Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger

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

The Bushranger

Final (88/13/6); Closed as successful by Kingturtle = (talk) at 05:51, 23 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)

Additional optional questions from WikiCopter

'6.' What type of "WikiGnomish work" are you thinking about doing?

A. Routine stuff that tends to pile up or is an annoyance to editors but is otherwise mostly harmless: G6's, for instance. Also WP:UAA looks like something I could handle with ease, and there would be the odd clouting a vandal over the cyberhead with the mop (for instance, the case where Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS, of all pages, needed a revdel due to a disgruntled airman saying that "(real name was used) is the worst crew chief in the Air Force" etc.). That sort of thing. I've also found a few pages from time to time that were word-for-word copyvios, and it'd be nice to be able to take care of that on the spot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

7. What type of admin-related work have you participated in so far (AFD, AN and related, and CSD (Cat))?

A. I've been occasionally active at AFD, sometimes more so than others depending on my RL workload, although I do keep a sharp eye on military, Florida, and transportation-related deletions. More than a few pages have been slapped with speedy tags by myself; most of them got speedied, I believe there was only one that was turned down outright, and a few more that were hoaxes (Nova 6, anyone?) but went through the AFD process. I'm also rather active at CFD and CFDS as well; categories are actually something I find remarkably enjoyable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 17 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.

• Just as a note, I have enabled email now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• As another note: if promoted, and if there is ever community consensus that I'm misusing the tools, I'll happily step down from adminship. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • How will the community consensus be determined? Through a dedicated page in your userspace, or on ANI, etc.? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Most likely, if there seemed to be growing concern and consensus through ANI etc., I would request that people conduct a "recall vote" on a dedicated page, and I would abide by the community consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

    I commented before the more recent revelations about the candidate emerged, these revelations affected my view that granting him the mop to him will be a net benefit to the project... in no way at all. The fact that he disagrees with another user about the reliability of one source IMHO does not disqualify him. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:09, 19 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)

    Restating my support for this valued contributor. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 18 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); one of the "top guns" over at DYK; adequate experience in administrative areas such as AfD and vandal fighting; a Wikipedian since June 2008--Hokeman (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

    Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Move to Oppose -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

22. Support of course!--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 03:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
23. 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)
24. Support Great work at DYK. The Interior (Talk) 04:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
25. 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)
26. Support Keepscases (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
27. Support No reason not to. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
28. 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)
29. 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)
30. Support - Absolutely. A name I'm already familiar with, and always in a positive context.--Korruski^Talk 10:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Just to confirm, still supporting despite small mistake in nom regarding FA--Korruski^Talk 19:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
31. 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)

    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) moved to neutralWorm^TT 09:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

32. Support. For sure! Anyone who's against political correctness wins my support :) Caden ^cool 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
33. Tell me why not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

34. Support--Breawycker (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
35. səˈpɔːt Excellent candidate who gets my unequivocal support. Muy bien hecho. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
36. Support - Works a lot with DYK, which does need admins. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
37. Support - Very knowledgeable contributor. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 18:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
38. Support - One of the good guys. Manxruler (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
39. Support Perfect candidate to receive the tools. WayneSlam 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
40. Support - It looks like you would make a great admin. Krashlandon ^(talk) 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

    Support I thick that The Bushranger is ready for the Admin tools. ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

41. No concerns whatsoever. AD 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
42. Support No concerns, this editor clearly has the editing experience, and appears to have sufficient knowledge in policy areas to be given the mop. Pol430 talk to me 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
43. Support Is Bushranger experienced and trustworthy enough to wield a mop without breaking things and turning into an angry mastodon? Yes. That is enough for me. The rest I'll assume good faith on. Steven Walling 07:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
44. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The issues below regarding article sources reflect a good-faith disagreement about borderline sources but don't affect my trust in the candidate. The other concerns expressed in the oppose and neutral sections are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. The candidate has demonstrated enough skill and dedication to the project (DYK and WP as a whole) and will be even more efficient with the admin tools. Opposes are good - learn from them and get better, but there is nothing more than that in those opposes. Materialscientist (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
47. Support - Constructive editor who I anticipate will wield the mop sagely and with care.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
48. Support I accept and agree with some of Sandy's (and others) arguments in oppose. I think the candidate has had enough feedback in that respect, and understands the concerns going forward. None of those reasons presented, in themselves, seem to indicate likely tool misuse or abuse however; indeed I believe the candidate will use the tools well and reliably. Pedro :  Chat  09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

    Moving to the all bold brilliance of Strongest Possible Support per Boris' shouting of "strongest oppose" in which he brings forth no new arguments, and per Sandy Georgia who has poisoned the well rather neatly, and then gleefuly struck that bit when the damage was done. And please SG - don't challenge this unless you have something new to say. Your boring and repetive "me, I only assume good faith" is dubious at best. Try and leave your hatred of me at the door. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

49. Support, excellent candidate, no concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
50. Support - contributions, clue. NVO (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
51. Support - trustworthy and competent Egg Centric 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
52. Support - An excellent candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
53. Support - seems quite positive and constructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
54. Support - Some concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objekat 101 but overall has a better handle on things than me. Marcus Qwertyus 22:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
55. Support - all seems in order.--E♴ (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Support pretty much per Newyorkbrad. In particular, the disagreement over the reliability of a source ≠ a reason to oppose, for me. And I cannot fathom why a WikiProject that spawns an unrelated blocked editor is even being tossed into the mix, if not to throw just about everything at this candidate to see what will stick. I find that creepy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC) On the other hand, Mkativerata is one editor that I always look to for well-researched opinions here and s/he raises some relevant points about recent work that does raise a few flags for me. Moving to neutral for this RFA, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

