Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Addshore

Addshore

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (86/16/8); Scheduled to end 22:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Addshore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hi all, I don't think I need to introduce Adam to you, since he is around far longer than I am and most of you should know him. I am happy to nominate him for a bureaucratship, because I believe he is serving as a great administrator for a long time, with lot of experiences and have made a lot of useful contribution to the wikipedia project (and not just to english one).

He is currently serving as a member of a Bot Approval Group and as such he could find the access to bureaucrat tools (specifically ability to change the bot flags) quite useful. English wikipedia doesn't have so many bureaucrats and this often slows the process of bot approval. In fact it's not only the bot approval which isn't working as smooth as many of us would like to have it, but also many other requests, such as requests to rename a user (yes, I know, this is likely going to be done by stewards in future).

Yes, I know that is not a lot of stuff to do with the flag, but in the end, bureaucrat flag doesn't really give one many powers, unlike the adminship. So beside flagging the bots and renaming users, bureaucrats are also able to close RfA's and flag the new administrators. This indeed requires a lot of experience, trust and knowledge of the process and I believe Adam got that all. Thank you all for your feedback on this candidate and for reading this long text written in a poor english... Petrb (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Fellow Wikipedians, I have known Adam for many months and I have yet to meet a Wikipedian who is as active in dealing with bot requests than Adam (who currently is not a bureaucrat of course). The nominator above outlined most of what I was going to say that he is an active BAG member and is well experienced but one thing I thought was not mentioned was Adam himself.

He is a great user who has always put the encyclopedia before himself and is always ready to help new users and with bureaucrat, to help new bot operators and newly inexperienced administrators to get into the ropes and to be productive. As a closure to this co-nomination, May I just say Adam will be a great addition to the bureaucrat team and all of his work will be for the better of the encyclopedia regardless of what he is asked to do, he will do it. And due to that, I ask you kindly to consider Adam and to support him in his bureaucrat request. Thank you, John F. Lewis (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nominations above. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A: Over time we have generally decided that if 80% or more of the community votes support a user then that user is generally trusted by the community. In addition, if under 70% support a user then that user generally does not have community trust. Within the range of 70%-80% is more uncertain. There have been exceptions to this rule where the bureaucrats felt that a consensus had been reached to promote with less support than is typical of an RfA.

So, while there may be several times a crat would promote at 73% or fail at 75%, it is a near certainty that they would not fail at 79% or pass at 68%. This seems to fit current practise. Inside the 'uncertain' range extra analysis may be needed and 'crat discussions' can usually be expected. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: We work together to solve our problems. Discussion with the community, and with other bureaucrats is key. The community needs to see and know that decisions have been taken for defined reasons. If I felt I justified to promote or not to promote I would do so, at the end of the day it is very improbable that 100% of people will share an opinion, therefore there will always be a number that can or will criticize any decision. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A: I believe I am fair over my years as a contributor and admin. I always try to keep my cool and act fairly to users I have had disagreements with, and try to put the past behind me. Of course none of us are perfect. We all make errors and bad judgment calls, I have made them in the past and I think any user who is honest with themselves will say the same. The important thing is to learn. I have worked in a wide range of area through time creating a knowledge of policy across the board. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from RegentsPark

4. In the RfA mentioned by Kraxler (oppose #1) below, the candidate's stated reason for seeking admin bits was that he was to some extent, after seven years, I'm just getting bored with editing. It would be nice to have something new to explore. I'm curious how, as a bureaucrat, you would handle oppose !votes that cite this statement, especially if the RfA ended up in the discretionary range.

A: As mentioned below, if I had had such an involvement in an RFA such as Jason Quinn's I would not have made any crat action towards the RFA or even participated in any crat discussion to decided a result. I feel doing so would just be wrong.. If I was an uninvolved crat naturally I would have taken all comments into account and if the RFA ended up in the 'discretionary range' naturally there would be more involvement in the decision than just me. In my opinion such opposes do not really carry much weight in the scheme of things, comments on good contributions to the project and good past decisions far outweigh an oppose quoting the candidate saying that just editing is boring. I am sure many people would say that from time to time monotonous edits to the site can be boring, only a few of those would be willing to say such a thing during an RFA. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Regentsparks comment below makes me feel as if I may have worded this answer in a slightly odd way so just to clear up when I say "I would not have made any crat action towards the RFA" this means I would not close such an RFA or take part in any crat discussion. ·addshore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Mkdw

5. Are there any RFAs that have either passed or failed in which a bureaucrat exercised their discretion and the result was one you disagreed? If so, could you provide us with those examples and walk us through why you disagreed?

A: Naturally all of the RFAs that I supported that failed I feel come under the umbrella of this question. I am not sure really how to walk you through them but I will try my best. The following RFAs are taken from here. User:Thingg was the first RFA I supported that failed, my support was for Thingg being a 'Good editor, vandal fighter and i think he will also be a good admin'. This RFA failed with (69/32/4) and Thingg succeeded later in the year with a second RFA. My second support that did not fall in line with consensus at the time was to User:Aitias where I saw a fine editor that in my opinion would have served the community well with the admin flag. This RFA failed with (66/27/6) and the user later succeeded on their third RFA. With User:SynergeticMaggot again I saw a good editor I felt would serve the community well, this RFA was withdrawn at (19/13/3). User:Enigmaman again I supported, the RFA failed and the user succeeded with their following RFA. Other RFAs that I have voted in that may fall under this question include User:RyanLupin 2, User:Lady Aleena 2, User:Milk's Favorite Cookie 2, User:TenPoundHammer 6, User:CWii, User:Nja247, User:Vacation9, User:Theopolisme 2 and User:Jasper Deng. If you wish me to try and walk through any of these in particular please just poke me. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

5A. I think you misunderstood Mkdw's question. Are there any closes by bureaucrats with which you disagree (i.e. because the result was successful when you don't think there was a consensus to promote, or vice versa)? WJBscribe (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A: I agree I think I misunderstood this question as SilkTork pointed back to it in Q9. I have never noticed a close in an RFA that I have disagreed with, and had I ever noticed such an RFA I would have raised it as in Q10. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Rcsprinter123

6. As a bureaucrat, would you easily give up the position if some editors thought you'd screwed up a decision somewhere?

A: If I lost the trust of the community I would happily give up the flag, crats are after all in their position to serve the community. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from My76Strat

7. Your editing history shows a pattern of editing and availability followed by extended periods of absence. Do you expect to be reasonably available in the future or is it fair to assume this "on again off again" cycle will continue?

A: I presume you are referring to my disappearing act that started at some point in 2010. I currently expect that I will have the same level of activity in the future as I have in the past few months. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Demiurge1000

8. Given the concerns expressed, and now expanded upon, in my Oppose below, if this RfB were successful, would you agree not to act as a bureaucrat in the case of an RfA by any of the first, say, half dozen of your supporters in this RfB?

A: I struggle to see what is so important about the first half dozen of my supporters. If the RFB were successful I presume this would be due to the community trusting me, my decisions and my actions. If I were involved in an RFA or had a strong opinion one way or another I would probably not be closing such a request as a crat.. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from SilkTork

9. Looking back at question 5, do you feel you have answered the question that was asked?

A: Potentially not. I now realise that the question may have been talking about other RFAs, not just those that I voted in. Quickly looking back at the RFAs I did list above the only end decision that was borderline was Theopolisme_2 but I agree with this end decision. There may be some RFA crat decisions that I disagree with but to try and find such an RFA is a rather impossible task in the scheme of things. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from SilkTork

10. If you noticed that a particular 'Crat was frequently closing RfAs with a decision that you disagreed with, what steps would you take?

A: I would probably first of all discuss with another editor to make sure I was not going mad or had missed anything obvious. I would raise the decisions on the crats talk page and try to understand further why they made them. If nothing came of any of this and I was still 'worried' about the crats RFA closes I would probably bring the closes to WP:BN to be discussed further. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 22:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)

11. Your answer to question 1 makes only passing reference to consensus (in the context of what other bureaucrat's have done, not how you propose to close RfAs). Other than looking at % support/oppose, how would you go about assessing the outcome of RfAs & RfBs?

