl.gif for the TBGS page. Some of these images are no on commons. I have also been trying to work with WP:NTWWnot the wikipedia weekly and have also made contributions with bots and bot requests. I still hope to find some more pages to contribute to more.
Can I suggest you rethink your answer to this question? As various users have indicated (see for instance question 13 below, and Iridescent's oppose), if your contributions to TBGS are your best work, then it's not a great basis for others to support you. But your candidacy does not rest on your article-writing abilities. Surely, as those who support you point out, your "best contributions" have to do with your vandal-fighting, for instance. Perhaps then you could say more about that? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I will write a second answer for this then as I can see where you are coming from.
My contributions to wikipedia. I used to contribute mostly by vandal fighting using various programs or scripts. I have recently switched away from this and have started in other areas of Wikipedia. These include WP:AIV, WP:ACC, WP:OP, WP:NTWW, WP:AFD, WP:BOTR and WP:HUG. I am still pleased with the images that I have uploaded to wikipedia and also the articles that I have created. WP:OP has been one of my major contributions also, I have been gathering lists of proxy URL's and slowly working through them and finding which ones are not blocked, although this is very time consuming this must be done, see User:Addshore/notepad/proxylist. I have also been working on various bots. These include a bot that clears the sandbox (very simple) as the older bots stopped working due to unforeseen errors. I try to scan Special:UncategorizedPages every time it gets updated with my bots to tag and inform of what needs to be done. I currently have more BRFA's open. Please see User:Addbot. To see my work at WP:ACC which you cannot very actively see on wikipedia please check my user logs[1]. With WP:AIV I do not just report for blocking but I also try to help out with tagging stale reports as stale and for what period of time. Forwarding people to use other noticeboards if they are on the incorrect one. Reformatting reports if users report badly so that the bots can still read and work e.t.c. I am also working closely with (what we hope to be) the new User:Cluebot AVB(anti vandalism bot) tracking down diffs of Good faith and vandalism edits for the bot to read through and learn yet there are still thousands more for the bot to be collected. I am more of a technical guy on wikipedia doing the technical things and sometimes the boring things also.
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 haven't been in an editing conflict before, i try to avoid them if possible. There have defiantly been users that have caused me stress though, as i think is possible to say to virtually every wikipedian. I normally deal with these people as best i can within reason, telling other people about them, rolling back their edits and warning them if they are vandalism, requesting blocks if it is required or there is an obvious reason to. There have been occasions when users have directly targeted abuse at me when i was reverting vandalism, requesting blocks or reporting ips but i generally ignore it as i know it is one step closer to them getting blocked and stopped. If they keep on going and nothing is happening after i have tried everything i can i will tell other people again and if everything fails for me and I get a little to stressed I will normally walk away from my computer for a while and go and do other stuff. In the future i look to deal with it in the same way.
OPTIONAL question from Dan Beale-Cocks
4. You say you're going to work in UFAA. You see a user with a name "kkewicn03jemx". What do you do if i)they've made no edits? ii)they've made 20 bad faith edits? iii)they've made 20 good faith edits?
A: WP:U changed recently and confusing usernames are / should no longer be blocked so: i) Do nothing/Welcome them, ii) Report to WP:AIV or block., iii) Do nothing/Welcome them. If the username was more confusing then i would request them to change it on their talk page.

Optional question from Tiptoety talk

5.You are looking over a report at WP:AN3 and find a user who has not violated 3RR but instead has been edit warring on Bill Clinton (over his weight lets say), you also notice that the user who made the 3RR report has been engaging in the edit war too. You head take a look at the article history to find close to 10 users engaging in the edit war for the last 4 days with a few constructive edits here and there, including some IPs (pretending it is not semi’d of course). Only 2 of the 10 users have violated 3RR. You notice that a few of the users involved as well as a few not partaking in the edit war have been making an attempt to resolve the content dispute on the articles talk page. How would you respond to the 3RR report? What if a request was made at RFPP, how would you respond? Would you block anyone, who and why? Who would you warn (if anyone) and what you say? Is there anything you would recommend they do?
A:I would first of all work out exactly who has done what / what has been done. As the edit war had been going for 4 days I think a page protection would be necessary. In this case I would fully protect the page indefinitely and remove the protection once the war and 3RR cases were resolved. I would respond to the original 3RR report with saying that the user in question had not broken the rule but other users (the reporter and one other) had. I would then block the 2 users that had broken the 3RR , if it was their first 3RR then I would probably block them for 12 or 24 hours, and I would warn everyone else who had taken part in the edit war with {{Uw-3rr}} telling them what has happened and what could happen.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
Answers to these questions may be found here. Splash - tk 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: It would be appropriate for an editor to be blocked for anything listed on WP:BLOCK under the heading When blocking may be used. For example vandalism, edit warring, sock puppetry or violation of other policies. A little extra; Blocking should not be used for cooling down angry users. See WP:CDB.
  • A: Semi portection should be used mainly to stop people from vandalizing on pages that are subject to persistent heavy vandalism. Move protection should be used on a page when it is being persistently move vandalized. Full protection should be used to (for example) fully protect the user talk page of a block user so that only admins can edit it if the user has been blocked but is still using his talk page for inappropriate editing. Full protection is also used in Content disputes as I expressed below. In this sort of case the full protection can be used to force the participants in an edit war to discuss their edits rather than warring. Isolated incidents of edit warring may be better addressed by blocking and protection is only used in some cases.