56. Support. Although this edit in perticular troubles me, all of my other experiences with Bushranger have been extremely positive. I have complete trust that Bushranger will be able to put the sysop tools to good use, and it gives me great pleasure to support his candidacy

    I, quite honestly, didn't remember that bold was considered to be shouting here, since everywhere else I post, it's only "ALL CAPS" that is shouting. Had I recalled that, I would only have italicised for empahsis, not bolding, and I apologise for that misunderstanding. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

57. Quite a while since I struck, but first my computer crashed and then I decided to re-read everything before rubber-stamping my decision to support. Sandy's argument, while in places persuasive, has been blown out of proportion IMO. Two of her points I disagree with (one has since been stricken, the other I objected to in the conversation below), and a further two were not the doing of the candidate, which just leaves experience. Mkativerata makes an argument about the sloppy selection of DYKs, which has merit. Without wishing to completely excuse The Bushranger (because the CV should have been spotted), at the moment the stage of taking accepted hooks to the prep stage is procedural. The initial authors, reviewers, and most relevantly admin(s) who actually put those articles onto the main page are also culpable. In summary I share Mkativerata's sentiment that admins need to take a lot more responsibility at DYK, and that the argument constitutes solid grounds to oppose. But I believe that once bitten will be twice shy, that given the weight of the backlash here, some fundamental change at DYK is on the way, and as far as I have seen The Bushranger has not used sources that cannot be reasonably argued as reliable. —WFC— 06:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    That's not so much the problem as the fact the Bush argued for said references so fiercely, and even began bolding and Capping his responses. The participation in DYK(already a so-so resume point) and a dozenish GAs + politeness are his major selling points, so far though here he hasn't demonstrated high standards for content, familiarity with admin processes or the proper temperament required for the stresses of adminship.AerobicFox (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    I have a policy of not assessing civility. ~75 people have contributed to this discussion, and I'll leave that judgement to the other 74. Based on the English references I have seen, I simply disagree as far as content goes. Spanish ones have been flagged, but I don't speak Spanish, and am not inclined to go on the say-so of others at this point. —WFC— 08:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Civility and temperament are two totally different things, and a user yelling in all caps and bold letters in their own rfa raises flags. A user strongly defending the use of a personal, self published hobby site as an RS in a GA also raises question as to how well they will ensure content quality at DYK. And I do speak Spanish, but you shouldn't need to to be able to tell that a .com address that opens up multiple pop-up adds isn't typically a reliable source. I'll leave the opposing arguments down below though to represent themselves.AerobicFox (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

58. Support we need more admins and you're competent. Swarm ^X 08:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
59. Support Per WFC. I consider some of the oppose rationales to be fairly weak. That there was a sockpuppet in WP Aviation in the past should be of no consequence to this RFA. The early supports and the Feature list mistakenly presented as a Featured article (an honest mistake by the nominator, since corrected) were not the candidates doing, and penalizing him for it is not the way to go. Finally, regarding sourcing, the one source that generated alot of discussion is currently being examined at the reliability noticeboard and there is no consensus that it is unrealible. Even if it is found so, however, the fact that it generated so much discussion means that it is, at the very least a boderline case, and so, the candidates decision to used it is just as reasonable as would have been a decision not to use it. As for the unrealible sources added by other users, the notion presented by one of the opposers that editors are supposed to constantly watch over their GAs and should be held accountable for not undoing someone elses edit is simply silly. This is a volunteer project and I'm certainly free to take an article up to GA of FA and then decide to leave it to its fate. Acer (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
60. Support. None of the opposing arguments have convinced me that Bushranger is likely to use the admin tools unwisely, which is what we're supposed to be assessing here. He can hardly take responsibility for events outside his control, and I find it troubling that we seem to expect admin candidates to submit quietly and even gratefully to a grilling the likes of which we wouldn't normally find outside a courtroom and then censure them when they have the temerity to show some personality. Three or four ongoing discussions in different locations about a good-faith difference of opinion that barely even relates to the candidate's fitness for adminship seems to me to be excessive :) EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
61. Support: I feel better about this candidate who I now believe is a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
62. Support:No reason why not--Sokac121 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
63. Support Chaosdruid (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
64. Support Fladrif (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
65. Support C4MB (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
66. Some of Sandy's notes are concerning, but I'm willing to give him a shot. I took a close look at his earlier contribs and don't have the same doubts that I had about Archtransit or others. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
67. I have no major concerns. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
68. Support Not persuaded by opposes, do not see anything that makes me think tools will be misused. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
69. Support – Will definitely be a net plus to the sysop group. —mc10 (t/c) 23:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
70. Give him the mop, it's harder to give the tools than take them away nowadays. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 00:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
71. Support I recently had really a good experience with this editor. Over the same article I asked questions in two separate projects where I received the short answer. Candidate came in and offered suggestions within policy that were be helpful for me and the article I was working on.--v/r - TP 02:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    Support, looking over the candidate's edit history, I don't see any cause for concern, nor do I think "cooldown" was used in the sense we normally think of it (he meant a series of escalating blocks for real misbehavior, which is perfectly appropriate and accepted). The opposes appear to be baseless. If making one error (the page blanking bit) disqualifies you from adminship, you better desysop me pretty quick, I've made more than one mistake in my time here! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Well aren't I the idiot today, helps if you can type in the right place! But did mean to support this one as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