A: Expanding on my answer to question 1, the 70-80% range of support mentioned is a 'general' way to see the direction of a discussion, closing a consensus based discussion is 'not just a head count' and therefore the percentage itself holds little 'real' value without the arguments attached to the votes. Bureaucrats are expected to promote candidates where there is a community consensus that they are suitable for adminship and to not promote where such consensus is absent. Consensus is determined by what the general opinion or agreement of the people participating in the discussion. To be able to judge where the consensus lies the whole discussion must be read, opposes that are along the lines of "I oppose because he once warned me/blocked me/deleted my article", when the action was actually following policy, would generally be discarded. Now quoting a page "those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" would also likely be discarded. After judging the arguments presented the discussion would either be closed as successful with consensus or not successful with no consensus, and an explanation of how the decision was reached. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 16:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from RightCowLeftCoast

12. Although the content on Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, are there articles on Wikipedia that are not neutral? If so, please provide examples, and why you believe they are not neutral. Although Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, editors opinions are not; as such, what is your opinion of the communities political balance at this time? Are there political ideologies that have greater representatives than others? If so, which ideologies? How does this affect the community? How would this affect your role as an bureaucrat?

A: There are indeed articles that are not neutral on wikipedia, this can be seen at Category:NPOV disputes, this is a natural product of collaboration. People generally go to edit an article because they have an interest in the topic, but their POV should not be seen in the article and it should be as unbiased as possible, opposing views need to be described clearly drawing on sources from a disinterested viewpoint. Problems naturally occur when there are a group of sources that say a lot about one side but not the other, so the article appears to be one sided as that is the information that we can source. I have found a great example of an IP editor changing the swing of a lead section on Paparazzi removing a bias view and rewriting this to have a much more even weighthing here. Carbon offset is also a great example, the lead (as far as I saw) contains only one real view, that carbon offsets are amazing, while the article itself contains a section called Controversies that I don't see mentioned in the lead. The lead should try to summarize the content within the article briefly going over content from all sections where possible. In the terms of the 'grand political spectrum' I would say that Wikipedia tries to be central although this can naturally sway toward a side at certain times. Trying to analyse the project as a whole is a rather large task and due to the ever changing nature I feel it may also be rather impossible. I don't feel that this will effect my role as a bureaucrat much more, if any more, than it has affected my role as an administrator. Each case is individual and must be looked at as just that. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 10:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

13. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Addshore, what are your faults? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you as a bureaucrat?

A: Everyone has their faults and I am no exception. One of my biggest on wiki faults is not finishing things that I have started, there are several examples such as pages that I started cleaning up a year or so ago that I have not changed or finished since, much of this can be seen in and around bots on wiki. It would seem I can also come across as intimidating when communicating and discussing on site as has been pointed out recently below, this is of course bad but it is also something that I would love to change if possible, I value peoples opinion of me and will always strive to be a 'better' addshore on wiki. In reality the crat flag has changed alot over the years, and is still changing as soon the ability to rename users will also be removed. I feel I have proven myself as a trustworthy administrator and see no reason for this trust not to be carried over to the bureaucrat role. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

14. Although all people have their faults, we also have our strengths, those things that set ourselves apart (in a positive way) from others. Therefore, what are your strengths? How would those strengths benefit the community as you as a potential bureaucrat?

A: I see myself as an honest contributor open to criticism and I am always willing to learn from any mistakes that I have made. I feel that I always manage to stay calm and assess situations before acting upon them. I wouldn't jump in a pool of burning acid for someone but I always try to help out in any other way possible. I have strengths in bot related work on site running multiple bots and assessing bot proposals before they approved as part of my BAG duties. The latter will of course help me to serve the community in terms of the bot flag and my calm nature and ability to assess before acting is sure to help me serve at requests for permissions and the closing of and participation in discussions. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

15. Do you have experience in conflict/dispute resolution? If so, please describe this experience and how it would assist you as a bureaucrat?

A: Dispute resolution appears all of the site, and I have had my fair share of experience resolving such disputes in a variety of different areas on wiki and in life. Unfortunately the specifics of such experiences (such as where they were or what they were involving) tend not to hang around in my so I can't really link to anything specific. One 'dispute' that I do remember involved one of my bot tasks back in 2009 and can be seen here which also spanned 3 or 4 other locations which i feel I handeled well. My experience with disputes would not really help me specifically in the role as a bureaucrat as a bureaucrat is not some sort of 'super-admin' assigned to resolve disputes. This aside the experience has helped me as a contributor and administrator in my daily activities. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 12:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

16. Please inform us of any conflict of interest, if any, which you may have. Do you pledge to use the admin tools without your political opinions effecting their usage? Do you pledge to recuse yourself from areas where bureaucrat actions are required in situations where you may have a conflict of interest?

A: I will always have my own POV on some issues but I am generally always focused upon the main aim of Wikipedia which is to produce a neutral, sourced encyclopedia. As far as I can tell I have not really had any conflict of interest previously as defined at WP:COI, although in an ever changing world this of course may change. As mentioned above, if I hold a strong view about anything in particular or am involved in a large way I would not take any action as a bureaucrat. Examples of this include the Jason Quinn RFA where of course I would not have taken any bureaucratic action and also on the bot side I would never assign my own bot, or a bot I was involved in creating, the bot flag. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 12:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

17a. As an Admin, you must have had to make many difficult calls. Please give us an example where you had to make a difficult call, and how your call was based on established guidelines and policies. How does that difficult call reflects positively upon your candidacy?

17b. Also, please give us an example where you had to make a difficult call, how your call was based on established guidelines and policies, and was not received positively by the community, or a portion of the community. How did that difficult call help you grow as an Admin? Were you ever able to establish a positive rapport with those editors later, if so how, if not why not?

A: I have chosen to answer these two questions as one as they are both very similar. The only difference is how the community, or portion of the community has reacted to a call.

First I will start with the call that has been raised below on this RFB regarding my warning of User:Demiurge1000 which I now see seems to have been received differently by different portions of the community. Naturally this call was some months ago and I can not remember the details myself and am replying on what I can still see on wiki. My attention was brought to User:Demiurge1000 on IRC after they 'refactored' an oppose on an RFA here. I then also stumbled upon the recent edits on AutomaticStrikeouts user page and posted a gentle message (well it seemed gentle to me) here on Demiurge1000's talk page. Looking back on this I did indeed miss the intention of the first diff I have linked to, I stand by my warning for the warning on AutomaticStrikeouts user page which as said somewhere below was an unnecessary war. My decision above was based mainly on WP:WAR, partly on WP:3RR, the user seemed to be getting into multiple wars in multiple places instead of talking about the issue. As has been said below this whole sequence of events could have been entirely different with more communication and clearer communication between all parties involved.

The second call that I made originates from a message that I received here involving User:Colton Cosmic. I spent a long time researching this user that previously I had heard very little about. After looking at everything I decided not to unblock, as I saw it if the initial block were seen to be wrong and the user were to be unblocked they would simply be reblocked per WP:BLOCK and the evasion of blocks. Naturally CC was disappointed with my decision but soon after this User:Nihonjoe did unblock under heavy opposition and WP:ANI showed (although I do not seem to be able to find the section in archives). I stand by my original call not to unblock (which I gather would have been accepted by the community as the opposite action was strongly opposed) although I still raised all points that I had come across on the administrators noticeboard as I still felt more digging should be done.

From the first call described I would say my lesson learned after looking back is to double and triple check as there was a detail that I had missed. Oddly with my second call where I did not unblock CC I double and triple checked everything, researching the order of events and every detail of the events that unfolded even checking my opinion against that of other admins. Again looking back I feel this is so because I did not see my warning to Demiurge1000 as a big deal, I was simply dropping a note (thinking about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars) and reminding them of policy. I wouldnt say a positive rapport has been established, overall I feel the lead of Wikipedia:Truce is very relevant. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 14:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast

Followup to question 16. So the Admin has no external relations which may trigger any conflict of interest on Wikipedia?

