Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger

The Bushranger

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (37/1/0); Scheduled to end 23:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

The Bushranger (talk · contribs) – In my second RfA co-nomination, it is my honor to be able to present you with one of the best editors I know who also happens to be a good friend of mine. I think the work The Bushranger has done over the last three years, detailed below, qualifies him for today's RfA standards. As for civility, I have never seen a conversation where he has been purposely incivil or non-collegial, while the kind and sometimes playful attitude he displays at all times keeps the encyclopedia light-hearted and fun.

As for the technical stuff: edit count? He has more than 22,000,[1] ~98% of which are non-automated.[2] Time editing? Since June 2008. Content? A beastly combination of a FL, 15 GAs, and (if I counted right) 90 DYKs, along with a whole host of barnstars from the Military history WikiProject's contest. [3][4] Wikipedia-space work? He's one of the most prolific compilers of DYK preps, and is a member of the Military history and Aircraft WikiProjects, along with a participant in the battleship group, Operation Majestic Titan. Wikiknowledge? He's done more work with templates and categories than I want to think about. I think The Bushranger is an ideal candidate for administrator, and I hope you all agree. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Having also been involved in talking The Bushranger into allowing himself to be nominated for adminship, I should say something here. I've been a wikistalker of Bushranger's talk page for quite some time in order to benefit from the high-quality advice, excellent conflict resolution, and general appreciation of the state of Wikipedia that tends to flow across it, and I've been privileged to encounter Bushranger's quality work in a variety of Wikipedia arenas, most notably at DYK. During that time I've been impressed by his measured and courteous debating style, his reasoned and level-headed approach to learning and implementing policy, his engagement with and appreciation of the wider Wikipedia community, and the amazing quantity and quality of his content creation. It's astonishing that Bushranger isn't an admin already, and I'd urge the community to correct that as soon as possible. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, Ed, Dust. :) I hereby accept the nomination. In the spirit of full disclosure, since I've read up on the relevant policy regarding the fact you should mention these things, I'd like to add that I do have a "previous" account, User:Aerobird, which was my first Wiki account. Back then I burned out and took a year or so (I think) hiatus; when I came back, I decided to make a new account with the user name I use/d everywhere else. I haven't used the old account since (edit history: [5], only logging in to check the edit count (to add to the ones Ed mentioned: an additional 5373). I notice many admins have a "public use" account, it's possible that might be wise to use it for that? If not, though, it'll remain "closed". Anyway, that out of the way, on to the questions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily I'd like to be able to assist at WP:Did You Know, with the compiling of preps, moving preps to queues, and other WikiGnomish work that doesn't make waves but generally keeps the wheels rolling smoothly. I might also assist in general housekeeping of military and aviation matters occasionally if and when needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'd like to think it's in helping with "oddballs". Aircraft and missiles that never entered service - in some cases, never got off the drawing board, and the odd project that never even made it that far! - fascinate me, and I enjoy helping to ensure that other people have the opportunity to learn about "hidden history". While flashy Vipers get all the press, I enjoy making sure that almost-forgotten milestones are here; the ultimate compliment is knowing that somebody will read my work and go, "huh, I didn't know that!". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: There have been the occasional brain-burp or two that probably should be mentioned; in one case I removed a speedy-delete tag from a category I'd created, that was a forgetting-I'd-made-it moment (it actually went to AN/I over other issues, but it was resolved amicably), and another was editing a talk-page comment for grammar out of "editing habit" (quickly reverted when it was pointed out to me). (A second speedy-delete-tag removal on the record was when it had been placed on the talk page (created by me) of an article (not created by me) in error, quickly and cheerfully resolved.) There have been the occasional rather (in one case very) heated debate over at AfD as well, but my policy on debates is that what happens in a debate stays in a debate. No matter what previous stress or mud-slinging may have occured with another editor, I don't allow that to color my opinion of their contributions. We all have opinons, and they all differ, and even when someone is acerbic in their expressing them, that's just how the world works - it doesn't make the quality or validity of their contributions any more or less. I live and let live, and allow the past to be the past, always looking forwards to a bright future of improving Wikipedia and assisting in it becoming a paperless repositiory of the sum total of human knowledge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Armbrust

4. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.