72. SUpport- I've seen Bushranger around and he has always struck me as clueful and responsible. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
73. Support - Heck yeah. Having a look at his edit history and editcount, there's no reason not to support. Long-term editor with a lot of experience from many areas of editing, and pretty active too. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
74. Support Very well rounded, though granted there are a few concerns, but overall a net benefit as admin. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
75. Support, and I mean it for this one this time. I think some concerns are legitimate, but not serious enough to warrant an oppose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
76. Support. Aside from the small mistakes we all make, this user shows great ability. Give him the mop. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
77. Support, content builder, good faith contributor, and not perfect. What's not to like? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
78. Support. Solid, steady contributor. –SJ+ 11:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
79. Weakly, because though I think you're a qualified candidate, the opposes do have weight to them. I think that you'll be able to improve upon those concerns if you pass or not, and if this RfA isn't immediately successful, perhaps a second time will do. ceranthor 18:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
80. Support. Good content creator. My interactions with Bushy have been positive. I have considered Sandy's points and found them unconvincing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
81. Support - looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
82. Support- Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
83. Support. Good work so far with GAs and similar edits. I see no reason why you shouldn't be given the tools. Hugahoody (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
84. Secret ^account 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
85. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
86. SupportSome good points from the oppose comments and the neutrals for the user to take forward. Seems like a good faith offer to assist with the mop and if he takes his time I don't see any problems on the horizon. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
87. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
88. Support Though I don't normally comment on these, I wanted to show my support for the adminship of Bushranger. I believe that he will use good, fair judgement if given the adminship. Also, he has done good work at DYK, and was very helpful to me when I had questions about the process. In my opinion, the opposing argument relies heavily on things that Bushranger had little or no control over. That's not to delegitimize the opposition, I simply disagree with their conclusions. Good luck!-RHM22 (talk) 03:48, 23 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. (Amended: struck per discussion and further clarification at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger#WikiProject membership used as an oppose rationale, so as not to imply I believe he may be a sock.) ^{SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)} 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)