A:Hmmm. I would say that there are some things that may trigger a conflict of interest. Everything anyone does or enjoys is a potential COI, for example bacon, I love bacon and would hate to see an article on bacon be deleted. Nothing really stands out to me as being a COI issue. I am here for the project, not for bacon. But on a serious note, everyone has potential COI, it is just a case of how they deal with it on the project that matters. (sorry for the bacon joke) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 20:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Mohamed CJ

18. When this Rfb is over, are you going to restore the symbol to your signature? I want to make sure you're not only changing it for the sake of passing.

A: No going back. I have even changed it on the other projects I work on! I had never thought about it making my name harder to search on pages before. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Addshore: Addshore (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for addshore can be found here.
• RfA voting stats posted to the talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Why is the end time only 4 days and a bit from now? Is there a mistake or are RfB's now only 5 days long? —Soap— 16:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. Full 7 days now. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems it was substed at an odd time; Im changing it to 10:09 4 June 2013 to see if this fixes the template. Let me know if I did it wrong and don't notice please. —Soap— 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this seems to be sure to the fact that the RFB was substed, unsubstituted and my acceptance was then delayed by 2 days. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support good on the bot stuff. --Rschen7754 10:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per my nomination Petrb (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. mabdul 11:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Co-nom. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Legoktm (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Support I told him to run 10 times, and asked him to nominate him 5. So, that explains everything fairly. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Addshore has been nothing but helpful to me since I started on Wikipedia, providing support regardless of the project. I'd go so far as to support stewardship, and I strongly support this nomination; Addshore has a clear, reasonable mind and fair judgement, without doubt. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Support This editor is everywhere, but more importantly, wherever I've run into addshore, I've been impressed. I have no doubt that can and will extend to the duties of 'cratship. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Support as long as he promises to join only one cabal at a time ;) Theopolisme (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Support - experienced user, will surely make a good bureaucrat. Tolly4bolly 17:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - looks good to me.Deb (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Support seems knowledgeable and mature, even-handed in the actions I've reviewed. No red flags. -- Scray (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

    Just adding to my early, simpler support statement: I've been impressed by the candidate's responsiveness to feedback, from one isolated case of commenting that some have called badgering but immediately ceased when called on it, to the signature that was appropriately cited by a few opposers, resulting in a change and a humble mea culpa. -- Scray (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

13. Support One of the most all-around clueful editors we have. I remain in awe of the speed and facility with which Addshore set up his bot for the Wikidata migration. I can't say I recall him ever doing anything I might even remotely object to. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

    A thought on "badgering": Sometimes, when you comment, you don't really want to be replied to. You feel that there's nothing further to discuss, and your comment stands for itself. And then someone replies. And you're not really sure what to say, because you hadn't planned on turning this into a discussion, you were just here to leave your bit of pithy wisdom, and leave (or watch the "support per"s pour in citing you). Unfortunately, that's not how it works, much as I sometimes wish it were. When you take a position, you open yourself up to questioning and challenge.

    It's fairly well-estbalished that in an RFA the burden is on the opposers; in fact, this is one of the only sane things left in RFA. One of the oldest concepts on Wikipedia is that everyone should be able to be an administrator, but various circumstances force us to limit the access. Therefore, users are by-default assumed to be competent to serve, and those who feel otherwise are required to present strong arguments in opposition.

    If you can't deal with that, then stop !voting in things. That's not sarcasm. If you don't like engaging in inter-contributor discourse, then don't. But don't pretend you're entitled to just leave a comment and walk away. Believe it or not, the wiki will still function if the community doesn't hear your 2 cents on every single request or proposal. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

14. Support Contrary to popular belief, bureaucratship is not really a big deal. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  18:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Support I don't believe I've ever had personal interaction with the user, but I keep seeing him around all the time. It's highly unlikely that he would destroy Wikipedia with few extra buttons. Widr (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
16. Support - a safe choice, Addshore has been here a loooong time and has about 5 years' experience as an admin. Fully meets my crat standards, including several Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Support - Sure why not. Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
18. Support - Throughout my interactions and observations with him, I have always seen him act in a fair manner. He's done a lot of good work over at WP:BAG. I fully trust that he'll do a good job as a bureaucrat. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
19. Support 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

    Support I have had very few interactions with him, but I have had a good experience with him in those few interactions. Also, he appears to have a sufficient amount of knowledge on bots. --JustBerry (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

20. Support Experienced admin. I see no issue with this nomination.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
21. Strongest possible support. I've worked with Addshore a good amount while here, mostly in the development of my bot. He has been extremely helpful, is a *very* good admin, and is part of the BAG. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
22. Not as strong as Fox's but still support I think AddShore is a no-nonsense trustworthy and drama-avoiding type of admin. That makes a good 'crat. Promote!--v/r - TP 23:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

    S Marshall is spot on.--v/r - TP 13:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

23. Support. Looking at the RFA pointed out in the oppose section, I do not consider it to show any badgering by AddShore. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
24. Support per Someguy1221. I would consider it badgering if he had responded to all but a few opposes, but he only responded to a few out of all those RfA opposers.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
25. Support I believe the BAG would benefit greatly from addshore becoming a bureaucrat. I don't see addshore "badgering" folks in past RFAs, just my two cents. Best of luck on the RfB! — -dainomite   02:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
26. Support -- Strongly support for bot work and other non-RfA 'crat responsibilities. Concerns have been raised about behaviour in RfAs, but not about AddShore's ability to adequately judge consensus. He's already stated he would never close an RfA in which he commented (duh), so for the RfAs on which he does comment, he does so as an admin and an editor, not a 'crat, and thus I do not see how it is relevant to this RfB. His behaviour as an editor doesn't impact my opinion of how helpful he'd be if the community allows him to take up 'crat responsibilities; I'd still recommend some sort of mentorship from common RfA closers before diving into that. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
27. Support. I think it would be a shame if the candidate's overenthusiasm in a single RfA outweighed his many positive contributions as an editor, admin and bot operator. Bureaucrats don't need to be infallible, just generally sensible, and I believe AddShore qualifies by that metric. 28bytes (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
28. Support. I don't think his lack of RfA opposes is an issue at all; a much better indicator of his ability to close RfAs is his AfD closures, which look fine to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
29. Support - I would not have considered Addshore to have badgered anyone in the JQ RfA until I saw it asserted below. After considering the oppose rationales, I still do not consider any badgering to have occurred. I trust the candidate, and I agree with 28bytes.--My76Strat (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
30. Support --Glaisher (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
31. Support, having examined a random sample of the candidate's contributions going back quite some way. I note that the "oppose" camp below is almost entirely based on that commentary on the JQ RFA, and it does not amount to "badgering". RFA is, or should be, a discussion process rather than a pure election. Therefore contributions to RFA can be responded to. Certainly, editors should be entitled to engage with each other on the points they make; how else are we supposed to reach consensus? In my view "badgering" is commentary that's either persistent (targetting the same editor repeatedly) or hostile. Addshore's participation in that RFA does not even remotely resemble badgering. Therefore I think my editor colleagues in the "oppose" section below are mistaken. The fact that you're participating in an RFA does not mean you're entitled to comment without being challenged.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - Pretty much per S Marshall. People should be allowed to respond to any votes to which they desire. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