A: Oppose: This editor is prone to sudden departures, spending a time of months (or sometimes more) absent before just as abruptly returning. He also has a strong inclusionist policy (with an 'award', no less, declaring him to be an Inclusionist Cabal member!) and therefore can't be trusted to be neutral when it comes to policy debates regarding deletion. - User:Scarecrow at Arkham!

Rebuttal: In the past, I have burned out on occasion, but that's in the past. The stress that caused those burnouts is less now, and I've stablised at a steady, sustainable pace. As for inclusionism vs deletion, I make no bones about the fact I hold WP:V and WP:RS higher on the pedestal than WP:N/WP:GNG, but even if I don't like the policy, it's still the policy, and until and unless there's consensus to change it, policy is to be upheld in a neutral and fair manner regardless of one's opinon of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

5. Can you summarize the Did you Know? process with you own words? Why is this process important with regards to the content of the project?

A: The DYK process is remarkably simple, yet very effective. An editor creates an article, or expands it. They, or another editor, realises that they've made an article that is worthy of being noticed by Wikipedia as a whole, and so the article makes it way onto T:TDYK, where other editors take a good look at it. Occasionally it happens the article isn't ready for prime time, but often as not the article is - often getting improved still further along the way. Once it's stamped "Grade A-Prime", it gets moved by another editor to the preps, where an admin gives them a final once-over before moving them to the queue. From there, bon appetit! The importance of the process is that everyone who participates in DYK has a chance to critique the article, suggest improvements, and catch the occasional blunder. The process isn't perfect, but it's effective, and recent changes have made it even more so. The involvement of people in the process at all stages is what makes DYK great. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

6. What is the reason that you don't have email enabled?

A: Primarily because I was raised to be as paranoid about privacy as it is possible to get without having them actually out to get you. :p Also, I prefer discussing things on the boards, but if there's a need, I can always turn it on. But that brings up the third reason: sometimes I forget, for awhile, to check email... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Supplemental Q from Franamax: will you enable email access if you are given sysop privileges (and commit to checking your email regularly)? Franamax (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to if it can be avoided, but if it's considered to be required, I can be sure to check it at least once daily, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for The Bushranger: The Bushranger (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for The Bushranger can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support – I like your WikiCup work (so far). --Perseus8235 17:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Support - a very reliable and experienced editor who always keeps his cool and is knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and procedures. I believe he would make a good admin. - Ahunt (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Support - I have, over the past several months, been incredibly impressed by the workmanship, friendly attitude and quality of work The Bushranger has produced. He is, in my view, an excellent editor, and someone who will undoubtedly be an excellent sysop. wackywace 19:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - good luck. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

   The above support(s) were added before the RfA started. --Perseus8235 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

