Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Addshore

Edit stats as of 18:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Username:	Addshore User groups:	abusefilter, sysop First edit:	Dec 06, 2005 09:46:08 Unique pages edited:	34,294 Average edits per page:	1.52 Live edits:	48,309 Deleted edits:	3,825 Total edits (including deleted):	52,134

Namespace Totals

Article	18383	38.05% Talk	484	1.00% User	2245	4.65% User talk	22269	46.10% Wikipedia	4209	8.71% Wikipedia talk	230	0.48% File	19	0.04% File talk	5	0.01% MediaWiki	11	0.02% MediaWiki talk	4	0.01% Template	298	0.62% Template talk	61	0.13% Help	7	0.01% Help talk	8	0.02% Category	29	0.06% Category talk	4	0.01% Portal	42	0.09% Portal talk	1	0.00%

Month counts

2005/12	3	2006/01	0	2006/02	0	2006/03	0	2006/04	0	2006/05	0	2006/06	0	2006/07	0	2006/08	0	2006/09	0	2006/10	0	2006/11	2	2006/12	0	2007/01	0	2007/02	0	2007/03	0	2007/04	0	2007/05	0	2007/06	0	2007/07	0	2007/08	0	2007/09	0	2007/10	0	2007/11	461	2007/12	1	2008/01	1	2008/02	6011	2008/03	4124	2008/04	8783	2008/05	3664	2008/06	2110	2008/07	1374	2008/08	729	2008/09	1084	2008/10	2929	2008/11	2597	2008/12	216	2009/01	416	2009/02	1176	2009/03	189	2009/04	25	2009/05	15	2009/06	36	2009/07	0	2009/08	24	2009/09	201	2009/10	2	2009/11	11	2009/12	0	2010/01	154	2010/02	0	2010/03	0	2010/04	6	2010/05	1721	2010/06	0	2010/07	0	2010/08	1	2010/09	1	2010/10	15	2010/11	1	2010/12	2	2011/01	125	2011/02	32	2011/03	72	2011/04	2	2011/05	0	2011/06	9	2011/07	80	2011/08	0	2011/09	7	2011/10	1	2011/11	0	2011/12	0	2012/01	2	2012/02	56	2012/03	518	2012/04	10	2012/05	0	2012/06	5	2012/07	0	2012/08	3	2012/09	0	2012/10	0	2012/11	5	2012/12	366	2013/01	3454	2013/02	4974	2013/03	135	2013/04	226	2013/05	142

RfA voting stats
Total number of unique RfA pages edited by Addshore: 50. Analyzed the last 50 votes by this user:

This user's vote matched the end result of the RfA 28 times, or 66.7% of the time.
 * Support votes: 42 (84.0%)
 * Oppose votes: 0 (0.0%)
 * Neutral votes: 1 (2.0%)
 * Comments or unparseable votes: 7 (14.0%)
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting stats. Never opposed anybody? Would this mean that as soon as somebody's RfA is (even just barely) within the discretionary range, Addshore (as a bureaucrat) would run to close it as successful? Kraxler (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how you came up with that conclusion. Maybe addshore just wouldn't close it? Probably best if he gives his opinion on the matter. Legoktm (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt he would oppose consensus. If he closed it as successful it would be because that was the result. Just AGF of course but it makes sense to me. Kumioko (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We also don't know if he declined to vote on RFAs instead of opposing (think pocket veto). --Rschen7754 04:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Re Kumioko - I said "within the discretionary range" (somewhere between 70 and 80 % support) which means that there is no clear consensus, and the closure depends on the interpretation of the votes by a bureaucrat. WP:RfA section "Discussion and decision"
 * Re Legoktm - It's not a conclusion, it's a question. And yes, maybe Addshore might want to explain why he never opposed anybody in RfA. Kraxler (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Historically the Buro's decline those. I have only seen a couple pass within that margin and its generally as the result of the vote of multiple buro's, not just the discretion of one. Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Kraxler, my apologies. Legoktm (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It might be noted that based on the RfA vote counter tool, Addshore didn't !vote in any RfA from January 12, 2011 to January 21, 2013. Also, prior his !vote on January 12, 2011, he had not !voted since January 22, 2009. So, from January 22, 2009 to January 21, 2013 (one day shy of four years), he !voted in three RfA. Based on that data, he's not exactly an RfA regular. AutomaticStrikeout ?  14:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

List of all RFAs
Please see below a DB query displaying all subpages of Requests_for_adminship in which i have edited.