    O RLY? --Rschen7754 10:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

33. Support Good and helpful editor. Has a lot of good admin and user contribution. I think user'll not do bad with crat tools.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
34. Support Experienced admin; I don't have a problem with the candidate's behavior during the recent RFA in question. Discussion is what we do. Miniapolis 13:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
35. Support I'm satisfied with the answer to question 4 which I take to mean that if he has a strong opinion about a particular !vote, he just won't close the RfA. We are all entitled to our strong opinions and all we should care about is that we don't let those opinions get in the way of reading consensus. Doesn't look as if AddShore is likely to do that and I urge oppose !voters to take that into consideration. --regentspark (comment) 13:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
36. Support Satisfied, a good candidate. Faizan 14:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
37. eh. I find the oppose votes ridiculous and this support is more to partially offset one of them. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
38. Support - I think the fact that the candidate was genuinely surprised that the RFA was raised is proof enough that nothing malicious was intended. Was it ill-advised? Maybe. Will he be doing it again any time soon? Doubt it. Why burn an obviously good candidate for what are, really, minor indiscretions? I can't see that a trout-worthy offence is somehow oppose-worthy here. Stalwart111 23:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
39. Support Calm and articulate. In the JasonQuinn2 RfA, his intention and demeanor were good. Indeed, the problem was resolved through discussion and a cease of edit-warring, as he recommended and foresaw. (Please see WormThatTurned's discussion on that RfA talk page; that discussion needs to be reviewed especially by the opposes below.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
40. Support: All of my few experiences with this administrator have had positive tones and peaceful resolutions. I see a lot of good faith in this administrator and they serve as a good role model to myself and other editors in leading by example. All of the answers to the questions above and the responses below in an attempt to clarify misconceptions seem fair and reasonable to me. Technical 13 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
41. Stronger-Than-Fox's Support I've worked with Addshore quite a bit and find him professional and helpful. He's a great BAG member and I definitely trust him with these new tools. Vacation9 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
42. Support Simply because the so called badgering issue below is not even remotely badgering. Opposes that lack detail should be questioned by editors. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
43. I fully trust Addshore, so my support here is genuine (though I'm also glad I can use this support to help offset the badgering nonsense in the below section). Juliancolton (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
44. Support - I believe that Addshore is responsible enough based on his answers to the questions. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 21:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
45. Moral support. I have not had time to properly evaluate this candidate. However, I strongly disagree with the opposes below based on an accusation of "badgering". What they describe as badgering at the Jason Quinn RfA I see as well within the bounds of discussion, and think our !voting processes would be better if we had more rather than less of it. If someone feels put upon by responses to their !vote, oppose or otherwise, they are always free to not respond to the counterpoint, and just let their original !vote stand. It will not be ignored, and other commentators will have the benefit of seeing both points of view. Folks, it's OK to disagree with each other and call that out in a polite and non-ad-hominem discussion; it's not about who has the last word! Martinp (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
46. Support - No doubt in my mind. Few extra tools will make his contributions even better.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
47. Support – very experienced in the area of bots, so I have no doubts this user will be a net positive to the process of bot approval as a Bureaucrat. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
48. Support Normally I would be on the fence and disinclined to vote here, but I have to offset the ridiculous oppose by Blue Rasberry below. ThemFromSpace 16:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
49. Support based on qualifications, especially with bots. INeverCry 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
50. Support - Addshore seems to possess good judgement and qualifications for the role of bureaucrat. I'm also persuaded by the many highly respected users who appear in the support column. I've read through the oppose comments and the RfA "badgering" discussions and I'm not left with the impression that promoting the candidate would be anything but a net positive for the project. - MrX 19:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
51. LlamaAl (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
52. Support - this user comes across as reasonable, capable and competent to be a bureaucrat. Furthermore, this person has displayed an ability to objectively assess divergent viewpoints, and has not been fearful to state their opinions in various discussions when they saw fit to do so. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
53. Support - qualified candidate and I don't see any convincing reasons to oppose from the reasons cited in the oppose section.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
54. Support - trusted and has good justification for bureaucrat tools to help with bot approvals. --Aude (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
55. Support: A great candidate! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
56. Support because Addshore's user page has a floating duck on it. Apart from which, I can't see any problems arising with the closing of RfAs. If they were badgering, they wouldn't be closing anyway. Has been around well long enough to know what's what, and what the job entails. Having responsibility changes the way you look at things - or it damn well should. Sounds as if they know what they're doing with bots, which I for one wouldn't. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
57. Support Review of contributions suggests User has significant, if not perfect, clue. We can expect uninvolved bureaucratic actions, and that the user will not betray such trust. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
58. Support because seeing Addshore's actions as badgering is even more fringey in my view than the idea huge numbers of people have of the badger cull; oh, and i see him as qualified. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
59. Support - My first RfB vote, but Wikipedia does indeed need more people with the bureaucrat flag to sort out the bots. Addshore has always seemed like a good user to me, I don't see any real merit in a lot of the opposes; I'm not an RfA regular, but I don't see how replying to several opposes is badgering, even if it happens frequently - too many opposes come across as troll-like in my experience. How their userpage is formatted, since it is non-offensive, is irrelevant; as is a comment about the user's sig being hard to search for. Being unconvinced by the opposes, I am supporting this candidate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
60. Support While I understand the concerns about questions at RfA, I can't find it within myself to oppose someone for being a little inquisitive in what is supposed to be a discussion to begin with. Addshore and I haven't crossed paths often, so I had to do some digging and didn't find anything troubling. On the merits, I see that he would be a net positive at a Crat, particularly as this role is evolving. I would also note that just because a person has a lower threshold for voting at RfA, that doesn't mean they can't be objective and read consensus as a Crat. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry, Dennis, but I disagree when it comes to characterize "That's no reason to oppose" as being "a little inquisitive". Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

61. Support Seems like a highly qualified user that will make a great community representative and add a lot of value through the bot approval process. I have no concerns with his civil discussions with opposers during RfAs, and it seems silly to think he's going to go out of his way to close the (at most) one RfA a month that ends up in the discretionary zone. CaSJer (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
62. I just don't see the same 'badgering' that others do. PinkAmpersand makes a brilliant point above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
63. Support Thank you SilkTork and WJBscribe for following up on my question. Yes, I specifically meant only times where a bureaucrat exercised their discretion (and not standard closes). Addshore recognized that he mistook the question and answered it in 5A. I have no reason to oppose. Mkdw^talk 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
64. Support. I see a solid, well-performing administrator, with a well-rounded history of RfA participation. I also find the allegations of badgering unconvincing; I see a well-intended and experienced editor politely asking questions of oppose and neutral !voters most of which required clarification or further thought. As Dennis Brown nicely summarizes above, "being a little inquisitive" does not constitute "badgering." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
65. Support. Competent candidate. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
66. Support Not convinced by the opposing candidates. They may be worried about him "badgering" opposers, but it's not that bad. He has come up with a well detailed support statement on that same RfA. I'm sure that overall he'll be a net positive for the bureaucrat community. Minima© (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
67. Support I'm not convinced about the case for badgering. Addshore says he has never had anything to do with that respective candidate, which appears to be true. As such he does not act as a friend of the candidate pestering the oppose votes but Addshore is simply asking for information. In fact, Addshore did not even vote there.--Razionale (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

    This is slightly inaccurate. My 'detailed support statement' as mentioned in User:Minimac's support above can be seen in the supports section. :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 12:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

68. Support The BAG participation thing does it for me; this is a trustworthy user whose skills and experience are greatly needed as a bureaucrat. Opposes are largely for trivial things that wouldn't have mattered several years ago and have no business mattering now. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
69. Support. Addshore has been doing good work at BAG, which is an excellent reason to give him the bureaucrat bit. I don't think his comments at RfA have constituted badgering, and I find PinkAmpersand's comment above perceptive (though I don't tend to word things so strongly). I also agree with Dennis Brown and King of Hearts that his voting record at RfA isn't the best way to judge his skill in reading consensus. As KoH said, his AfD closures seem fine, and that seems a much better benchmark. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

    Oops. I didn't mean to word things strongly either! I hope I didn't sound too critical of anybody. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

70. Support --Meno25 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
71. Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, mushroom, mushroom! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

    Too many badgers. There's not mushroom left now... Peridon (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