   No problem, I'm not blaming him for your mistake or Archtransit, but we'll never know how many of the already lodged supporters thought he had an FA. There were 37 Supports lodged before you corrected the nomination blurb. [6] (I'm unsure on RFA processes, but I suspect the early supports should have been reverted before the RFA went live.) The biggest problem is that admins not knowledgeable about the core policy of WP:V at DYK is not a problem we should continue. On the other hand, he knew he didn't have an FA-- why didn't he correct you on the blurb? This is a concern to thoroughness. And, I hope not, honesty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Well, at least he's got a Featured Something, which is more than I had when I ran for admin, and is still more than I have. For the record, the minor error in the nom made no difference to my !vote. I tend to give opinions based more on what I know of the editor in question and how they work rather than what they have and haven't done creation-wise or what tool they do or do not use. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   What sources are you concerned about in the GAs and DYKs? If it's designation-systems.net, that has been confirmed multiple times as a reliable source; its author is a published expert in the field of military designations and equpment (stated as such by Jane's, in fact). On FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II, that was a page that I cooporated with User:Bzuk on; several of the references were added by him, and of the ones I added, none of them were questioned by him or the reviewer; in addition, that was the very first article I worked on for GA and my knowledge of what is and isn't a reliable source has, I'll freely admit, improved significantly since then. As for Joe Baugher, his reliability is vouched for by WikiProject Aircraft. As for the FA/FL, honestly I didn't catch that, probably because it was 3am when I first read through the thing, my apologies for missing that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   See below, and http://www.joebaugher.com/ is most certainly not a reliable source, and the aviation project understood that several years ago-- please provide some evidence of when and why that changed so their error can be corrected. Baugher is a hobbyist and does not meet the requisites for self-published sources from non-experts. About Joe Baugher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Baugher provides a list of over 4,200 references. Someone who is prepared to disclose his sources like this ought to be taken seriously. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   WP:SPS is clear; he is not a published expert on the topic, and his work may contain errors (I know of some, in fact). This has been well debated elsewhere, to the extent that WP aviation removed him from all articles-- why he is now creeping into start- and stub-class articles in the last year is a mystery; we've seen no evidence of Bushranger's assertion that the aviation project accepts it, and they certainly didn't a few years ago. We don't use self-published hobbyists to source Wiki articles, per SPS. Bushranger appears to have the only GAs using him; I'm concerned (once again) about what the heck is going on over at DYK, but this most certainly should not be happening at GA. Since he lists sources, responsible editors will access those sources-- not a hobby site. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Mystery solved: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources was created on January 22, 2011, and is mostly edited by Mjroots and The Bushranger, so now we know where the assertion that it's a reliable source comes from. Thanks for mentioning, Mj, that you had less experience at producing content than this candidate did when you passed RFA, but all articles must use reliable sources, and sourcing at DYK has long been a problem-- we can't have this creeping into GAs as well, and this kind of sourcing must certainly won't result in featured quality content. The site was added to that list less than two weeks ago by User:Ahunt, [7] which may explain a sudden bout of start- and stub-class articles citing it. I suggest a review of that page to assure it conforms with Wiki policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Further, this sort of thing always concerns me. It might not qualify as WP:CANVASSing, but I've never seen it done for responsible nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Comment - I put that up on the project page entirely on my own initiative in case you are some how implying that I was asked to post that notice. It is couched in entirely neutral language and thus might have attracted as many oppose as support. The language is essentially the same as I have used to announce AfDs for articles. Show me which policy this offends and I will be happy to not do it again. - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I have implied no such thing: I just generally think it's poor practice, and I never do it. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Ah, okay I note that it isn't a Wikipedia policy or even a guideline then, just your personal opinion. I am curious though why you would personally consider it a "poor practice" to post a notice in very neutral language with the aim of getting the widest possible input to an RFA and why you would mention it here as a reason to oppose the nomination of this editor. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Actually, I did check the archives of WP:RSN, and Baugher had been discussed before. There was no overwhelming consensus that I could see that Baugher is not a reliable source. Baugher's database is most likely to be used on Wikipedia for confirming aircraft registrations and construction numbers. It should be realised that not every article is going to make FA/FL. Some will realistically only make it as far as C class, others may make B or GA. That is fine. I feel that this discussion is detracting from the purpose of the RfA now. SG, would you please raise any concerns about any aviation resources at the relevant talk page where discussion can continue away from here, leaving this for it intended purpose. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Although I already did that, quite a bit ago, no :) Lack of undertanding of core policies, particularly at DYK by admins, is the issue here. And my list of issues with The BushRanger's content work is not confined to his use of Baugher as a source (see below). And I note that you didn't object to other RFA participants making jokes in my neutral commentary below, going off-topic, nor did you ask them to remove it to talk, so goose-gander and all that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   There is, in addition, the fact that a Google Books search for "Joe Baugher" shows that he is, in fact, a published source who is widely recognised as an expert in the field. To wit: "Military aviation expert Joe Baugher" [8]; "Joe Baugher, aviation historian" [9]; "Joe Baugher, "American Military Aircraft Encyclopedia," [10]; "A special acknowledgment has to go to Joe Baugher, whose magnificent web site on military aircraft serial numbers I visited over and over again seeking confirmation of data I had received on individual planes. Anyone doing military aircraft research must visit (address). It will be a visit well spent" [11]; "According to Joe Baugher's magnificent website" [12]; he is also cited as a source by [13] and [14]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Have you read WP:SPS yet? Have you located a reliable third-party publication by him, in the relevant field? We don't make it up as we go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, I have, and I already had. And all of the above sources mentions with regard to his reliablilty are third-party sources that utilise Baugher's work, including directly quoting it. The F/A-18 Hornet: "Military aviation expert Joe Baugher, in his online Encyclopedia of American Military Aircraft, said that the F/A-18Bs "were essentially intended as trainers"". [15]. This book also explictly reccomends Baugher to be used by "students of local transportation history". He is (a) an established expert in the field of aviation history, described by third parties, who are published in the field of aviation history, as such, and (b) the works in question, "self-published" on the Internet, on the subject of aviation history, have been cited, quoted, and used by published third parties in works on aviation history. Clearly this meets WP:SPS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   At Talk:Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the accuracy of Joe Baugher came up. He was on record saying the P-38 engines were prone to overheating and also had problems with the oil never warming up enough—a clear contradiction. I think Joe Baugher must be assessed on a page-by-page basis rather than accepted at face value regardless. All of this concern about Baugher should not affect anybody's suitability for adminship. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not sure you're correct here. Oil which doesn't warm up enough is a potential CAUSE of overheating. If it doesn't heat up enough to flow cleanly, thus resulting in less lubrication, the increased friction can cause overheating. Baugher's assertions are not necessarily contradictory. My source is my wife who is an aerospace engineer of much less stature than Mr. Baugher. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   To avoid getting much further off-topic here, errors in Baugher's work are being discussed at WP:RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose - No admin (or prospective admin) should resort to shouting to try and make a point, (bolded, block capitals is considered shouting on the internet and certainly should not be used here). I have seen good work but I am worried about policy/guideline understanding level and also Bushranger's potential ability to deal correctly and effectively with persistent 'troublemakers' in the aviation project which has not been explored yet to my knowledge. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   I did let myself get carried a bit away there, and I should not have done that. (I also assumed that only ALL CAPS was shouting, but that's no excuse!) I apologise to both you and Sandy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   It's only an essay but there are some wise words at Wikipedia:Shouting things loudly does not make them true. As an admin you might/would have to convey this thought to editors in a heated 'discussion', if you can't abide by the spirit of it yourself then big trouble may well lie ahead. I find gritting your teeth together and counting to ten when you are not getting 'your way' helps a lot! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   It certainly does. I remember an incident when I nearly (thankfully, I didn't) hit "Save page" after blowing up at a person opposing a WikiProject A-class Review for my article (he was opposing on grounds of research diversity, made a mistake, go figure). WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Nimbus, it appears as though your complaint may be taking things a little too far. Sure, underlining it would have been better than all caps, but angelic behavior is not necessary for adminship. Errors in judgment are to be expected from all humans, and The Bushranger appears to be human. And he capitalized 3 words -- it's largely an etiquette issue, he's seen where he went wrong and it's hardly something to bash his endeavor in for. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Sorry (although not that it will make a difference to the result!). Sandy's sourcing concerns are borne out by a sample of DYK prep compilations. In this recent compilation there is a BLP sourced substantially to the subject's personal CV and another article that does a fair bit of close paraphrasing of this source. I'm a bit uncomfortable looking through the history: you often have a very high rate of contribs in short periods of time. This indicates a propensity to rush, which might be a cause of the issues identified here and fairly unhelpful AfD !votes like this, which according to your contribs log from 29 November, came at the end of a flood of five similar AfD !votes in five minutes. (Note "per x" is fine sometimes, but only if x has a half-decent argument, and you didn't re-visit the !vote after it was refuted). --Mkativerata (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   My apologies. That's one reason I slowed down at AfD - to be able to pay better attention and give better considerations to the ones I do !vote on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Based on Sandy's original note and the subsequent discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose per SandyGeorgia and Nimbus. I'm really sorry, but I can't support you at this time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose: - Sandy's original note really made be feel uncomfortable about this candidate. Lack of trust is a major concern. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Hey Ret.Prof, I've seen you around RfA (plus I think you supported mine?), and I normally either understand or agree with your opinion... which is the reason for this reply to you. The original note remarked on a short length of time (fair point) and a problem with one of his articles (which had poor referencing added by another editor). I'm just curious what you find uncomfortable and why you don't trust him. This isn't meant to 'badger', I'm genuinely curious. Thanks, as always, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Glad to respond and my mind can always be changed as we need more Admins. The following gave me pause 1. This editor has only been active for nine months, although the account was created in 2008. 2. The Aviation Project spawned the now desysopped sockpuppet, Archtransit. 3. The nominator misrepresented in the nomination statement that this editor has an FA: he does not. 4.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. 5. Several Supports were entered before this RFA went live. Too many concerns here. Was Sandy being unfair? - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, I don't understand the Archtransit reference. Is there a suggestion that The Bushranger is Archtransit, or just that they're both interested in aviation? 28bytes (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   And regarding the too-early supports, I noticed on my watchlist the heading "Admin?" on The Bushranger's talk page, so I clicked to see what that was about, and noticed The ed17 had created this RfA, but had not transcluded it. I waited patiently until it was transcluded to add my support, but apparently some of The Bushranger's other talk page stalkers were a little more eager, and jumped in ahead of time. That's frowned upon, of course, but at least they were upfront that they'd jumped the gun, and I don't think that does or should reflect poorly on the candidate in any way. 28bytes (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'll try to clarify then. I am not saying The Bushranger is Archtransit or that the Aviation Project is to be blamed for Archtransit. There are just too many little things wrong here for me to feel comfortable with this RFA. Supports entered too early, a post to the Aviation Project (that has lots of members) about this RFA with the past lack of clue there re Archtransit and possibly many supports coming from that Project, WikiCup participation (which sometimes results in poorly sourced DYKs on the road to awards that can fuel an RFA), an unfortunate mistake in the nomination blurb that wasn't corrected until 37 Supports had been entered, a previously retired account due to burnout combined with only nine months editing under a new account to which he returned years later, and the sourcing issues. It just all adds up to make me uncomfortable, but most importantly for me, I expect that an admin who wants to use tools in the DYK area must know sourcing, since they advance the queues. I'm unconvinced by the argument that sources were added by someone else; active editors should watch their GAs. I'm less concerned about The Bushranger's reaction to the discussions here, since I feel some of that has been fueled by other Aviation editors spreading this whole matter all over the Wikipedia in attempts to defend poor sourcing. (As I see it, I started a post early on at WP:AVIATION, but others spread this all over talk pages and other noticeboards, and continued discussing sourcing here, which I consider unfortunate during an ongoing RFA.) If The Bushranger learns better sourcing, and continues to participate at a high level without burnout, I would be likely to support a clean RFA some months down the road, but for now, there are just has too many little issues for me to feel ready to trust him with the tools. Not all of that is necessarily his fault but it is what it is. I think when an RFA has a number of issues like this crop up, an exceptional editor could have handled them differently in a way that might have defused some of this, but the continued debates about poor sourcing everywhere have not been an indication of good judgment, but I'm encouraged that The Bushranger did say he would work to improve sourcing at DYK; now I just need to see him "put his money where his mouth is" with a few more months of dedicated editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for the clarification, Sandy. Even though I'm in the support column on this one, I think I better understand your point of view. 28bytes (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'll second 28bytes, although I would like to say that taking your general concerns on the Aviation Project and the WikiCup and projecting them onto Bushranger is a tad unfair. Same for my mistake in the nomination. Still, your other concerns are valid (even if I don't agree with all of them!) :-) Ret.Prof, are you saying you agree with Sandy on all of her points? Thanks again, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Not blaming you Ed; I understand it was an honest mistake, but it added to a list of small but unfortunate circumstances. I also don't know that I would have been pushed to an Oppose if all of this hadn't added up to too many things for me to be comfortable that this is a clean RFA. If The Bushranger passes, which looks likely, it shouldn't ideally be with a cloud about a lot of glitches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I have enjoyed the good natured back and forth between Sandy and Ed. (&28bytes) . I feel better about this candidate who I now believe is a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose. He's prone to resting on his own judgement even when his charges rest on nothing more than the 'obvious meaning' of someone else's unspoken intent, even if that person is a veteran editor who is not likely to take accusations like serious ABF lightly.[16]. He has also sometimes offered short sarcastic one liners rather than a proper reply, or a diplomatic silence.[17][18] And these are observations from just a couple of months ago. He could no doubt do a better job than several sitting admins, but still, standards are standards. Also, I see no explanation for this gap between setting up The Bushranger account and actually using it. That's definitely an open issue for any Rfa. MickMacNee (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   I've given a lot of thought to striking my oppose, considering that some of the issues I raised earlier may have been either 1) not The Bushranger's fault (although he should have taken greater care that the RFA was presented correctly), or 2) a reaction to the meddling and instigation of other editors who vigorously defended marginal sourcing. However, these diffs trouble me. I understand there may be some Aviation WikiProject history here among these editors, but I don't feel the responses in these diffs demonstrate the temperament we seek in admins, and I remain concerned about some of the ways they do things on WP Aviation (as in, picking up bad habits wrt how to deal with other editors). I do remain willing to Support The Bushranger a few months down the road, in a clean RFA, if sourcing and temperament concerns are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