  • A: A page should be deleted under speedy deletion if it falls into one of the CSD categorys. E.G. Vandalism, Advertising or Spam. One of the reasons for this is to avoid big long AFD's when the page should obviously be deleted (almost instantly) or should never have been created in the first place.
  • 9. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Talk page consensuses are the most difficult as they are not always a straight yes or no issue and this can sometimes be hard to get wider opinions from users. XFDs are determined by weighing the number of people on the particular side but also the clarity/substance of their arguments. For example do their arguments conform with a policy. DRVs require that a majority of people find the deletion process to be flawed or the materialto have been improved since the deletion if it is not XFD2.
  • 10. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: I would review the article for a start and see if anyone has broken 3RR or is just edit warring, also who is / if anyone is discussing it on the article talk page and if tools such as rollback / twinkle were used inappropriately. After finding that out I would take appropriate action depending on what had been done.
Additional question from Malinaccier (talk)
11. What do you enjoy about being an editor on Wikipedia? Why?
A. I enjoy editing Wikipedia for the community spirit that comes out of it. Everyone working together and taking / discussing about what should be done. I think the whole system of how Wikipedia works with the polices and noticeboards is brilliant and I wish it was the same for some of the other communitys / projects that I have worked with which makes Wikipedia stand out for me. I enjoy making new friends, talking with them and editing with them. I also enjoy the learning involved, learning about the polices, what to do and also the random facts that you pick up along the way. Also since I have started my Wikipeida bot making has pushed me to learn the basics of PHP and I hope also that I will learn python and perl for the same reasons. Before I never really had anything I passionately wanted to script or code for but now I do. These are the reasons I like Wikipedia and I like what I do.
Question from Seddon69
12. What experience do you have of dispute resolution?
A. Admittedly on wikipedia I have no experience of dispute resolutions. I am more of a technical guy.
A truthful answer :) all ill say is that if you ever come across a dispute, don't hesitate to contact any of the peeps at WP:MEDCAB or myself and im sure that we will be able to help out. That way you wont be forcing yourself into territory your unfamiliar with. Good luck with the rest of your RfA. Seddon69 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
13. You have stated that you are proud of your contributions to Torquay Boys' Grammar School. Those tags on the top of that article leads me to believe that it might not be up to standards. Do you have a grasp on what an encyclopediac article should consist of? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
A. I do know what wikipedia needs and I have been working on that article slowly. Slowly adding sources and wikilinks. I still need to find some more sources / references before I will remove those tags on the top.
Questions from MrPrada.
14. A new account is created as User:John Smith, and begins to edit the John Smith article in an autobiographical sense, leaving edit summaries that indicate the user is actually John Smith. The edits are minor, fixing birthdates, high schools, childrens names, etc., however the user is bitten and left with talk page warnings about COI and reported at UAA and COI. You, an administrator, notice the UAA report. How do you proceed?
A.If john smith is a very famous person's name such as Margaret Thatcher, or someone like that, I might block for impersonation. If it is a random name such as Dan Smith (example) I'd decline a UAA report. If he was non-notable, I'd delete his article, if he was notable I'd tag it and try to remove the worst of the COI content.
15. The 90 day semi protect on Benedict Arnold (logs) expires. There are 4 incidences of vandalism within 7 days, and the article is reported on RFPP. How do you proceed?
A. If this was reported at RFPP I would investigate it more. If the 4 cases of vandalism were from the same IP as before then I would consider giving the IP a temporary block (maybe 5 or 10 days) and no re protection of the page. If the vandalism was done by another user with a clean history then I would warn them as was suitable for the amount of vandalism that they took part in. If they had vandalized I would consider blocking them. In short warn the single vandalizes and block the repeat ones. IPs would be about a 10 day block and users probably indef.
16. In your opinion, which is more important. WP:AFD, or WP:DRV?
A. I think both WP:AFD and WP:DRV are as important as each other. Without AFD you would not really have a set place to talk over articles being deleted. Many more peoples views would be missed and admins may just delete what they think, in their opinion, should be deleted but in many others should not be. DRV is just a second step to this process. If the AFD goes through and the article gets deleted and then for example the article becomes notable, people who originally made the article but failed in the AFD would take it to a DRV and present the new information. I hope this answer is enough for you. Without one the other is flawed.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • I find it very sad that users are finding reasons only to oppose a user. There are so many good reasons to support Addshore. Firstly, he'd work in AIV, an always necessary job, and we can always have more admins there. Addshore would be able to revert more than five edits per minute. Addshore would be able to block disruptive usernames. Judging by the deleted contributions, he'd delete some articles, too. Adminship isn't all about article writing, doing this and that a certain way; that's the reason why only 12 admins were promoted last month. Think about the positives Addshore's sysopping would bring us; he'll use the tools well, and I see very little grounds for the risk of misuse of tools. Maxim(talk) 13:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that i spent alot of time deciding on whether to support addshore or not. I am aware that we only had 12 admins promoted last month but im not asking for alot when i opposed. Im not asking that he write an FA from scratch or anything i just want to see a little more experiance in one or two areas. Not alot just some. I have even offered to help with this and tbh i could quite happily see myself supporting him in as soon as 2 months. With my oppose i have also left an option open for him to show i feel he is ready but answering the optional questions. I will clarify that i dont expect him to answer all of them just the ones which he feels are important in showing his experiance. I know this user well and i did not oppose this RfA lightly. Tbh he could show the experiance needed by commenting on FAC's or GAN's now if he had the time and i would quite happily talk with him and get a better insight. If he didnt then i could help him out and make sure he knows what areas he needs to brush up on when becoming an admin. I simply want him to be proactive in his learning. Its entirely up to him how he wants to improve im trying to give him as many options s possible. Prehaps its an idea that when someone oppose in RfA that they should be willing to directly help out that user in regards to the oppose. I feel that it would help alot of people who get turned down at RfA and help with interaction for those that opppose to actually do something about it. Seddon69 (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There would not harm if he were sysopped. Incidentally, I got most of my article experience with admin tools, although I had about 3000 edits when I was sysopped. Maxim(talk) 14:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remark. I find question 17/ rather irrelevant, and indeed, out-of-place. Removal of questions on rfa is out with the scope of administrator duties. Thoughts? Anthøny 17:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One thing I will say now Is that i am going to try to improve and article to A Good Article and see if that will change anyones minds about me. I will say again when I think it has been done. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 09:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've spent some time cleaning up Torquay Boys Grammar School. (For reference, this is how the article looked at the opening of this RfA.) I am a little concerned that by far the largest proportion of the content that Addshore has added to Torquay Boys Grammar School is plagiarism and possibly also copyright violation. Compare these edits with the relevant pages on the school website.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] He only recently added the references to the pages (each of which declares that it is copyright 2007 Torquay Boys' Grammar School) from which this material was taken. To be fair, then, the original edits were some months ago, and he may well have learned more about Wikipedia's policies since then. I also recognize that his candidacy does not depend upon his article-writing track record. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Me, being a member of this school, have asked the writer of the website (the guy that wrote all of the content for the page) if I could use this content on wikipedia and he, as the writer, said yes. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 12:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    The guy who wrote it isn't the copyright holder, he can't give you permission.Balloonman (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm escalating to strong oppose in light of this reply. You're absolutely right in saying that nobody should be expected to know every policy - but an admin who doesn't know GFDL and OTRS is an alarming prospect to me. Is the writer of the website aware that you've just released his work into the public domain? — iridescent 13:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes he does know that he has released his work into the public domain. The copyright on this site is not intended to protect his content but the code / design / layout of the site itself. I hope you understand what I mean. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • He has sent a message to OTRS about his work but unfortunately the process will not be finished in time for the end of this RFA due to his working hours. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Hi. As I commented in messages left both on my talk page and also copied over to yours (but to which you have yet to respond), in fact the OTRS issue is moot in any case, because the content you took from your school website is actually irrelevant to the article itself. I should say that the difficulties that you have with communication over this matter rather increase my feeling that you are not, as yet, suitable for adminship. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I still would have done the OTRS as there is then other information on the site that can be used. The information added linked into how the houses were run, named, their themes and porpoise to them been picked over the others. Regarding the Message that you sent me I will still respond to that but after my RFA and after I have finished working with some other people on the same sort of task on other articles. Thanks for your help. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What is the current vote tally? If Al Tally's oppose vote stands, then the tally should be rectified to reflect this. Also, the Analysis report shows them as a duplicate voter, this needs to be rectified too. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Who cares? I remember an RFA were maxim opposed 3 times and supported 4, no need to rectify anything...why the hell would we bother?--Phoenix-wiki 11:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Balloonman struck my oppose, and my support as well for some bizarre reason. I said on the RfA talk page that all the opposes I made should be stricken. However, I never mentioned any other votes. Al Tally (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support Very helpful person will be a great sysop and has made several useful contributions. Staffwaterboy Talk Guestbook 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Duh! I did nom him, must think he's doing something right :) MBisanz talk 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support, know and trust him. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support from me and the otters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - Why not. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - No problems with this guy - a fantastic user who will use the tools well. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. Trust the nom, who is very careful in all edits, to nominate. In a brief look at contribs, don't see any problems whatsoever. Happy to support, no hesitation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Wizardman 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support I've seen you around plenty, and have no concerns. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. I admit I didn't even read the nomination (maybe I'll get around to it in a few weeks...). · AndonicO Engage. 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Seen Addshore around many times: I'm always impressed with their work. Acalamari 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Why the hell not? He is... EVERYWHERE. Perfecto for the job-o. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Little article-writing experience; I see thousands upon thousands of reverts and tagging, but given that they were appropriate I have no problem with that. I assume he will remain in his comfort zone at AIV as a newbie admin and I trust that he will avoid more controversial areas such as WP:AN3 until he has more experience in editorial disputes. Regards, EJF (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Looks good to me; I trust he'll use the tools wisely. --CapitalR (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. Competent, communication skills, and trustworthy–that's essentially all I ask for in a candidate. Anthøny 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - trustworthy vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - as EOTW says, he's everywhere. Sceptre (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support: Excellent user; I can put the lack of mainspace work aside here (I myself don't contribute to the mainspace as much as I would like to). There is no reason to believe that the user will abuse the tools, and there is no reason to believe he wouldn't be beneficial as as administrator. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support I was going to nom him *snaps fingers*, Add shore is a great editor, with over 20000 edits and 1000 at WP:AIV I have no doubt that this user will make an excellent administrator. Mww113 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. SupportTotally! Why not?-- Barkjon  23:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support purely to piss off Wisdom89. Nick (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    Now, that's a reason to support! Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support - an extremely worthy candidate. krimpet✽ 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. Dlohcierekim 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  24. Weak Support - Your lack of article building is not the best thing in the world, but I see no reason to oppose you. --SharkfaceT/C 23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support trustworthy candidate --Charitwo talk 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Support - Actually, Rjd0060 pretty much says exactly what I’d say. (Except I don’t think he meant to include the word “not” in his last sentence.) —Travistalk 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, didn't mean that. I've fixed it. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support I thought you were already an admin. J.delanoygabsadds 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Struck "strong". I still think that Add would be a good admin, but some of the issues raised are worrysome. J.delanoygabsadds 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support - Article work/talk is sufficient. Also per Nick. Al Tally (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    !vote indented per new !vote below.Balloonman (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Do not mess about with my vote, it's obvious this one was made in good faith. Or at least have the decency to ask me on my talk page. Al Tally (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support Article editing is completely irrelevant to good admins. Most of the tools are used to combat vandalism. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support as the candidate seems like a reasonable person. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support No concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support - I see him quite a lot, even if I've not had much interaction with him. Supported per WP:WTHN. asenine say what? 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  32. Suppport - very friendly, helpful and competent, so thanks for running, add! Privatemusings (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support. Mainspace editing isn't the only way to get experience, nor is it always the best for everyone. Also, I don't like Q5. When there are many editors participating in an edit war and some others trying to amicably resolve the dispute, I find that protection is best to get everyone to discuss. In addition, if a page has been edit warred on for four days, it really, badly needs discussion. I don't like blocking for 3RR because it's a very slippery tool and prone to be ineffectual. bibliomaniac15 03:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  34. Looks good to me, helps out at WP:ACC as a bonus. Keep up the good work! SQLQuery me! 04:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support. I've seen good work from the nominee. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  36. Valtoras (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support Even after reviewing the opposes I think this user is a worthy candidate! Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support I've spent some time reading all the opposes based on Q5 and I do see and understand the concern voiced by the community regarding the candidate's answer. I, however, believe that the overall benefits of having Addshore as an admin in my mind easily outweigh the potential risks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support, lack of article contribs is a bit disappointing, but no evidence that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC).