72. Support I've known him since he was a wee ol' lad. Theo10011 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
73. Support. Despite many commenting here on RfA closing matters, I see this RfB as squarely a BAG related RfB. There are already 10X enough bureaucrats to close the current load of RfAs/RfBs, and I think 90% of usernames renames should be declined for lack of good reason (as opposed to restarting in the new name with appropriate cross-referencing declarations), but bots are already extremely important to the project, and are only becoming more so, and the number of bot-experienced and -qualified bureaucrats there is dangerously low. I was concerned at the lack of active BAG members commenting here, but I think the low number speaks to the thinness of their ranks, and their lack of Wikipedia-time, than to any hesitation about the suitability of this candidate. From what I have read of addshore's activity at BAG, he seems sensible, intelligent, qualified, dedicated, and of course, inspiring of trust in his decisions. On the comments about badgering, it seems to be that the inquisitiveness on details required at BAG has come across to some as badgering at RfA, and thus is completely forgivable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
74. Support based on Addshore's overall record, including his extensive work with bots, which I anticipate will be his main area of focus as a bureaucrat if this RfB is successful. I have carefully considered the opposers' rationales and they do not dissuade me from supporting: (1) Addshore's commentary on the Jason Quinn RfA was a bit excessive in retrospect but this seems to have been an isolated incident and I don't see it as reflecting on his worthiness for 'cratship. (2) The warning to Demiurge1000 also appears to be an isolated issue, arising from an incident in which no one behaved very well (although Demiurge1000 is correct about his right to remove material from his own talkpage). (3) Addshore's RfA voting statistics are not especially significant given that the role of 'crats is to close RfAs per the community consensus, and in any case he'd be doing more bot work than RfA work I am sure; in any event, having far more support than oppose !votes is a perfectly reasonable form of participation. (My own RfA voting record would look similar: If I come across an RfA of a well-qualifed candidate that is at 50/2/0, I will often add a support vote even if I have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. If I come across an RfA of a poorly qualified candidate that is at 3/15/5, I am not going to add a pile-on oppose. This means I cast vastly more supports than opposes, but it hardly means that I believe every RfA should pass.) (4) Addshore's userpage seems satisfactory to me and also seems to fulfill the purposes Blue Rasberry mentions in his essay. (5) Addshore has modified his signature to address the concern that was raised about it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    This sums it up fairly well, Brad. Re (1) - the point has been raised and debated, ok; Re (2) - Apparently Addshore let himself call into sticking his fingers in a wasp's nest and got stung. I suggest more digging into the events which led to the crisis, before taking any action next time; Re (3) - I agree very much with your own voting behavior, Brad, sometimes it's unnecessary to pile up either way. But what if an RfA is still within the "discretionary range" and some good candidate is unjustly opposed, or some unsuitable candidate has drummed up his personal friends to support? Addshore still hasn't explained why he never opposed anybody at RfA. Conclusion: I'll go neutral this time, if Addshore commits himself to think about the points raised in this RfB, and to learn something from the debates for the future. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

75. Support Per positive attributes pointed out by previous supporters. Feel this user's efforts would be beneficial to Wikipedia.CarringtonEnglish T C 06:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
76. Support seems like hes got the right communicative attitude. Nowdays bot work seems to be biggest part of bureaucrate work so BAG membership is good.--Salix (talk): 09:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
77. Support Have seen Addshore around, seems sane and rational. He won't break the wiki by being able to close RfAs. And that's pretty much my only test for 'cratship. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
78. Support Seems qualified, and I don't consider cratship a big deal. Take note of the concern of the opposers, but I don't find it a reason to vote against.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
79. No red flags, good record and a genuine need for the tools. Concerns raised in opposes and talk page are not convincing/enough not to support. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    Changing signature in other Wikimedia project is another positive. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

80. Support No concerns -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
81. More trustworthy bureaucrats are always welcome. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
82. Support, do not expect problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
83. Support Have only had positive interactions with the candidate; no concerns about judgement, intentions etc. Jebus989^✰ 08:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
84. Support Am happy to support this move Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 08:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
85. Support I trust you. —Soap— 08:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
86. Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose (Moved to neutral) - For badgering opposers, and even neutrals, in an RfA; see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn 2. Kraxler (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify where the badgering is? I see four responses to 29 opposes for a grand total of 14% interaction with opposes. That just doesn't scream badgering to me. He had a personal opinion about a few opposes and wanted to share a differing POV in the hopes it might change their position.--v/r - TP 23:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Addshore stopped badgering about three days into the RfA after having been called to order by BWilkins who said: "Addshore, is it possible for you to badger oppose and neutral !voters any more than you have been? This kind of disruption is one of the reasons why we need RFA clerking." (see the first neutral vote) Kraxler (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I see him engaging in discussion. I see nothing that rises to the level of "badgering". What exactly is it about his comments that you feel rose to the level of badgering? Inks.LWC (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I really had no idea this would come up... As I said in the RFA I had never had any interaction with Jason Quinn prior to their RFA, or even to this day. All comments were entirely my POV which I am entitled to share (as far as I am aware). Also, as pointed out, as soon as Bwilkins suggested I was 'badgering' I stopped my comments not wishing to cause any disturbance, but again sharing my opinion as far as I am aware is not a disturbance, it is discussion. Anyway, I had said what I wanted to and believed that those comments would be read by those that they were intended for.. From my totally neutral point of view Jason Quinn was a perfectly decent user that many of the community seemed to jump on in the RFA process. I do not see how this should affect this process as naturally I would not have taken any crat action If I was so strongly involved in an RFA. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Re InksLWC - Comments like "This is no reason to oppose" without debating any issue (facts, policy), just disagreeing with the voter's opinion, is unhelpful and disruptive, ergo it is badgering. In an RfA, the voters are not under scrutiny, the candidate is. Kraxler (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel as if my comment was as detailed as the oppose, no facts, no policy. An RFA is not simply a place to scrutinize the candidates edits and actions, it is to discuss them with the candidate and the other editors of the project and eventually come to a consensus based decision to promote or not to promote. Again I fail to see how this comment is disruptive but that is your opinion. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess if you feel that that's badgering, then it's a valid reason to oppose, but I don't see that as badgering. It may be borderline unhelpful, but Webster's defines badger as "to harass or annoy persistently". To me, simply being unhelpful by saying "This is no reason to oppose" is not harassing or annoying anyone persistently. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am just wondering if english wikipedia is ever going to have another bureaucrat, if this is a problem :-) I can't think of a single wikipedian who would be "good enough" to fit to requirements of people like you. What you seek is a user who likely has not been active nearly anywhere on encyclopedia - thus shown absolute neutrality and never participated in any RfA, RfB, whatsoever - which is exactly a person which would receive many opposes just for being that. Petrb (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Inks.LWC - Any voter might have checked the user's page, the user's talk page, his contributions and his block log and made up his mind to vote either way. Then somebody comes along, and adds to every vote "That's no reason to oppose", or worse "Thats no reason to be neutral" without saying why. I find that very annoying. The persistence lies in adding it to many or all votes, and then responding to those who feel annoyed. I admit that dropping it after being called to order by BWilkins is much better than having kept on badgering.

Re Petrb - The possible failure of your nominee does not in any way mean that all future RfBs will fail. Recently Wizardman was promoted to crat without any problems. And there will be others, I'm sure. I've seen quite a few very good admin candidates lately at RfA who passed with support in the upper 90%s. So, let's hope for the best. Kraxler (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Conduct at various RFAs, including the one mentioned by Kraxler, concerns me, especially considering one of the two primary functions for crats is closing RfAs. Go Phightins! 19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Moving to neutral.