5. Strong support per my co-nomination. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Support – I've had the pleasure of seeing The Bushranger hard at work over at DYK, where he's helped out a great deal with reviewing and prepwork. In all of my interactions with him, he's been friendly and helpful, and I have no doubt he'd be a huge asset to the project as an admin. 28bytes (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Support - great work. Orphan Wiki 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Support - No reason why not. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Speedy close per WP:RIGHTNOW! I suggested a while ago that he consider adminship and DYK could certainly use the help, so it's my honour to support. The DYK queues compiled by Bushranger are always excellent and he clearly know both the DYK procedures and how to build sets of intriguing hooks. A talented writer, experienced editor with a high level of clue and a desire to work in a chronically admin-short area mean he should make a bloody good admin! My only complaint is that you don't have email enabled, but that doesn't make you less qualified, so I'm more than comfortable here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Support—yes of course. Airplaneman ✈ 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Support Will make an awesome admin. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Support It's about time! Bushranger has lots of clue. I've always been impressed. Royalbroil 00:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
13. Impressive work at MILHIST and elsewhere. Easy call. - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
14. Support When I initially saw that 6 out of the first 13 !votes were from admins, that tells me that this candidate has the trust of that peer group. But, I also did my own homework on this candidate, and feel that he will use the tools as needed with DYK.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
15. Support. Uh, yeah. Like totally way cool. I look forward to working with you in your new role. Cind.amuse 02:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
16. Support without a doubt. Pichpich (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
17. Support. Ratcheting the project higher one stellar admin at a time. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
18. Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
19. Support I honestly thought that you already were one already. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
20. Stephen 02:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
21. Strong Support Rock solid credentials. Content creation includes 110 new articles and 893 redirects; trustworthy (reviewer, rollbacker); adequate experience in administrative areas such as AfD and vandal fighting; a Wikipedian since June 2008--Hokeman (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
22. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
23. Support of course!--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 03:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
24. Support The gaps raised a bit of a flag, especially after reading the words "burned out" in the candidate's explanation of them, but it is hard to argue with 12,562 edits since 10/1/10 and the contributions that the candidate has brought to the table, as a whole. Clearly a net positive. Best of luck! --Strikerforce (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
25. Support Great work at DYK. The Interior (Talk) 04:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
26. Support Perfectly fine candidate with the perfect answers to the questions. A net positive user, give him the mop if he wants. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
27. Support Keepscases (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
28. Support No reason not to. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
29. Support The Bushranger is an excellent editor who I'm certain will use the admin tools wisely. I hope that he or she branches out in their admin activities beyond DYK and background tasks one they become confident in the role though as we always need more admins active in resolving problems. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
30. Support. This is one candidate where I'm already familiar with their excellent record of content creation because I've spent numerous happy hours reading the results (and occasionally gnoming bits of it). I noticed the candidate uses their userpage to express a large number of rather robust political views, but I hope they will stick with policy and neutrality regarding any administrative decisions in those areas, just as they've said in their answers they will do so in areas of Wikipedia policy where they have strong views. (And, having looked through the candidate's contributions, they spend their time on content creation in their areas of interest, not on politics of any sort.) DYK is always in need of more admin help so I'm sure that will be very welcome. It's nice for admins to have email available, but it's not a significant issue for just one to lack it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
31. Support - Absolutely. A name I'm already familiar with, and always in a positive context.--Korruski^Talk 10:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
32. Support. Looks like a trustworthy editor with plenty of understanding of the ways of things. Although I don't require it in order to support, I would strongly recommend enabling email, as admins will often have to deal with delicate issues that should not be aired too much in public. Having email enabled doesn't itself compromise your security, and nobody will get to see your email address unless you reply to them - and even then, using a dedicated and replaceable address should solve any potential problems. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
33. Support. Run into this editor a couple of times (at DYK and Wikicup) and not seen anything that persuades me that they would not be a useful addition with the tools. No issues here Worm^TT 13:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
34. Support. For sure! Anyone who's against political correctness wins my support :) Caden ^cool 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
35. Tell me why not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

