Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buckshot06

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Buckshot06[edit]

Final (77/2/2); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 15:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) - Buckshot06 is a prolific contributor to articles on military history and modern militaries and has brought two articles to FA status and created a large number of high-quality articles. In addition, he works tirelessly behind the scenes to tag and assess articles, tidy up categorisations, add internal-links and fix mistakes. This exceptional work maintaining articles led to Buckshot06 being one of only 22 editors to have been awarded the Military History wikiproject's highest award, the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves. Buckshot06 has an excellent record of treating other editors with respect and engaging in cooperative editing, and makes good use of the dispute resolution process and relevant policies/guidelines whenever he is involved in a serious disagreement. As a result of his track record in maintaining Wikipedia and working constructively to resolve disputes, I strongly believe that he would make a great administrator. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thankyou Nick, I accept the nomination and please, feel free to answer additional questions. If I am accepted as an admin I would make myself open to recall (think that's the term). Buckshot06(prof) 14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I do a lot of low-profile tedious 'grunt' work, category creation for example, following on from the patterns that have been set before. Cleaning up stubs, XFD, proposed deletions, etc. I hope that the admin tools will increase my effectiveness in this work, and as I get more familiar, I'll hope to start contributing more widely, vandal chasing, for example. I would like to contribute to closing AFDs and speedy deleting as well. I'll stay mainly within WP:MILHIST, as I have done, unless I have specific familiarity with an issue.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've tried to focus my work on militaries that are not covered by our US-heavy systematic bias. I've got two articles to featured status, Russian Ground Forces and Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with much help by others, but have made hundreds of edits to other lesser-known militaries, like Liberia, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Iran (like 92nd Armored Division) as well as creating all the Russian military districts (bar two), all the Chinese military regions, and a large number of Russian army and division articles, plus the main list articles List of Armies of the Soviet Union and Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945. I was awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves for this kind of work. Within the MILHIST project I contribute regularly to policy discussions - I suggested the Top Ten Team, though there had been earlier discussions on the subject - and do grunt work, trying to clean up Category:Military stubs and Category:Military history articles with no associated task force. I've created numerous categories to order our collection of military unit articles and done a good deal of work on U.S. and British units as well, notably current British infantry brigades.
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: Previously I've been involved in several very minor conflicts, and one major, long-running dispute, over the actions of user:Mrg3105 (in common with dozens of other editors). Mrg is extremely single-minded, and does not believe much in WP:Consensus. I tried to remain civil and rational, pretty successfully I believe, and sort things out in cooperation with other editors, often including the coordinators of the WP:MILHIST project. Mrg3105 has now been given several blocks, and is now under a community editing restriction, and is behaving himself. Since he was placed under that restriction I've had no further conflicts with him.
Additional questions from Woody
4. Would you carry out any administrative action regarding Mrg3105, e.g. protecting an article he has edited recently, or blocking him?
Good question; maybe I should have said something about that in the sections above. I've got a history with Mrg3105, and thus I feel I cannot take any admin actions unilaterally. If I felt that any were required, I would want to discuss it with other admins and/or the WPMILHIST coordinators first. If they didn't agree, I wouldn't take any action. All the coordinators are aware of Mrg's ways of doing things, so I believe they as a group could provide an appropriate set of checks and balances.
4.1 Do you feel that the coordinators of MILHIST have any jurisdiction over matters such as this?
A No formal jurisdiction, but a lot of wise heads with several having admin tools themselves. Rather a good group to seek counsel from.
Fair enough. Woody (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Caulde
5. You state above that you will make yourself open to recall; under what circumstances would you recall somebody else's administrator position? I realise this is a question more akin to RfB, but I'd be interested in finding out your opinion. Caulde 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Caulde. For the first six months or so, I wouldn't feel I had enough experience to recall anyone - if I felt it was necessary, I'd talk it over with other admins and probably also consult user:Kirill Lokshin. In general, they would have had to have two or three instances of badly misusing their admin tools without admitting their errors or fixing them. After six months I'd probably want to consult anyway too. If that doesn't clarify my position enough, say so, and I'll expand some more.
No, that's fine. It was a good answer to an optional question - so that's good enough. Caulde 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more questions from Woody
6 When would you block someone for incivility? How do you define incivil?
A: I was more thinking of silly new page deletions than blocks when I signed up for this application, but fair question. Incivil would be a repeated (that's important) questioning of a wikipedian's good faith, knowledge, behaviour, etc - casting aspersions, basically. Any block would only take place after a couple of warnings, consultation with more experienced people and a WP:Cup of tea on my part. Buckshot06(prof) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7 When would you block someone for stalking? At what point does legitimate checking on a users contributions become stalking?
A: Basically same as above; would hope to get a number of more experienced wikipedians inputs before I start going to block people, though that might change as I gain experience myself in the role. I think the key about the change from legit checking to stalking comes with the behaviour of the possible stalker; if it's used as a platform for personal attacks, as everybody's entitled to scan contributions, and Special/Contributions is only one of the possible ways to do that. As long as we stick to debating the subject, with sources, I believe that's legit. But blocking in general, I think, is something I'd approach very carefully; not an everyday thing. Buckshot06(prof) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is the funniest thing I have read here so far :) Buckshot06 at one time "contributed" so much "legitimate checking on a users contributions" in my case that I raised an AN/I for stalking, and he cited sources only once (one source). In the end he was told to lay off my editing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7.1 The reason I asked this question was due to the extraordinary number of articles that both you and Mrg3105 have edited. (553 at last count). Do you think this counts as stalking? Woody (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: There's a very simple answer to that; we're both interested in the Eastern Front of WW II, and were collaborating extensively early on. As you'll see from User_talk:mrg3105#Featured article issues, I'm still solicting input from Mrg3105 when it appears he has worthwhile viewpoints to add. Buckshot06(prof) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another question from User:Itfc+canes=me
8 If someone was to irritate you.... but without breaking the rules.... what would you do? Block or Talk to them.
I would very much hope that I'm mature enough to talk to people for a good long while before thinking of blocks. In my disputes with Mrg3105, I've approached a number of long-experienced wikipedians on and off line to double-check my views and proposed actions, and I would continue that policy before thinking of blocking anyone. Buckshot06(prof) 20:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from RockManQ