   (switching to neutral)Oppose Was going to say neutral at first, but I think there is enough to swing it to oppose. Basically is a "put in some more time and come back later". Fellow is very pleasant and helpful. But seems, somehow a little light. I do think the tools would help him get things done at DYK, which is why I was neutral. Just reading all the stuff from Sandy, I think some more time, more longer content, is needed. Work on the sources would stand him in good stead. Also a little concerned with some of the pattern of article creation churn and then the project or personal support coming in with 30+ premature supports. On the library thing, I couldn't follow the fellow's logic. He said yes, he would go to the library, and even worked at one, but then that it wasn't any good. (So, what's the point then...it defeats the purpose, no?) And then...well...ILL...and public universities. Come back with a little more time on the pond and a longer article. Show Sandy a thing or two! Then I'll vote thumbs up.TCO (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   Where do you get "30+ premature supports"? I'm support #6 and I'm pretty sure I'm not premature. 28bytes (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   My bad. Struck.TCO (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose per SandyGeorgia and Nimbus.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   Well, that's pretty much what I meant - I work at our local library, which isn't a very good one to be totally honest. There books I request via interlibrary loan, then never hear a single thing back about them... As for the premature supports, that's because I assumed, once accepted, the RfA would be automatically transcluded on the page by a bot, as opposed to it needing to be done manually. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