Is there any chance you could point out my conduct at other RFAs that concerns you other than the one mentioned above so that I can address your concerns? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but give me until tomorrow morning. Too late in my neck of the woods to dig for the ones at which I have specific concerns. If I don't by tomorrow, ping me at my talk; I probably forgot. Go Phightins! 02:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought there were more, but looking back through the vote counter, the only one I found was Jason Quinn's. It is possible that you have commented without voting at some, but none are immediately coming to mind. I don't know about this one, I am rather torn. Nothing I see on this page (e.g., responses to opposes by the candidate) bothers me necessarily, but something just doesn't feel right. I may move to neutral. We shall see. Go Phightins! 00:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I was shocked when the whole Jason Quinn RFA thing came up initially and your comment about 'various RFAs' made me search through every other RFA I have ever voted in checking for other comments that could have been seen as 'badgering', as with you I failed to find any. I didn't think about ones I had edited but not voted in, but with a helpful sql query I now have a list of every RFA I have edited and the only ones that are not on the list I linked to in my answer above are my own 2 RFAs, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide_3 where I voted and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Firefoxman_3, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lifebaka and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rootology where I see no votes so I can only assume these were small clerical edits such as updating the vote counts. I have posted the full list that the sql query returned here ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 15:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose - RfA badgering amounting to disruption and a signature that cannot be readily searched for due to the peacock squiggle. Leaky Caldron 20:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Per concerns regarding RfA badgering. Intothatdarkness 22:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - With the oppose discussion above regarding RfA conduct, I cannot support a successful RfB. Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - While I'm not necessarily against the practice of questioning the reasoning of opposers, the overall feeling of the comments made in the above-mentioned RfA don't seem appropriate for a 'crat-to-be. JPG-GR (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I felt there was something unseemly about Addshore's repeated comments to opposers and neutrals in the Jason Quinn Rfa. For an admin, it's questionable, but for a 'crat, who can add the flags for an admin, it is unacceptable, in my view. Jusdafax 01:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose. There is a vast difference between 'baderging' and objective commenting. Indeed, some opposition to oppose votes is occasionally necessary, and I can't see anything egregious in Addshore's comments which were always appropriate, objective, and polite. [1],[2],[3], [4],[5], and actually voted twice [6] on one occasion. However, he's only commented on 50 RfAs, never opposed a candidate, and made only 1 neutral vote. 7 comments were either updates to the tally or where he didn't vote at all. However, many of his 'support' votes were for AfDs which failed monumentally, (only 66% of votes matched the outcome) so where participation in RfA is only 50 in four years, and where closure of RfA is essentially one of the few remaining tasks that 'crats have a special tool for, I feel he needs to demonstrate more accuracy, (perhaps more examination of the candidates before voting) before I can support an application. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

   Kudpung, I believe that your comment should read "many of his 'support votes were for RfAs which failed..." rather than "AfDs" which failed... Go Phightins! 02:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   For people reading this oppose I would also like to point them to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Addshore#RfA voting stats where there are more detailed figures involving my votes at RFAs. Firstly my opinion does not in any way reflect my ability to judge the consensus of a discussion as you have suggested above by saying I need to be more accurate.. The point of consensus is that it's formed by the community of which I am a member, I am entitled to my opinion which I will happily and have happily given. If I trust someone I will generally support them. In a lot of RFAs there is very little point in voting as my opinions have already been shared by others and the outcome is often clear, there is no point in jumping on a bandwagon to keep repeating what has already been said. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   I have insufficient knowledge to !vote in this RfB, but I do want to challenge this line of reasoning. The role of a bureaucrat is not to predict which side will "win" in RfA's and align himself with it. Whether a given bureaucrat's opinions on RfA candidates align with the consensus view is completely irrelevant, since when closing RfA's a bureaucrat judges consensus rather than imposing his own view of an RfA candidate. I would much rather have a bureaucrat who on certain RfA's (not the ones he closes of course) engages in polite, well-reasoned, and robust discussion -- and sometimes ends up sticking with what ends up being a minority opinion -- than one who waits to see which way the wind is blowing and aligns himself with that side. Martinp (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose. The behaviour at RfA is one very concerning aspect. It also appears that the candidate either does not understand WP:BLANKING, or else fires off edit warring warnings without actually examining the edits involved. (Was it discussed off-wiki, I wonder?) This makes them more in need of a refresher course on the basics of what an admin should know - not to be handed 'crat tools as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Hi Demiurge1000! In the case you linked to above I am sure that I examined every edit before posting the warning to your talk page as I always do. Looking back I now remember your refactoring on RFA which first brought you to my attention here and here but I do not believe that this was the reason for your warning. I would like to point out the little 'war' that you started was resolved with two simple edits to the rfa comment section from User:GiantSnowman and the Worm That Turned pointing out that the comments have been refactored rather than getting in a form of war. I believe that the warning you have linked to above was due to your edits on User:AutomaticStrikeout where you reverted the same edit by two different users, again a near war, as I pointed out in my edit summary communication is always good as I managed to resolve the issue with a simple post to AutomaticStrikeout's talk page. During the few hours mentioned in my past few sentences I saw you involved in two wars both of which almost broke the 3RR, naturally I feel my note on your talk page here is justified. As I have said many times communication is always good and infact key to this project and personally I see this revert as un-constructive, would it not have been easier to talk to me or even enquire as to where the warning was for instead of disregarding it as a 'presumably well intended commentary'? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Given that your warning there immediately followed this revert of me on my own talk page, by your nominator in this RfB no less, part of a succession of quick reverting by him and his IRC-friend where they were reverting so quickly they accidentally started reverting each other, in fact your warning was six minutes after my removing the comments from my talk page, whereas my last edit to the userpage you mention above was thirty-three minutes earlier, wouldn't it be you who should have specified which "edit-warring" you were warning about? Did you look at the talk page history, or my contributions, before (or after) issuing that warning? (If so, did you consider warning either of them?) Did you explain, after John F. Lewis and gwickwire were subsequently warned for edit-warring at WP:ANEW over this incident, why you had issued a warning to me while they were edit-warring? Is it correct that you, John F. Lewis and gwickwire were all on IRC together at the time they edit-warred on my talk page and you then warned me immediately afterwards? Was this discussed there before you did so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC) (I note the other participant in that edit-war on my talk page was recently sanctioned for sharing access to an account with advanced permissions - under the circumstances, this causes me further concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC) )

   Firstly I would like to point at that marking the edit as vandalism may have been a bit over the top, what ever happened to AGF. Naturally I looked at the pages both before and after.. Perhaps my warning was also partially for the sequence of edits you listed at your talk page, at any point did you think about stopping and simply participating in a discussion which you seem to be all for when talking about other users actions but not so much when it comes down to your own. Had you simply explained why User:John F. Lewis should not have refactored the comments in the way he did this whole episode could have been avoided, simple communication. Again this is where User:Bwilkins and and User:Worm That Turned step in on your talk page stopping the warning of the adding and removing of the question and simply answered it. Pervious to my warning to you both of the other users involved had already had notes droped on their talk page here and here, I felt no need to repeat this. As said in my previous reply I do not believe the warning is for the edits on your talk page, I believe it is for a collection of war like edits in a variety of places over a period of time, but of course if you had asked me this closer to the time I probably would have been able to tell you more. Indeed you did report the incident here which was handeled by other admins and I was not involved in. You had been brought to my attention previous to all of this on IRC I believe regarding Carrite 's RFA comment refactoring, after looking into that I believe I stumbled upon AutomaticStrikeouts user page but I have no idea what the timmings where for any of this so I cant really respond. As for one participants in the edit war recently being sanctioned for sharing access, I am unsure how this causes you concern over me or my actions? Anyway, I feel like I am having to talk far too much about one case where you have had a disagreement with me, If you had all of these questions about my actions why did you not raise them at the time? If you want to talk further about all of this please feel free to talk on my talk page although I feel I have answered the majority of questions.·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   I've replied on the RfB talk page here as to why I think this sort of off-wiki driven administration and (in my opinion) attempts at off-wiki driven adminship, are a concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Repeated unhelpful commentary at RfAs, as pointed out by Kraxler and others. Also, the bizarre use of a symbol instead of the letter "s" in his signature makes it awkward to search for his edits in pages. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   I have to admit I had never thought of the symbol in my name causing a problem, but yes it is indeed hard to search for my username on past pages. ·addshore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