9 Do you agree with every Wikipedia policy? If not please give an example and tell why?
A: As user:W. B. Wilson says, the No original research policy 'mildly stifles the creation of very focused historical articles.' I have some material from the Public Record Office, Kew, UK, that I would very much like to add in to some articles, but it is not authorised. Also, there are some extremely authorative forums out there, where people with really respected skills and knowledge are congregating, but we cannot use that data. However, I understand the reasons for the rules and I am not advocating that they be changed; merely, as with W.B. Wilson, it does hamper my article work sometimes. Buckshot06(prof) 20:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you would oppose use of original research to create article titles?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your posts here are starting to border on harassment. I assume you said your piece in your 10K oppose; please stop badgering the candidate. This question, being vague at face value, is apparently a loaded one and refers to some past disagreement with the candidate. Tan | 39 01:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from  Asenine 

10. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: Both are important, and in the hypothetical above, both are acting in accordance with policy(!) I believe we're here to improve things all round, so I would hope that in a case such as this, some of the involved people discussing things would investigate and stand up for the affected edit - in a talkpage discussion, without an edit war on the page. That would go for a non-summary article; I watchlisted World War II for a while, and there, with the page size limit, in that case, probably going back to the consensus version would be better - but someone would have to find a source! Difficult to give an answer to a hypothetical question, as it's so case-dependent; if you wish to point towards a real case on a page, please re-ask and I'll do my best to answer. Buckshot06(prof) 20:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? You dismiss the substance of this open-ended question as merely hypothetical, but that rhetorical tactic is evasive in this context. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more thoughtful and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?" --Tenmei (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a one word answer: verifiability. Buckshot06(prof) 16:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: Yes. Look at User_talk:Buckshot06#Heavy cavalry, involving Mrg3105, and User_talk:Buckshot06#Yucky article, when I had to disagree with my good friend user:Nick Dowling and state my opinion that American mutilation of Japanese war dead was presented reasonably and to standards. If that's not enough, sing out and I'll go back further into my archives.
12. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: My activities are much more likely to be affected by my academic schedule, involving my total wikitime, rather than getting the mop. I would however, trying to answer your question, probably drop back a little on obscure referencing for things like Task Force 145 and pay more attention to deletion and new page patrolling (grr.. the garbage that sometime people write!!)