 ·addshore·  talk to me! 14:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Impartiality, neutrality, and IRC
Putting this here to avoid excessive commentary from me on the RfA page itself.

Addshore has admitted that he was contacted on IRC regarding Carrite's RfA, and that he responded by telling John F. Lewis, on IRC, to revert "if he chose to" my edit at that RfA. gwickwire was also involved in this IRC discussion. John F. Lewis and gwickwire then moved their revert tag-teaming to my talk page from 23:05 on 7th February through to 23:15 on 7th February, apparently with Addshore still online with them on IRC: (beginning with the fantastic nonsense "it is currently evident you wish to ignore people on IRC" - needless to say, I'm not required to talk to anyone on IRC)       (ending with "DISCUSS or you get blocked for 3RR and not discussing"). Six minutes later, Addshore, who has now also admitted that he was aware of John F. Lewis and gwickwire's ridiculous behaviour on my talkpage, issued his inappropriate warning on my talkpage in support of the two editors who were edit-warring to restore comments I had removed. He still apparently believes even now that their behaviour in edit warring on my talk page (and threatening me with blocks for it!) was justified because "at any point did you think about stopping and simply participating in a discussion".

Why is all this IRC nonsense relevant to this RfB? Because the people involved also turn up together in other places, and not in good ways. John F. Lewis was responsible for this bizarre document that discussed "ways to overcome" Hahc21's NAC restriction in order to ensure a successful RfA, and John F. Lewis was then the second supporter of the proposal to remove that restriction, controversially undertaken only hours before the creation of the RfA, with John F. Lewis as an RfA nominator. I will quote Floquenbeam in that RfA "the more I think about it, the more unhappy I am with the candidate and the nominators. Looking back at the AN thread with a new perspective, I think that the words of the candidate and his nominators during the AN thread were disingenuous, considering that this RFA was being prepared at the same time".

Did Addshore know of those preparations when he was one of the people to support the lifting of the restriction? Either way, John F. Lewis now duly turns up as nominator here for Addshore's RfB, with Hahc21 in the Support column two !votes later. ("I told him to run 10 times, and asked him to nominate him 5" - why is it so important to Hahc21 that Addshore should have the crat tools?)

gwickwire, the other editor with whom John F. Lewis and Addshore were co-ordinating on IRC during the edit-warring incident, can't be with us tonight, but the other editor who allowed him to access his account (and thus advanced permissions with which he had not been entrusted) also turned up to Support the later-controversial removal of Hahc21's restriction.

Does this sort of thing often get co-ordinated on IRC? Is sharing of account passwords just one of a number of "ways to overcome" people not having the user rights they might want? There is therefore a problematic level of co-ordination on IRC, some problematic behaviour at RfA, and we also know two of the editors involved in all this (not Addshore, John F. Lewis or Hahc21) have been involved in account sharing. The whole murky web of IRC-driven interactions here gives me a distinctly uneasy feeling, and that is why I do not feel comfortable with the candidate being entrusted with the crat tools in addition to what they already have. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick reply as I seem to have written an essay on this series of events today. The way I see it, I was contacted with a request to block you for edit warring, I assessed everything, saw what was happening and warned you, I seem to remember telling the others involved to stop on IRC as well as others telling them on wiki. I did not know of the 'preparations' you mentioned. 'co-ordinating' is a beautiful word to inaccurately describe the conversation on irc, you make it sound like I was trying to help plan some sort of co-ordinated attack on you...  ·addshore·  talk to me! 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence " Is sharing of account passwords just one of a number of "ways to overcome" people not having the user rights they might want?" is completely inappropriate and a serious accusation to make, since if true, it would lead to Addshore, Hahc21, etc. losing all their rights on several wikis. Is this really what you want? I ask you to retract this statement. --Rschen7754 21:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be reading that very oddly. I've not suggested that I know of Addshore or Hahc21 sharing passwords with anyone (you may consider that a retraction if you wish - I consider it a repetition), but two other editors involved in the events I describe above were involved in such password sharing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you start providing some evidence of some of the accusations you are making, you should consider retracting it. You are making yourself look like a conspiracy theorist. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  22:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (funny, I thought you would be aware of that, since you commented on it rather promptly) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-written to be (perhaps) clearer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am indeed very aware of what happened before. Your comment prior suggested that account sharing is an active practice among those who use IRC, or that it some of the people you mentioned were actively doing so, which is bad without providing some kind of evidence. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  22:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Two of the people I mentioned were doing so (past tense). As to what anyone is doing right now, I have no idea (other than that I myself am on IRC and not sharing any passwords with anyone.) We generally tend to find these things out after the fact. The above are some of the facts already known, and people can make their own opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No that is not a retraction; you're spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt which is clearly disruptive. Please stop with this disruptive behavior. --Rschen7754 01:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Having a different opinion, and the temerity to state it, is not disruption. You have your opinions on the suitability of the candidate to receive the crat tools (you were the very first person to Support, in fact), and I have mine. Trying to justify your opinions is a better approach than trying to suppress the opinions of those who disagree with you by invoking the veiled threat of "disruption".