  40. Support, giving Addshore the mop will will free other admins' time, thus being a benefit for the project. No concerns about abusing the tools. --Gwguffey (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support No evidence to suggest tools would be abused. BigDuncTalk 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support —Reedy 16:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support I have had a really good dicussion with addshore about the points i raised and other people i now feel confident that he will be able to use the tools wisely and know when to pass the baton if outside an are of his expertise. Seddon69 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support I thought you were already an admin! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support - I really like this guy, and he never fails to stop editing wikipedia. I would have no objections to Addshore having the tools. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  46. Rudget (Help?) 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support Will make a fine admin. hmwithτ 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  48. Strong Support. No problem. Thanks for answering my question—I can see you are passionate about helping Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support --Baiji (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  50. You will make a good admin --Chris 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support, per IRC! --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    What does this support mean? I know what IRC is, just wondering how it applies here. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    'twas an attempt at a joke. In any case, I support Addshore as he is prepared to work in an area which is severely understaffed, namely clearing the backlogs at CAT:AB, and can't see any reason why he will make a bad admin. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support. Nothing to suggest abuse of tools. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support - At first, I thought Addshore already was an administrator. Will be great with the tools. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support There are admins who have done 1/4 of what he has. It is sad the way he is being treated. People nit pick about almost anything. The guy is obviously improving and vandal fighting, who cares if he isn't building A+++ articles?--Dacium (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support - knowledgable and helpful editor. I did read the opposes below, but I don't share the concerns. There's no need for an admin to be an expert on every single policy - this is a big project, and we can use specialists. Kelly hi! 13:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    is the protection policy a specialized matter, or central to adminship? DGG (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support He will not abuse the tools. Definite net positive to the project. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support will not abuse tools - nothing objectionable with answer to Q5. Some opposes have strange interpretations of the protection policy! Pegasus «C¦T» 03:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support Seen him around at AIV, no concerns about misusing the tools. Parsecboy (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support He will be a good admin. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support I see no reason to believe Add will abuse the tools. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 15:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support. Trustworthy. Learns from mistakes. Hard working. No indications of potential abuse. Kingturtle (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  64. Moral support. Come back again in 3-6 months and work hard. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - Article work/talk is insufficient. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    Since there seems to be some misunderstandings or minor objections to my oppose (my opinion which is shared by others as well), I'll just make an addendum. I've come to realize we need more article working administrators. Secondly, scant communication in the mainspace and project space, especially on article talk pages (the former), makes it insufferably difficult to gadge how the candidate will be able to handle editorial conflicts and other high stress level situations. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Mainspace edits are too spead out, and not enough Main/Project talk.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Your answer to Q5 indicates a very mechanistic view on when to impose sanctions for edit warring, but the more troubling divination from it was that you'd misuse the protection tool in response to edit wars. Full protection has no constructive use outside of enforcing BLP or preventing extreme vandalism, and applying it as the response to an edit war only exacerbates the problems that existed before. If several people have bypassed the negotiating stage and are already editing in a hostile manner, what makes you think that they'll sit down after you protect the article? More likely, the "winner" will slide off while the "loser" fumes for a while; during all this, the article is also locked from constructive editing by bona fide editors. It also has the effect of causing harm in the future, because it will condition the guilty parties that the response to combative editing will be a light one. east.718 at 02:51, May 13, 2008
    The protection policy currently says that protection can be used to stop an edit war. See WP:PROT#Content_disputes. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    One thing I'd like to add is that blocks are not a form of punishment, nor should they ever be used to cool off upset editors. The most effective way to constructively resolve the edit war is indeed to full-protect the page in order to send the disputing parties to the talk page, where consensus can be reached. The involved parties can't very well discuss their disagreement while they're confined to their talk pages, afterall. Parsecboy (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Per Q#5. Protection should only be used when blocking is ineffective (eg. large amounts of vandalism, BLP issues, or when the edit war is so out of hand blocking would not work). In the case posed above (question number 5) you could have blocked all the user who had refused to partake in the talk page discussions for disruption and edit warring, understand that just because a user has not violated 3RR does not mean they can not be blocked. I am sorry to say, but I think this demonstrates a poor ability to make good judgment in content disputes, and one of the only ways you are going to gain better judgment in that area is to actively participate in content discussion and work on improving articles (eg. more mainspace contribtuions). You have defiantly got the anti-vandalism stuff down and I know you would use the block button appropriately, but to be honest there is not a large demand for admins who will monitor AIV, I mean how often do you see a {{adminbacklog}} tag on AIV, opposed to areas like RFPP, and CAT:CSD. Sorry, I just feel that there is still much to be learned. Also per East718. Tiptoety talk 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - p/q5. I believe more mainspace work and review of blocking/ protection policies would be needed before further consideration. Also per tiptoety and east.718. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose- Mate, I feel bloody awful for this, but your answer to question 5 really worried me. Tiptoety explained the concerns well, but generally, I see it, as all the pros and cons about protecting a page need to be weighed before protection, as in, whether the issue can be resolved another way, ie blocking, or whether the pros of protection outweighs the cons of protection. I just feel you're not too sure on this right now. Sorry. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Additionally, I saw that Addshore has had no work in Dispute resolution, something that while not required, helps greatly when determining the ability to determine a candidate's ability to handle complex conflicts, as well as edit wars, something that an administrator is required to do in their day-to day duties. I also checked and saw a lack of content contributions. While I trust the nominator, and Addshore, it doesn't change the fact I feel he's not ready for the tools. Not yet anyway. Sorry  :(   Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Changing to Neutral. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose First, almost all of his edits have occured in the past 4 months---that's 20K edits in 4 months. He has essentially no experience prior to then. Second, there is an incredible lack of article building. His defining article is Torquay Boys' Grammar School which leaves a lot to be desired and he's made a total of 15 edits on it (including reversions of vandalism.) I can live with no article building if the person contributes constructively to other aspects of the project, but when their contributions is vandal fighting, I want to know the person in question has experience with building the encyclopedia in same manner. Third, if you ignore AIV, which has edits due to his use of tools/bots, then he has virtually no Wikispace or Wiki talk space edits. Fourth, while he has over 7K edits on user talk space, 300 are on his user talk and about 100 on the next 15 most edited user talk spaces that he's edited. In other words, almost all of his edits are drive by warnings/templates---unfortunately, this was encouraged during his coaching. Fifth, virtually all of his edits are drive by edits. In other words I don't see any material edits. They are almost all using tools/bots---of course you would expect that when you have 20K (undeleted) edits in less than 4 months. Even most of his edits to the talk space are reversions of edits. I see no effort to build community or guage consensus. I see no experience in areas where diplomacy or tact are required. There is no discussing policies or refining of understanding.Balloonman (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose but subject to change if the candidate answers the questions left for him well. I have to agree that the lack of content editing leaves a large gap in an area that i feel all admins should have some experience. I'm not looking for an FA or GA or anything like, although one would be perfect if you could do it, its just that i need to see that you understands the policies from a broader point of view. I would like to see some extra content, thats reliable, verifiable and correct. Maybe reviewing some GAN's would be another way of doing this. Id say find someone to buddy up with and go through some GAN's and review them, and perhaps go to FAC and really go through one or two finding some errors that haven't been brought up before and correct them yourself if able to or comment on the FAC. I would be very interested in seeing whether you have any experience in DR again this is something i feel an admin should have a taste of. In this instance pop into medcab and find a case you'd like to mediate and ask around for someone to help you with it. Come back in say 2 months if you've successfully shown these and show competency in the questions and youll have my full support Id be willing to do that myself if you did. If you pass your RfA then id request you follow these suggestions anyway, as even as an admin you should be learning. I hope these comments have been helpful, i really wanna see you pass an RfA with flying colours. But as i have said if you answer the questions above with no further concerns you may receive my support sooner. -- Seddon69 (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just to be clear: you are holding the editor to ransom over answering a collection of arbitrarily-constructed questions that deal in some cases with highly-specific one-time examples, before you will contemplate support. At least that exposes the myth that any of the thirteen questions are 'optional'. Splash - tk 13:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hardly. Those are perfectly legitimate questions. Regarding your statement that they are highly-specific one-time examples, that is fine, too. Sure, everybody makes mistakes, but once a patern of mistakes show up it becomes harder to support, and in some cases requires a further in-depth analysis by asking questions. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    "Perfectly legitimate" does not make them remotely useful. For example, "What do you enjoy about being an editor on Wikipedia? Why?" has nothing to do with working out whether a person's judgement is sound enough to be an admin, and frankly is none of anyone's business either. I'm disappointed that now you also insist that the candidate answer such trivialities. (Your edit summary is wrong, btw. There is nothing sacronsanct about silly questions). Splash - tk 13:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    That is incorrect. If an editor, such as myself and Seddon69, have even the slightest doubt in their mind that the nominee might not use the tools to the best of their abilities, then we ask questions to get answers. Yes, that question has everything in the world to do with working out whether a person's judgement is sound enough to be an admin. If Addshore answers with "I hate Wikipedia and I always have", then that is a strong basis to oppose on. Knowing that will not be the case, the answer to that question will most likely give us an idea of what Addshore likes about Wikipedia, and why he/she feels a need for the tools. Also, my edit summary is perfectly correct. You have no right whatsoever to change somebody else's comments on a talk page. That could even be considered vandalism. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    I apologise if it seems im holding addshore to ransom but it was that i felt that he could show that he does have an understanding of policies and that my requests that he does more article work might not be necessary if he shows he is competant. I fully understand that we all make mistakes and i wanted to show that i was open to him showing he is ready for the tools. Seddon69 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC) PS i have assumed good faith that addshore will know what questions are important to answer and those which are trivial. Seddon69 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well I am about the answer the questions. The reason I only answered what I did before was as it was gone midnight in my time and I had to get up the next day. Then I have been out all of today so I Will couldn't answer any. I am just about to start on them now! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Sorry for this one, but — as a number of others have said, if you're going to cite Torquay Boys' Grammar School as an example of your best work, I don't think you understand Wikipedia's core policies yet; this article is an incoherent, unreferenced mess, at least 80% of which should be removed as either inappropriate content or content forks. Sorry, but I don't think you'd be at all credible doing the major (I'd say primary) admin task of explaining policy to others, and even though you've not said you intend to work in XfD, I don't trust you with the Delete button. — iridescent 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    I did not say that I was going to work in the entire of XFD. I only said about AFD's and CSD's. Both of these I have had experiance in. Also in my opinion I do know all of the "core" policies I "need" to and if I ever would find something that I didn't know what to do in as I didn not know the policy it doesnt take long to go and read up on it and to "learn" the policy. I can't acctually think of any current admin that can openly say he has a knowledge of every policy he would like to. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 09:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    changing to Strong oppose in light of comments in "Discussion" section above. — iridescent 13:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Reluctant oppose This candidate obviously is doing a great job at vandal fighting with the available tools; this does not mean that they would do a great job at being an admin. My worry is that this candidate will, in response to an administrative backlog (see Q1) wander into unfamiliar territory, and do more harm than good. I read the answer to Q3 as implying that the candidate expects problematic editors to follow a standard path from newbie to vandal to blocked to banned, and will happily use the tools to speed this process along (see Q15). I just don't think that is what being an admin is all about. There is another side to Wikipedia, and that is working with editors who want to build an encyclopaedia, but who are having problems (for whatever reason). I think this candidate needs more experience working to help them solve those problems. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose – I am sorry if I am coming off too critical here, but let me start breaking down the numbers. First, you made 19,651 edits, just in Feb – Mar- Apr. Which constitutes 92.4% of your total edits of 21,160. If we count May, and this being only May 13 (Not even half way through the month), and add your 1,037 edit to the total, making for 20,688 total edits in 3.5 months, which makes for a grand total of 98% of all edits in less that 115 days of your total experience here at Wikipedia. This constitutes, working 8 hours a day, every day (Sat and Sun included), no bathroom breaks – no lunch – dinner – or breakfast time, 1 edit every 30 seconds! Even with that considered, only 1.3 average. No, sorry to say, not ready for the extra buttons, especially to start deciding what articles stay or are deleted, let alone who may be blocked or not. You do not even give yourself time to breath, let alone make a decision.ShoesssS Talk 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. oppose An admin who expects to be devoted primarily to vandal fighting should at least be expected to know the protection policy. Cf. q5, above. To take such a problem as reason to fullly protect an article is perhaps from a lack of realisation of the problems that occur in actually editing articles. That's the reason for requiring mainspace work: it's the way to get perspective of what is after all the core of WP. (I would not oppose for this alone, but I suggest that it explains the problems) And the numbers calculated by Shoessss show an excessive reliance on either automated tools or the equivalent. Insufficient evidence of using individual judgement. DGG (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. This user doesn't really understand how things work around here. He would issue indefinite protections and blocks in situations where more muted measures would solve the problem. Answers to questions 5 and 15 do not demonstrate the nuanced thinking I'm looking for. Also, it's okay if you don't spell every word correctly, but at least try to show you can present yourself professionally. Repeatedly using lowercase "i" does not impress me, nor does this sentence from question 3: "There have defiantly been users that have caused me stress though." That certainly means something, but not what you intended. ("Defiantly" means "refusing to back down.") If you can't take an RFA seriously, why should I expect you to take blocking and protecting seriously? I haven't checked the article writing etc. as pointed out by Balloonman, but it seems to fit this pattern of superficial action without thought. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    While most of your comments are pefectly fine, how does a lack of grammar knowledge affect how an editor will preform as an admin?