9. Oppose I don't know the candidate, but have looked through the history of the case Demiurge1000 mentioned, and also a few of the more recent RFAs. I don't like the way Addshore is failing to own up to his own contribution to the Demiurge1000 saga, but just telling Demiurge1000 it was his fault for not asking. It is at least as much Addshore's fault that he put a generic warning on Demiurge's page, not specifying at all what specific actions the warning was for. This was in the context that Demiurge1000 was being harassed by two editors, one of whom is the nominator of this RFB, for deleting comments from his talk page, which he had every right to do. The remark in Addshore's warning, "Please also keep in mind that communication between users is always a good idea and can avoid such wars", rather echoes what those two were saying, so even if Demiurge1000 was misunderstanding, it was a misunderstanding that could have been foreseen and avoided. I also suspect that RFA supports come a little too easily. --Stfg (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   What exactly have I failed to own up to? Looking back as far as I can tell the warning was generic for a reason, as stated above. I see this situation as Demiurge1000 harassing two other editors while those two editors are harassing Demiurge1000 back. I agree that any user is allowed to remove comments from a talk page, hence why I did not revert the removal of my note on their talk page. This whole situation ended up going to ANI and somewhere else but I do not seem to remember where. I was writing a response at the time but the section was archived before I had a chance to post so I simply posted it to my own talk page so as not to loose it. This can be seen in my user talk archive here which when re-read reminds me how the 'events' unfolded and how I came to the conclusion that I did as well as Demiurge1000's continued lack of real communication afterward. ·addshore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   OK, I have looked more deeply into the history of all that. (A) Please bear in mind that this is your RFB, not Demiurge's. I have looked at the ANI you cite. Since during its 12 minutes of life two admins said to drop it, I'm not going to be the one to pick it up again, but do you at least see that both in the edit summary and in the text of this edit (this first of those you mentioned in your first reply to Demiurge above) Demiurge tried to explain the reason for his action? Do you understand that, even if the action was the wrong one, the reason was a good-faith one, and was clearly communicated? (B) Your reply to Demiurge says that you didn't see a need to warn the other users because that had already been done. So you must also have been aware that the other two editors had been at Demiurge's talk page reverting those deletions, yes? Given that, do you see how your generic warning might have been thought to refer to those events, even if they it did not? (C) Do you understand how that misunderstanding could have been avoided by stating specifically what events you were warning about? (D) Do you understand how, when an editor is under duress from two other editors who are undoing his legimitate removals from his talk page, he might wish to put an end to the whole episode and move on? Do you understand how telling an editor in that position "Please also keep in mind that communication between users is always a good idea and can avoid such wars." might be seen as unfair pressure to keep the issue alive? (E) Do you understand that I am not taking a view on the correctness of Demiurge's actions on 7 and 8 February? And that my oppose here is not "per Demiurge1000", but per your reply to Demiurge1000, which imho is more accusatory that it should be, given the above? --Stfg (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   A) Per refactor does not carry enough detail, both editors could quote it back at each other while reverting each other and neither would know why exactly they were being reverted. Looking back the reason was in good faith although it was not clearly communicated. B) I feel on my ANI message when I say 'I also noticed this little bit of history' I am referring to the backwards and forwards message addition and reversion on the talk page. As said above my message was indeed vague and "Perhaps my warning was also partially for the sequence of edits you listed at your talk page". C) Yes. D) Yes, Yes. E) Yes,

   Finally I would like to point out that throughout all of the events, up until the ANI was closed I myself did not know why the whole 'refactor' thing was happening on the RFA. All I could see was Demiurge1000 rewriting somebodys comments and at the time I could see no reason. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 20:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   So you issued an edit warring warning, after being canvassed on IRC, without even understanding "I've restored what Carrite was originally replying to" (how much clearer could that be?) and checking that was indeed what had been done? Or understanding that "you're making the candidate's response appear to be a non-sequitur" was the concern with how the comment had been refactored? Sorry but this really reinforces what I said above. Administrators shouldn't be blundering around like that, and would-be bureaucrats (!) even less so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   @Addshore, just on (A), I agree that "per refactor" would not have been enough, but that was only the edit summary. Did you not notice that in the text itself he wrote "Please strike your original comments rather than re-writing them, as otherwise you're making the candidate's response appear to be a non-sequitur, which is really not on for an RfA (but also anywhere else - see WP:REFACTOR). I've restored what Carrite was originally replying to." ? --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Finally I was never asked to warn you Demiurge1000, I did so after reviewing what I had been linked to. As said somewhere else on this page I don't remember all of the details of this whole series of events, the order I read things in, who linked me to what, what I did read and therefore what i also may have missed or miss read. I feel I have already said the majority of what I can say. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

10. Your behaviour during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn 2 and your block warning of Demiurge1000 are what cause me to land here. Also, you appear to be badgering the opposers again... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    My block of Demiurge1000? I am also not badgering my opposers, I am addressing issues that they have raised. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 10:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Oops, got confused. Now fixed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Perhaps "failure to block" was intended? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

11. Oppose, sorry Addshore, but your badgering on previous RFAs (and on this RFB) at times borders on intimidation. I'm sure that this is not your intention, but I don't see it as a helpful behaviour whatsoever. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC).
12. Oppose, as per other concerns with badgering at RFA's. Personally I hate being bugged or badgered when I oppose against something and someone who doesn't agree has to bug me about it.JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    If you don't want to be questioned, don't vote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    But oppose !votes are above refute. Clearly Addshore's intimidation is working as he has successfully intimidating these 14 opposes into opposing.--v/r - TP 19:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    I should be able to !vote without being intimidated. Now I know from past experiences that people that oppose are generally questioned more, but if someone comments on every single oppose !vote (like on this one) then that person is being totally out of line and needs to respect some people's opinion and why they opposed. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    We agree on the premise, we disagree on what degree of response constitutes intimidation. Obviously Addshore should've taken the hint in this RfB, but the linked RFA contains no intimidation or badgering.--v/r - TP 20:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

13. Oppose I judged this user based only on their userpage according to the policy my personal criteria here. This user does not meet my expectations and based only on that, I oppose this user's promotion. Others should check other aspects of this user's work. I would change my vote if this user added to their userpage the content which I describe in my policy and messaged me to change my vote. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Your above-linked "policy" regarding Wikipedia user pages is not Wikipedia policy whatsoever. It's an essay that you created, and is entirely subjective. It's ridiculous to state that you would support a person if they change their user pages per your subjective dictum; "I'll support you if you change your user pages to my liking." This doesn't address this person's merits as a potential bureaucrat on Wikipedia whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    directed to Northamerica1000: I disagree with the substance of your criticism (though I agree the word "policy" was poorly chosen; "criteria" would be so much clearer). I appreciate this user's explicit criteria and motivation (making WP more welcoming is a very important effort to which we pay too little attention). If this is based on real feedback from new users (I gather that it is), that's a good justification - the details can be sorted out on the user's talk page. I am confident that many !voters here look at particular aspects in reaching their decision, most of which are not as clearly stated as in this example. After all, the final decision is a determination of consensus, not just a counting of votes. -- Scray (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    I have a page that sort of details my !voting at an RfA. I don't use it to entirely justify a !vote, but it gives a lot of good points to look at in a candidate. Of course, this is an RfB, not an RfA, so the things to look for are much different. However, basing your !vote just off the fact that you don't like their userpage is a bit ridiculous to me. If Addshore's user page just consisted of "hai guise, im a nazi" that's an entirely different thing; however, in this case, his userpage isn't too long, isn't too short, or isn't too complicated. It's simply designed to convey what and who he is. I don't have a problem with that. Also, citing an essay as a policy isn't a smart idea, the difference being an essay reflects the opinion of one for more editors (apparently just you in this case), while a policy reflects consensus. I don't intent to attack or badger you berry, I'm just respectfully giving you my two cents on your !vote and why I don't think it's strong. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 21:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

    I changed some of my wording above and I am copying your criticism to User talk:bluerasberry/userpagepolicy so that what you said can be associated with my criteria forever. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

14. Oppose You definitely know your way with bots, but your constant badgering has to force me to give you a "no". buffbills (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

    "constant badgering"? Our definitions of badgering must be vastly different if you considering him to be constantly badgering. — -dainomite   00:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    Did I say constant? Didn't mean to put that in. I still do believe he badgers though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffbills7701 (talk • contribs) 20:35, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