 * Besides, is it just me? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are certain accusations that you just simply cannot make on any Wikimedia site, because they can destroy someone's reputation on all sites and cause them to lose their good standing on other wikis. Account sharing is one of them. Your disruption is because you are making this accusation, NOT because you oppose the candidate. On a Wikimedia site, one cannot go around accusing people of sockpuppetry, plagiarism, sexual harassment, etc. unless they have proof to back that up. They can't even go around implying it. And referring to my comment which I later had the good sense to reword is completely dishonest.


 * Please stop making such accusations, or implying or insinuating such accusations, now, or I will need to take this to ANI to protect the reputation of innocent editors; I am sure that the people at ANI will not look favorably upon your recent blocks for doing the exact same thing. --Rschen7754 03:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Accusing people of dishonesty isn't too great, either. Didn't you do a little more than just reword it? Is this ongoing back-and-forth to try to trap me into saying more - explaining my views more - so that you have more material you can try to twist as being "implying or insinuating"? I've already made 100% clear there are three editors involved in the incidents discussed whom I don't suspect of sharing accounts (I name them above); and two others where I've already provided a diff where it's established they did share accounts (a checkuser names them in the diff above). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify what you mean by the following comment, then? "As to what anyone is doing right now, I have no idea (other than that I myself am on IRC and not sharing any passwords with anyone.) We generally tend to find these things out after the fact. The above are some of the facts already known, and people can make their own opinion." --Rschen7754 06:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see if an example makes it clearer. I don't know whether you are or are not on IRC at the moment, whether you have an ICBM hidden in a volcano or anything else about you. (I do know about my own actions and intentions - that's rather basic philosophy). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know which Wikipedia editors are no longer beating their spouses. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's why asking them such would be inappropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait, why was I mentioned over here and nobody told me? As far as I can see, Demi and his friends have transformed this RfB in a battleground against John F. Lewis, Addshore and his friends. Also, my support comment is completely personal and irrelevant to this IRC-account-sharing-bla-bla-bla nonsense accusations, and the fact that I believe Addshore could do a good crat doesn't translate into "it so important to Hahc21 that Addshore should have the crat tools". A little bit of objetivity and sense, yes? — ΛΧΣ  21  11:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not dropping you a notification; I shouldn't have assumed that those commenting on the RfB were likely to have watchlisted it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I didn't watchist it because since I semi-retired, I unwatchlisted almost everything. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What we essentially have here is something Demiurge has become rather notorious for: Posting various vague accusations at editors, supported by seemingly unrelated issues. (E.g. the time he suggested that Malleus was socking, and cited the fact that he'd changed usernames as his only evidence.) It's practically the definition of a straw man argument. So, now that we've resolved that Demiurge's pseudo-accusations don't actually amount to anything... is there anything to discuss here? Or are you just throwing everything you can think of at Addshore et al., and seeing what will stick? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fine example of resorting to 100% ad hominem instead of making any attempt to address the issues raised. (A lovely tangent you manage to go off on there too ). The concern raised here is nothing to do with password security. Rather, it is the question of whether a candidate who is involved in the behaviour detailed above, can be fully expected to use the 'crat tools in an optimal way in all possible circumstances. Perhaps I'm rather too close for a balanced perspective given that I was the target of this particular instance of IRC tag-teaming, but regardless, my answer to that question is that no, based on the evidence, I certainly do not have that confidence in this candidate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A user discussing things on IRC. Isn't that kinda what the channel is for? From what I can tell, there's no evidence that anyone asked for more than an investigation; what happened beyond that was Addshore's judgement, which they admitted may have not been perfect. Shouldn't you drop the stick, as you've made your point? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What which channel is for? But yes, I think the point is made. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Extension
Because this RfB could go either way at this time, and because the raw numbers aren't overly large meaning that there are others out there who could join in, I'm extending the RfB for a period of 12 hours, afterwards it will either be closed or put on hold for a bureaucrat discussion. Wizardman 14:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)