  12. Oppose We already have more vandal-zappers than we need. No more non-content editors until we are much better balanced. Answers to questions are also very weak. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Weak Oppose - it looks like Addshore needs more experience in article writing and conflict resolution. Promoting people without first hand experience in those areas often lead to bad results Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Iridescent. Giano (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Strong Oppose per Iridescent's strong oppose, and because of a somewhat worrying tone in responding (or in some cases, not responding) to questions and comments here. Changed to strong oppose after difficulties with communication on talk pages as I tried to help out this candidate, as detailed above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Per 12:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC) comment. dihydrogen monoxide (H<sub92>2O) 13:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose (two edit conflicts) I have my reasons, but they are mostly indentical to what has already been said above. My biggest concern right now is a lack of experience. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. If some or all tbgs.co.uk content is available under a free license (GFDL, public domain, etc. — "Wikipedia may use it" is not a free license) their site can be updated to reflect this. I will consider supporting if the copyright status is verified in this way or by some other robust means. — CharlotteWebb 13:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    If this occurs before the RFA closes, please notify me on my talk page and strike out the above comment (in case I don't have time to react). — CharlotteWebb 13:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. The copyvios on Torquay Boys' Grammar School are a concern. Actually, the copyvios are just the symptom; the true problem here is the complete and total ignorance of such a key Wikipedia policy. I don't expect our admin candidates to know every policy and guideline like the back of their hand, but for such a core policy, and really such a blatantly obvious one, to be ignored like that... no, sorry, can't support. Some of the other concerns voiced above are equally valid, but the copyvio/policy ignorance is specifically what spurred me on to actual participation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Per the plagiarism issue referred to above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose initially per Irid, and now also per EVula, as he has perfectly summed up how I feel. The answers to questions and in the discussion are quite concerning. As supports usually have the expression, "no worries here", this is a case where I certainly do see some serious worries in regards to adminship. When at an RfA, when the candidate knows everyone is watching, he still shows a gross misunderstanding of core policy (which can be looked up), I then question how future issues will be handled regarding policies, core or peripheral. For a succesful RfA, the candidate needs to show that he can apply policy correctly, or at least to show the ability to research policy that they are unclear with. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose based on sloppy and troublesome answers. Keepscases (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose based on troubling answers and responses to the comments section above - user has displayed an apparent lack of understanding regarding important policies. Arkyan 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  24. Insufficient knowledge of copyright. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  25. oppose lacks experience in substantive matters, article writing not least. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  26. Weak Oppose - I came in to give moral support, but questionable edit counts and lack of strong overall experience says that your time is yet to come; check back in six months, then maybe.--Bedford 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  27. Per plagiarism/copyvio concerns, which are very serious, and a general lack of knowledge of policies. Ral315 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per answer in question five. Antonio Lopez (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per lack of article writing, and, among other things, the copyright issues. A little more experience and work in the relevant areas may mean I support next time. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose candidate is an editor, therefore can't support. Al Tally (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Al Tally previously supported candidate based upon his edits. For some reason he appears to be making a point by voting oppose on all candidates.Balloonman (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Vote striken out. The user is parody of User:Kmweber; WP:POINT troll. Icewedge (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Undid strike out. This type of oppose has been discussed ad naseum on AN/I, WT:RFA, RFC, and Arbcom cases. User has the right to oppose, crats will assess appropriately.Balloonman (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Stricken per [thisBalloonman (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  30. Reluctant oppose. I base this mainly on the lack of article work, but I do have some concerns about the answers to my optional questions.
    • Q. 14) Perhaps I was unclear, I meant to indicate that the actual person was editing their own biography, for instance, a User:Hillary Clinton making edits to Hillary Clinton that is actually Hillary Clinton. Since the editor was only making minor edits, I think you read into the question a bit too much. But I appreciate your candor.
    • Q. 15) From my understanding of RFPP, and the associated policy, 4 vandalism edits in 7 days is not enough to warrant any protection, which I think you gathered, but the blocking part seems a bit zealous to me. I think if you go back and reread the guidelines, and were to come back again in a month or two, you'd answer this question perfectly.
    • Q. 16) This one troubled me. Its an opinion question, so I do not base my decision on your answer, but the reason I asked it was to see if you were familiar with the AfD/DRV process. Its not necessary, in fact, you did not list AfD as an area you were planning on working on. But the important thing (I think) about DRV, is as follows: DRV is really not AfD round 2. Yes, if an article becomes notable and it has been deleted, it can be reviewed at DRV, if the original material would somehow be relevant in improving it--otherwise, and again, this is my limited understanding, editors are free to recreate it without going to DRV. The primary purpose of DRV is to ensure that the AfD was closed properly. Basically, a review of the closing admin's judgment, in the AfD sense, to see if consensus was established, but also to review speedy deletions, which you did say you were planning to work on. Not every speedy is correct, and DRV is sort of the penultimate review. Perhaps in the coming months you will stop by and spend some time there. I think its one of the most valuable assets on Wikipedia.
    Sadly, your answers this time were not strong enough to make up for your lack of article editing experience. I think you're an asset to Wikipedia and I'm sure I will support the next RfA, after you reread some policies, spend a little time at DRV, and finish a good article as is your stated goal. Good luck! MrPrada (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  31. Oppose Lack of contributions in writing articles and participating in discussion. Admins are expected to hear people's opinion more.--Appletrees (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Not very many of your edits have been in writing articles and based upon what numerous other people have said above, you do not seem to have a clear understanding of what protections and blocks are used for and when they are appropriate. Someone above said that blocks are not a punishment, and to tell you the truth, your answer to that question makes me cringe. Most of your edits have been in the past 4 months, with no experience prior to that, which means that you do not have at least 6 months of experience that I like seeing in my supports. You also clearly have trouble understanding the copyright policies on the English Wikipedia. For these reasons, I cannot support you at this time. Take care, Razorflame Report false positives 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  33. Oppose I am not, for reasons a recitation of which I will save everyone, particularly concerned about the (putative) lack of article-writing experience, and I don't know that Addshore's involvement in project space fails to provide a sufficient record upon which to base conclusions about his knowledge of policy and practice (in fact, it appears clear to me that Addshore is relatively conversant in policy and practice, even if it is not altogether clear that he well apprehends whereof the guiding practice and policy of which he does not fully know), but I do join in the concerns about judgment and temperament raised by Shalom (although not in those terms, and perhaps more couchedly), and so, notwithstanding the good deal that there is to commend Addshore to adminship and the fact that most of my (passive) interactions with him have been quite fine, I can't—at least at this time—conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 04:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. His many, many edits over the past few months are almost exclusively devoted to vandal patrolling—way too little experience writing articles or in discussion/dispute resolution on article talk pages. I have no idea whether he would make an acceptable admin. Needs to round out his experience, IMO. Sunray (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral Article-writing experience is too weak for me to support. Epbr123 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. neutral at the moment, but I can see I'll probably change to support. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral, I haven't found any discernible article work in the last 1000 edits. Not sure if admin tools would be of any further use as user is already adept at vandal fighting. Perhaps the answers to the questions will sway me one way or the other. MrPrada (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Switched to oppose. MrPrada (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I see no reason that Addshore would abuse the tools, but I would definitely prefer more article and talk experience. SpencerT♦C 22:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral for now, leaning to support. I want to take a closer look at this one, and it will take me a little more time than most due to his having 21,000 edits. However, I am disappointed in his article work, I had to go back to April 22nd to find an edit to the mainspace that wasn't revert or tagging. That edit can be found here and I don't think it was a great one, using "you" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. If anyone can find a more recent mainspace contribution, please let me know. Also, your Wikipedia Talk edit count is only at 39, so I fear you don't communicate with other editors enough. Useight (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Moral neutral --Gurchzilla (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - no real article or talk experience, one of the best vandal fighters we have but that alone is not enough to show how he will deal with XfD's etc..around since 2005 but only really active since February and only because of Huggles..not a really good indicator..sorry..--Cometstyles 05:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah... using a tool I wrote is a clear sign of bad judgement --Gurchzilla (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, but using tools exclusively denies us the ability to guage what type of person this is. We have no means of knowing how he handles conflict or what he thinks/believes. All of his edits are automated, may as well program a bot.Balloonman (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Not all of my edits are automated edits, and I didn't start using huggle for almost a month into my mass activity. Also in the recent weeks i have been using it lot less and trying to switch over to other points of wikipedia, such as my bot making and helping out around that area. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, almost all of your edits are using tools. Enough so that I have significant reservations.Balloonman (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I prefer to stay Neutral for the following reasons.
    Most of the editing is done since last 4 months though a member since 2005 See count
    Jumping to revert edits before making sure diff
    Less activities in Wikiprojects and article expansions/creations.
    With such mass activity, I am just wondering if it is with the aid of tools only.
    Altough there are lots of appreciation See Awards , why is there less activity on other User Talk pages ?
    It is to be noted that he is still a good vandal fighter , Operate a Bot ( Wish I could make one), But I am a bit confused .. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 06:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral: My concerns still stand, and this wasn't me buckling from pressure put on me, after reconsidering, Addy can be trusted with the tools, but he has areas that need working on. Really, I should abstain from this RFA, but as I already !voted, only changing my vote to neutral would be best. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral; Addshore seems to have very good ways to contribute with administrator tools, but I am concerned about how he deals with disputes. The answer to question No. 3 did gave me the impression that either he had not run into any big disputes, or that he did not consider much how he dealt with them. While it is great if someone has not had any disputes, if that is in fact true, I think that administrators should have some experience with dealing with conflict, as they will certainly run into it as they go about their various administrator tasks. If there could be elaboration on that point/consideration of past conflicts in more specification, I would feel more comfortable supporting, but at this time I must remain neutral. -- Natalya 15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral - not convinced that this editor is ready for adminship but there doesn't seem to be any reason to actively oppose. Arkyan 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral, for now Pending the answer to my question. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Neutral - I've seen you around, and most of your contributions are good, but some of them are a bit "interesting" (per say), and I may have to agree with Iridecent. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 04:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. Need to write more instead of just purely combating vandalism. People expect admins to be working more than just reverting vandals. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Neutral. I'd have to agree with User:Epbr123 and User:Iridescent. Also a few unanswered, and important questions above. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Reluctantly changing to Neutral for now. There have been too many valid questions raised by the opposes and I need some time to study the details. —Travistalk
  14. Neutral - this candidate is not the worst at all, but I'm concerned re. the copyvio issues mentioned above. If I could see something stronger here re. copyright or even some progress on the above issues, I will likely reconsider - Alison ❤ 06:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Neutral - Overall, after a long review I am getting the impression you are a good candidate with one or two concerns preventing me from supporting. The answer to question 5 does not actually concern me, especially taking into account that hypothetical questions often lack the detail necessary determine the correct course of action, such as reason for page protection request, what is actually happening on the talk page etc. Your answer was not perfect, but it was not completely wrong. Page protection can be used in response to content disputes to encourage people to discuss the issue on the talk page per Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes. Blocking is often better in isolated edit warring only involving a one or two users, but there is no blanket rule, and often full page protection can often inflame the situation a lot less than what some can see as "one sided" and disputable spirit-3RR blocking. Though I would still avoid a "fixed penalty" approach on blocking users for edit warring, for example it is often unnecessary if page protection is given, and is good to make sure that users are aware of 3RR before any block is given. Spelling skills do no concern me, I can't spell either and I know I have got defiantly and definitely muddled up - it does not hugely affect the ability to be a good admin. The copyvio issues are a concern however, I would carefully review copyright policies and get familiar with them as you will need to know them as an admin. The overall impression I am getting here is that you need more experience, continue contributing try and diversify you edits and you will do well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Neutral per Alison. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Neutral - almost there as far as I'm concerned. Good points: lots of edits, lots of talk, rollback rights. Needs improvement: more time, especially at XfD - 4 months' active service is not quite enough for me. I won't oppose what appears to be a fine editor from getting the tools. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Copyright knowledge's the only major concern here for me, really. Looking forward to giving my strong support next time around, as I'm sure you'll improve in these areas by that time! :) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. Neutral - I think some more article writing would be a net positive for the well-rounded admin. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.