8. Oppose: I am surprised to see a candidate shouting in bold and all caps in a place where they are trying to showcase their best behavior. With Bushranger seemingly only interacting within a small cadre of editors at DYK and various aviation articles I am concerned with how he might act with other editors in controversial topics or within a heated debate. Is there a diff that can be provided of him in such an interaction and showcasing civility? Also I'm having a difficult time finding much in depth participation in any Afd's, and from the discussion below I'm concerned with his upholding RS or other community standards, especially within DYK. A later date with more experience cross-wiki would seem like a better time to bring this up; now may be jumping the gun a little. AerobicFox (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Per above and per this and this. Concerns with temperament and judgement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   Regarding the first diff: in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to take Ahunt at his word that he wasn't solicited to do that. 28bytes (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   As I have already stated I posted those neutrally-worded announcements entirely on my own initiative for the purposes of getting maximum input, in support of and opposed to, this nomination. Unless editors know that there is an RfA in progress I really don't see how they can comment on it. As noted above this apparently does not offend any policy or guideline anywhere. Regardless, there is no reason to hold this against the nominated editor, as he had nothing to do with the announcements. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   I am not sure how the notion that Ahunt may have been solicited to make that post came into the discussion (perhaps that is somewhere on a user talk page?), but as Ed pointed out on talk, MilHist has a template for notification of admin candidacy, Template:Administrator candidacy notice. I don't think it's good practice, I never do it (in fact, I reverted one once long ago from the Medicine Project talk page out of concern it would affect the candidacy-- later reverted), but it's not against any guideline or policy. I raised it above, as a separate point in my oppose section, only out of concern that Aviation Project members may pile on, and if the vote tally is close, then I would scrutizine to see if the notification had an effect or Project members were disproportionately supporting without critical revew. It was not part of my oppose rationale, it was a concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   User:SandyGeorgia said: "I am not sure how the notion that Ahunt may have been solicited to make that post came into the discussion". It comes from your comment higher up on this page, where you said: "Further, this sort of thing always concerns me. It might not qualify as WP:CANVASSing, but I've never seen it done for responsible nominations." Your statement indicates that you believe that this is not a "responsible nomination" thus creating a cloud of doubt over the motives of my posting of a neutral-worded announcement that did not contravene any policy or guideline, and the nominee's connection to the posting. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   Ah, I see-- thanks for the clarification, but I never suggested you were solicited, just that it's a personal concern for me, and I watch out for pile-ons from the large WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that Fastily believed The Bushranger had asked Ahunt to post that notice. If Fastily didn't think that, I'll just say that RfA candidates have enough to worry about without being held responsible for what other editors do. 28bytes (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose (with reluctance) Firstly, I am concerned about two procedural issues - neither of which is the direct fault of the candidate, but they certainly could affect the outcome: viz, the posting of votes prior to transclusion, and the erroneous mention of an FA. Both factors may have influenced other support votes. This is unfortunate, and should in no way dissuade the candidate, if unsuccessful, from trying again in the future. Secondly, concerns expressed above regarding reliable sourcing, marginal etiquette concerns re. bolding of text in this RfA, the AfD rushed votes in November, and this being a relatively new account, push me over the line into this section. On the positive side, I found the candidates question responses to be considerate and erudite, and I admire your attitude to building the Encyclopaedia. If the RfA fails, I advise a few months of demonstrating exemplary attention to sourcing, and of courteous behaviour in wider areas of Wikipedia, prior to re-applying. As an aside: I do suggest you enable email; your privacy concerns are easily overcome by setting up a freebie account just for Wikipedia - for example, I'm Chzzlive.co.uk. There are various ways of easily getting an alert when the account receives email (RSS, or some pop-up gizmo, etc).  Chzz  ►  18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comment: I can't speak for other editors who posted here before this RfA was transcluded, but my comment was added to this page as a result of the nomination being announced on the nominee's talk page. Many of us on the Aircraft Project watch each other's talk pages just to keep an eye out for issues that need addressing, personal attacks, vandalism, etc. and that is how I saw the RfA come up. I clicked the provided link and added my comment - I had no idea that the nominator had posted to the nominee's talk page before the process had been completed to start the ball officially rolling. I hope that this explanation serves to show that there was nothing suspicious or malicious going on, just that the nomination procedure might have been done in the wrong order. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