    No worries, I was just massively confused for a minute. — -dainomite   01:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

15. The way this user has tried to bring about a RfC on Meta, attempting to force all projects to hold RfCs without even asking if there's any support for his proposal gives me great concerns about the judgement of this user. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    Could you provide a link? Kraxler (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    meta:Requests_for_comment/Global_Wikidata_Bots. RFC is yet to start as it is still being drafted, please also see the talk page. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 14:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    What's wrong with starting a discussion, anywhere, Snowolf? Besides, the issue seems not to be policy, but a purely technical matter. Kraxler (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

16. Reluctant oppose. A bureaucrat should be an admin with significant insight and communication skills. Here, I don't get that sense. There isn't the participation in significant conflicts that would allow insight and communication to become evident. (Q15, 2009.) I'm slightly unhappy with Q2; it does not convey a deeper understanding, and it seems to confuse disappointment with criticism. It's also slightly dismissive. Q3 lacks sourcing/diffs/refs -- something common in an RfA but out of place in an RfB; it's OK to make a claim, but there should be some proof; the audience wants to check. I looked at two successful RfBs, and they were clear re both Q2 and Q3. (Some sources/examples are provided in subsequent questions.) Q4 is a little troubling because it doesn't inform me about the depth of deliberation. Although I can understand the result, I can also see reasons to give the anti-bored-with-editing viewpoint significant weight (editor bored with editing won't find much excitement as an admin; many admin tasks are boring; if a bored editor is about to leave, then why give him the bit on his way out the door). From what was stated, I'm not sure the issue was adequately considered; maybe it was. Q5 is a big problem because it answered the wrong question. Silk Tork's Q9 prod got a reassessment, but it was tentative rather than clear. WJBscribe pushed a little harder with Q5A and got a more definitive result, but a 'crat should have understood the question out of the block. A stronger mea culpa might have saved it. Q5 also has a poor I-was-right-in-the-end undertone. I'm not happy with Q17b either: standing by a popular call is not the Q's premise. I'm not bothered by the Jason Quinn RfA, but I wish AddShore got the memo for this proceeding: I'm not a fan of back-and-forth debate. The absence of any oppose votes in more than 40 outings is perplexing, but I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll bend to the supports, but they seem to say Addshore has been a solid admin rather than an outstanding one. Addshore hasn't done anything bad here, but I have some doubts about the ability to understand subtle issues and clearly communicate the findings. I applaud the work with bots. Glrx (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

I don't find his behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn 2 to have been a problem.
I understand that more bureaucrats are strongly needed for Bot responsibilities, and not really for anything else.
If Addshore is to contribute to Bot approvals as an bureaucrat, I would expect to find more comments from active and semi-active members at Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group.
I note that Addshore is the newest member at Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group. This may or may not be a positive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you think more 'active' or 'semi active' members of BAG should comment on this RFB? There are currently very few members of BAG that I would class as 'active' but I am sure a few of them will comment soon enough. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have indented this because this editor has subsequently !voted above

1. A very tough decision indeed. I recall having been concerned by Addshore's participation in a previous discussion, but forgot where it had taken place until Kraxler provided a link to it above — specifically, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn 2. I also found his warning at Demiurge1000's talk page to be misplaced; another editor (now blocked as a sockpuppet of a known troll) was consistently adding the "child pornography" category into Suicide of Amanda Todd, which constitutes a blatant violation of the BLP policy. Demiurge's sole reversion does not constitute edit warring, in particular because BLP violations are explicitly mentioned as an exception to the rule. Aside from that, Addshore has an extensive amount of experience relevant to the role of a bureaucrat. He is also very sensible and an independent thinker, both of which are huge positives in my book. If he were to be granted bureaucratship, I believe he would do a good job overall. But unfortunately, the concerns raised give me just enough pause to preclude an enthusiastic support. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Please see my response to my comments in the Jason Quinn RFA in the oppose section above. I am not entirely sure how User:Eminence2012 comes into User:Demiurge1000's warning but please also see my reply to Demiurge1000 above. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Oh! OK, so I guess my interpretation of the situation was completely off; I just did a little bit of digging and believed that it was the most likely reason for placing that warning on his talk page. Sorry about that! I've also already read your response there. You don't see how your comments at Jason Quinn's RfA could come off as badgering to some editors? It seemed as though you not only disagreed with their opinions, but were actually dismissive of them altogether. I also think "no need for the tools" is a ridiculous reasons to oppose someone, but I wouldn't say it in such a terse manner. I'd also avoid responding to several different people who are using the same rationale. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   I do see how they could have come off as badgering to some editors, as indeed they did, but that was not in any way my intention. As said above as soon as someone suggested that I was badgering I stopped not wanting to cause any disturbance or cause more harm than good. Looking back on the RFA I feel that most of my comments are perfectly reasonable and constructive, the only exception potentially being the comment to the first neutral vote currently listed on the page by m.o.p here. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Actually the BLP violation was relevant, as the other edit warrior raised that (single!) revert in the bizarre ANI thread here, which Addshore would have been aware of when he replied to it "for a rainy day" on his own talkpage. As a reminder, BLP violations are an exception to WP:3RR. (Only having made one revert to a page ever is also an exception to WP:3RR!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral for now, pending further assessment of this user's overall contributions. Importantly, speaking in discussions should never be misconstrued as "badgering". It's problematic from the start to oppose a person using a one-word rationale in this manner, because it doesn't address what the person actually stated in various discussions, within the context of those discussions. It's concerning that this type of oppose !vote appears to now be a routine type of opposition in Wikipedia RfA discussions (et al.), like nominees should be silenced from the start, rather than addressing queries and concerns. The use of the words "badger" and "badgering" in these types of discussions have now become a part of the status quo on Wikipedia. Argumentum ad hominem arguments such as these typically lack qualitative substance, and as such typically lack merit; "Oppose, because the person spoke." Conversely, opposers that actually delineate concerns, and then don't badger people when they respond to those concerns, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

   Update: I have !voted to support this candidate; struck part of my comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

   I half agree with you, at least sometimes, but surely the intention of this kind of vote in general is "Oppose, because the person misspoke." (Whether the comment is justified depends on what the person said, of course :)) --Stfg (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Neutral (from oppose) - Though I remain concerned about some of Addshore's conduct at RfA, it is not enough for me to oppose his candidacy. That said, since one of the two main remaining functions of bureaucrats is to close RfA, I cannot support. Thank you. Go Phightins! 19:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Neutral, near Support I still see some concerns that I'd like to look into. Seems like an alright candidate, though and best of luck. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 21:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I think Addshore would make a great bureaucrat if he mainly focused on bots and renames, but, judging by his behavior patterns in the past on some RfA's, I am a bit worried about him getting into closing RfA's and such. I'll just leave it at that. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 21:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Neutral, thanks for answering my questions. At this time I am not going to oppose adminship, but given the powers of bureaucrats, some of the oppose reasonings above, and based on the answers to the questions, I also would not out right support bureaucratship either. Good luck either way, and I look forward to seeing more positive content contributions from this admin.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Neutral as I am currently unsure if it is time for another bureaucrat - however, I may choose to change my decision about this in the foreseeable future. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   (switched to oppose)I am not concerned by points made by the those in the above section, but I believe the English Wikipedia has more than enough bureaucrats, and hardly needs more. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   Are you serious? There is never enough of them. That is like if I said there is enough of articles, let's close the encyclopedia... Petrb (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

   Being this RfB is four hours late (and counting) for closure I think is indicative that more active Bureaucrats are needed. — -dainomite   14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

   Not really. Nobody needs the flag 2 seconds after the minimal !vote duration and it is a difficult decision in this case … I'd rather say, having less but active bureaucrats is better as they do all feel responsible for closures then and decisions become easier. (I'm not voting against Addshore, though.) Vogone (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

7. Too many issues/concerns have been raised for me to support, but Addshore is a good editor/admin and I cannot oppose either. Deal with whatothers have said and I will happily support in future. GiantSnowman 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
8. Moved from Oppose - Per everything above... Kraxler (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)