    I did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

36. Support--Breawycker (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
37. səˈpɔːt Excellent candidate who gets my unequivocal support. Muy bien hecho. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my concerns listed below under my orignal neutral. First, this editor has only been active for nine months, although the account was created in 2008. Second, I'm reminded that the Aviation Project spawned the now desysopped sockpuppet, Archtransit. Third, the nominator misrepresented in the nomination statement that this editor has an FA: he does not. Fourth, multiple articles he has listed as GAs and DYKs do not use reliable sources, and we don't need more admins working at DYK who don't understand core policies. Finally, several Supports were entered before this RFA went live. Too many concerns here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not going to badger (I hope!), but a quick comment on a few things. I don't know why you want to blame The Bushranger for a sockpuppet that happened to edit in aviation as well, and I'd like if you didn't blame him for my mistake in the nomination statement (which is now fixed). I think the early supports were from talk page stalkers of his, but I can't be sure. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Concerned that this editor has been active less than a year on Wikipedia, and a random click on an article from his articles created subpage revealed some problems (I looked at Augusto Cicaré). I'd like to see further discussion of valued contributions evidencing policy knowledge; otherwise, I'm not sure there's enough to judge here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Not to mention a worryingly small number of automated edits. Pichpich (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Until recently, I was using a clunker of an old computer with IE6; hence, no Twinkle for me. Now that I have one that can handle FF and it, I use it regularly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I don't see why a small number of automated edits is a bad thing. I'm below 3% myself, and I think that's higher than when I passed RfA. He probably just does the tasks by hand (eg adding a category manually rather than Hotcat, or actually typing a welcome instead of leaving a Friendly welcome). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   That'd be correct :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   I thought the :-) in my edit summary would be sufficient indication that I was kidding. The irony is that I initially believed (honestly) that SandyGeorgia was also kidding but after re-reading that !vote, I'm not so sure. No offense (or confusion) intended. Pichpich (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   None taken, and I actually didn't check the history until after reading the page. Good fun is fun! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   I thought you were kidding, but no emoticon made me worry you were serious. I didn't check the history either, as you can tell. :P Jolly good fun! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   You can be completely sure SG is not joking. Johnbod (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   No kidding! Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Christ guys, it was a joke, and a mighty good one as well. More of it please. (PichPich's comment I mean!) Orphan Wiki 12:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   No, it's not a joke, and it would be kind of those joking on an important page about automated edits (something I didn't even mention) to move the distraction to talk. I don't support editors at RFA who haven't evidenced enough time on the Project or work for me to judge them. I haven't yet located a well written article by this editor, and would appreciate it if someone could highlight one. For example, he has a GA, FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II, which is replete with marginal, non-reliable sources. (I'm unware if those were used at the time it passed GA or added later). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   This was the article at promotion. I see no source concerns with it. SG, there is a proper procedure to follow if you think a GA doesn't now meet GA criteria. Looking at the article history, it is still substantially as it was when passed, so IMHO, such a request for review would not be in order. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Perhaps you (or the nominee) could explain how these are reliable sources for this article:

   • http://www.luft46.com/
   • http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-10654904/Evita-in-wonderland-Pulqui-and.html
   • http://www.swannysmodels.com/
   • http://www.avalanchepress.com/
   • http://www.arcair.com/
   • http://www.lucheyvuelve.com.ar/index.htm
   • http://www.machtres.com/pulquix2.htm

   I speak Spanish and I see dead links, press releases, movie reviews, and personal websites, including several commercial, for an aircraft article. But I appreciate the education about GA processes-- how have I ever gotten by on Wikipedia for so long!?!? Perhaps MilHist has changed its sourcing requirements or I'm just too busy these days. The use of non-reliable sources has long been a problem at DYK, so if the nominee works there, I'd like to know his views on these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Back on Augusto Cicaré, a random DYK I checked that also has typos, I'm also curious about http://www.helis.com/default/ and whether http://web.archive.org/web/20080204231523/http://www.zibb.com/article/2242454/Argentine+army+presents+first+homegrown+military+helicopter is a copyvio from the BBC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not totally clear on the copyright position of material translated by BBC Monitoring, but it seems to be quite widely re-used, and I doubt Zibb are violating anyone's copyright. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Why would you doubt that, particularly when a webarchive link is provided? How de we know the original link wasn't removed precisely because it was a copyvio, that we may be repeating? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Just now reviewing his WP:Wikicup submissions, at least two recent GAs (Douglas XCG-17 and Grumman XSBF) use Joe Baugher (a self-published source from a non-expert in the field), decidedly not a reliable source as discussed at a FAR whose article name I can't recall. Still concerned here, particularly since he works at DYK; learning towards oppose now, as WP:V is a core policy that all editors should undertand, and the pursuit of Wikicup awards seems to encourage inferior articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Further, the nominator blurb mentions an FA, but I do not see one listed at WP:WBFAN-- could someone pls clarify? I'd like to make sure it uses reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Found on his user page. This editor does not have an FA, he has a Featured list (List of birds of Florida). Ed, it troubles me that you misrepresented the candidate in the nomination statement; there's quite a difference between an FA and an FL. Combined now with dubious sourcing on several of his GAs, and the fact that the aviation project spawned a desysysopped sockpuppeting admin (Archtransit), I'm concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Switched to Oppose, per all of the above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)