11. Strongest possible oppose per User:SandyGeorgia. We've got enough trouble already with admins who have no understanding of content policy. Let's not make it any worse by appointing yet another one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

    Wow .. Sigh .. You don't mean he will use the tools to destroy wikipedia, do you. No offense, but I doubt anybody has a full grasp of our content policy. Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

12. "Content" contributions. -Atmoz (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

    Cut the guy some slack. He probably only "edits" the mainspace for shits and giggles. —WFC— 07:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

    Oppose because in this edit he used expression "utterly irrelevant" to discredit different (well sourced) opinion. Like WormTT stated in his/her below statement: "One of the main things I look for in an admin is temperment, and evidence of such." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC) I can now see that reason for this edit was not an attempt to discredit different opinion, but utterly unclear :) rule. Sorry.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

13. Oppose I'm a bit worried about his temper impairing his judgement on delicate admin. decisions. Likeminas (talk) 01:25, 23 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)

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)

The archived page clearly shows copyright held by BBC and zibb.com is not a BBC site, so this is a presumptive hosted copyvio. Interestingly, unless the BBC has written consent they also appear to be violating COMTEX's copyright, and it looks like COMTEX may be violating Telam's copyright too. All this is fine for personal use, but it looks like the link to archive.org should be replaced with a more direct reference to the source. Not that these details bear on this RFA, except that I agree that use of the reference is questionable at best. Franamax (talk) 16:54, 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)

Joe Baugher is a reliable source as determined by WikiProject Aircraft. As for the possible copyvio on Cicare, I assumed that Zibb.com was an authorised republisher of BBC Monitoring; the archive.org link was used because the original link was dead. As there's a copyvio concern there, I'll head directly there and remove the link. As for the references on IAe Pulqui II, as I said above, my understanding of WP:RS has improved significantly since that article was co-written almost a year ago - and a number of those references were not added by me. The FA/FL confusion is also mentioned above. Thanks for the comments, though, they are appreciated and I'll do my best to continually improve no matter what happens. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you review that Baugher issue: Joe Baugher is a hobbyist, does not meet self-published sources, it is not a reliable source, he is not an expert in the field that would permit self-published sources, and the Aircraft Project does not determine what a reliable source is at any rate (Wiki policy does). This was reviewed in at least one FAR, and likely more; using that kind of sourcing will most certainly not yield an FA, and it should not be getting past GA. DYK-- another issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It was the F-4 Phantom Featured Article review in February 2008 where it was highlighted that Joe Baugher was not an acceptable reference source for Wikipedia per WP:RS, we removed cites from Baugher as part of keeping the article's status as I remember. I have not used him to cite articles but have added links in the 'External links' sections as his work is otherwise good. Having successfully nominated two aviation-related FA's and faced the question 'what makes this source reliable' I have a much better understanding of what is needed at that level. I have to agree that similar sources should not be used for lower class articles, despite the appearance that they are solid. Can't beat books with an ISBN although some of those are questionable as well!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I eventually located that FAR myself, as we amazingly have regular aviation editors continuing to defend the use of a personal self-published hobby site to source articles, when a trip to the library to find real sources would be more appropriate. WP:SPS is clear-- his published works are not in the area of aviation, and that is a personal hobby for him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See my comment above in the 'oppose' section; seems a lot of published, reputable authors would be surprised by the assertion that Baugher is not a RS. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they might but by the letter of the WP verifiability policy he is not a reliable source. Some policies and guidelines here seem strange and I don't necessarily agree with all of them but it's what we have to work to daily. What Sandy is saying is that editors and administrators (who are 'fledged' editors) need to understand the guidelines and policies thoroughly (even if you don't agree with them). At this point I would concede that we can't use Joe Baugher to cite articles to further your 'promotion review'. We (well, some of us) did stop using him as a source but as we have a slightly different group of editors in the aviation project today this has been overlooked. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Uhhhh, not sure what you are reading, but "by the letter" of WP:V and WP:SPS, a source is reliable if it is by published, reputable authors... as Baugher appears to be. Now can we continue this on the talk page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope :) Because you're still overlooking the in the relevant field of our WP:SPS policy, and we have and editor here who wants to work at DYK, where sourcing problems are fairly common, who has demonstrated sourcing problems beyond just Baugher (see my other lists above), and is defending his position in ways that demonstrate lack of knowledge of WP:V, a core policy.

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Not wanting to go to a library to make sure real sources report what is on a personal hobby site is not the kind of qualities I seek in an admin, particularly one who wants to work at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're, missing two points, one of them repeatedly. 1. I am very willing to go to a library. I work in a library. These souces cannot be gotten by the local libraries here in podunk North Florida. 2. Baugher is not claiming to be an expert. He is stated to be an expert BY OTHER EXPERTS. Point 2 has been stated, over and over, by multiple people who are deeply involved in both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Military History, but you keep stating the same, original objections in reply; in additon, I've replied to your concerns about the other sources, twice, but you keep saying you're concerned about them and I haven't addressed those concerns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not going to duke this out with you [SG] here; I think being quoted and frequently referenced in published, third-party books is enough to prove reliability, i.e. reliable authors think it is reliable, so why not us. You disagree, and I respect that. :-) Shall we take this to WP:RS/N, at least? (preferably before this gets too heated!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree there's little productive left to be said, and the discussion has been going in circles for too long already. I remain concerned that inferior sourcing is creeping into GAs, and relieved that such sourcing is not acceptable in featured articles, per WP:WIAFA. I 'spose it's up to the Aviation Project to decide if they want to be writing articles that can never reach the level of our top content, but I do hope DYK will clean up its sourcing issues, and that editors aspiring for adminship to work at DYK will understand core issues (earlier plagiarism, still sourcing). Over and out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree Baugher is not a 'high-quality' RS... that's why there is a distinction between 'high-quality' and, uh, normal reliable sources. Obviously the articles can't get to FA with sources like him, but I think they are fine for DYK and some GAs, and they are great for editors with limited access to high-quality material (eg poor library systems, or anyone outside US/UK). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of extending this slightly OT discussion there is no distinction at all to the quality of sources between classes of article AFAIK. I used to think that but now I don't. Using the best sources at article creation/stub level saves having to replace them with better ones later and possibly new editors will catch on to what is expected. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is usually true, but only if we make the assumption that the sources that could get through an FAC are always the best. By far the most comprehensive accurate source for post-war English football players that I know of would meet WP:RS using the same argument as for Baugher, but (based on this discussion) would not constitute a "high-quality" RS. Of course, I'm not suggesting that "high-quality" be removed from WIAFA; tough cases make for terrible law. —WFC— 03:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware admins aren't required to be flawless content creators, or even content creators at all. That's why it's a collaborative project; because people bring a range of viewpoints together to make incremental improvements over each other's flawed but on-average-constructive work. Is there anything in any of the above that gives reason to suspect Bushranger would use the admin tools inappropriately? Are we really suspecting that he's going to defend controversial sourcing by handing out round after round of punitive blocks and going on a page-deletion rampage? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• The issue here is that only admins can promote the queues at DYK, he wants to work at DYK, and DYK frequently puts articles on the mainpage that don't use reliable sources. In other words, his content knowledge is relevant to why he wants the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• I fully agree with the concerns about sourcing at DYK. I've seen some articles with truly horrible sourcing - there was one (thankfully not at DYK!) that had four internet-forum posts and five letters-to-the-Scotsman-editor as references! I'm perfectly willing to either pass over or ask for second opinions if there are concerns about sourcing, even if they are about sources that I, personally, would find acceptable and use. Quibbles over policy are to be debated and consensus-d, but not to be unilaterally imposed by a promoting admin based on his or her own opinion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Neutral pending my questions answered. Seen him around, but not really in areas admins are supposed to be working, more of article improvement. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   On the fence for now, leaning towards support. Sandy's point about experience is valid, and I do agree that the nomination statement (even ignoring the error that I accept was a good faith oversight) leaves something to be desired. I disagree with her other concerns, but there is enough there for it to be worth looking more closely than usual before making a decision. —WFC— 04:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Moving to support

2. Neutral from Support. One of the main things I look for in an admin is temperment, and evidence of such. Adminship is stressful, you are likely to have your decisions challenged by people who disagree with your point of view. The discussions on this page with Sandy have shown that the candidate does get stressed when people question his decisions, which is understandable, and although he did not act in a way which would move my opinion to oppose, I do feel less inclined to support. Worm^TT 09:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Neutral from Support. He is ready to have the admin tools but he already has lots of admin tools and I think that he could do enough with what he has. ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 12:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Erm, how can one be "ready to have the admin tools" (eg doesn't have any) yet "already [have] lots of admin tools"? I'm very confused by your statement, as it almost seems like a perfect reason to support? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I think he means that Bushranger already has rollback, reviewer and autopatrolled privileges. Marcus Qwertyus 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Neutral Commendable contribution history and CV, but sufficient valid concerns raised by others to keep me out of the Support column. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Neutral I could care less about him bolding a few sentences or capping them. And he could get some decent work done in DYK for sure with the tools. Still have a few reservations about the article churn, but hopefully, he will work on quality, not just quantity.TCO (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral concerns raised by others above give me pause. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.