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Buckshot06 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • But really new ones can't. naerii 00:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Maybe I'm misreading "Expressing Opinions" above, but it sure looks like anyone with an account is welcome to participate. Townlake (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All registered users may participate lest they be socks. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware that any user should be able to contribute. However, really new users who have just failed their first RfA and have started vandalising this page by joking around (diff one, diff two) then it probably shouldn't count. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not go down the path of "we think you're a knob, so your vote doesn't count anymore". Deal with vandalism the way we normally do. If he's going to additionally prove why his RfA didn't go through, so be it ... you vandalize RfA, you're next RfA will be even less successful. BMW(drive) 12:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've received an email from Buckshot saying that he's having some difficulties getting access to the internet, so it may take time for him to respond to further questions. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support — Nice application, seems like a nice user with no wrong intentions. Unless I find a reason to oppose, I may as well support! Good luck! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support – Good answer(s) to questions. Caulde 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support – iridescent 15:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Will do well with the extra tools. iMatthew (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good luck! America69 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Looks good to me. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support The answers are extraordinarily sensible. And everything else. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support An excellent editor, very friendly and helpful. I've never seen him be abusive with tools or be anything but civil in the times I've encountered him, and his work speaks for itself in its quality and quantity. Skinny87 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. naerii 16:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - His logistical work for the MilHist Project is outstanding. I can't wait to see what he can accomplish with admin tools. Cam (Chat) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Everything looks fine. Everyme 17:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Civil, helpful, dedicated, self-effacing and modest. A great article writer with sufficent project space contributions to demonstrate clue. Clearly won't make mistakes and will check first before acting. Frankly a pleasure to support. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  17:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per iridescent. lolz! No, per your outstanding work on one of the biggest projects on WPedia. —'Sunday 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Seems good to me. I do, however, find it slightly bizarre that you mark all edits as minor. No biggie! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Everything looks good to me, I think he'll do fine as an administrator. I would recommending archiving your talk page one of these days, it's quite long. Fortunately, I have this mouse, great for scrolling. Useight (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Has the requisite experience in the only significant respects, and his conduct shows that he has both the faithful intentions and the necessary clue not to cause concern in any technically demanding adminsitrative functions with which he may not be terribly familiar. the skomorokh 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Seems to be a trustworthy candidate. Dayewalker (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Agree with all of the above.--Theoneintraining (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support A good editor, a good contributer, and a soon to be good admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Unless he answers my question stupidly..... i support. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support One of the most effective editors of the Military history WikiProject, which helped me a lot when I was at my beginnings here on WP. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, Buckshot has done some fantastic work in helping to remedy the prevalent systemic bias in Wikipedia, and is in general a very good article writer. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. SupportPS no offense, dude, but proof your statement about yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinderboy (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Absolute Support — Realist2 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. evidence points to being trustworthy with tools. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support A hardworking, balanced and trustworthy editor who relishes the grunt work so necessary to advancing Wikipedia; my only hesitation is that he’d have to spend less time on MILHIST and AIR articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Seems like a good candidate and I trust my adopter, Useight, who voiced support. Chergles (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak support. Not much experience in general admin areas, but as long as you stick to your answer in Q1 you'll do fine. Good luck! :) Malinaccier (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Has a lot of experience and generally keeps his cool in content conflicts. POV pushers and fringe theorists can be quite challenging in that respect. I looked at the diffs posted by Maedin, but I don't see any problems. IMHO, none of those articles require a more drastic action that the one taken by Buckshot06. VG ☎ 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak support - Weak given the distinct lack of activity in the project adminy space, however, your answer to question 1 gives me confidence that you will stick to what you know (AFD for example) and gradually improve/move on from there if you ever desire to do so. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Everything looks good, just remember to ease your way into areas outside of your comfort zone. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support as nominator Nick Dowling (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. SureShot II MusLiM HyBRiD II 23:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Yes, yes, seems decent so Support. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - No concerns. Good answers to the questions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No obvious problems, good editor.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Good answers, good contributions, responsible edits. -FlyingToaster (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - great content contributions, even temperament. Biruitorul Talk 05:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support Hard-working and effective editor, with masses of clue. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Excellent, experienced, and dedicated project participant. Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Not being sure as to the right name for the recall process absolutely clinched it for me. :-) Requesting mindless droning through the project space from a candidate that could be improving the encyclopedia is silly and hurts Wikipedia. Giggy (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Yep, obvious one! Keeper ǀ 76 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Excellent contributions. Good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Very nice contributions, hopefully this will just make you that much better at improving the project. Tiptoety talk 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support obvious! abf /talk to me/ 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Reading through the page; i see no reason to oppose. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per excellent qualifications, impeccable credentials, and the silly neutral !votes below. Tan | 39 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I have interacted with this user for a while now given our shared interests in MILHIST. I have been involved in the heated discussions over Mrg3105 hence my questions above. I think they have been answered to my satisfaction though I don't agree with that definition of civility; disagreeing with someone is not incivility, calling them an idiot for disagreeing is. Given that you have stated you want to avoid that particular department of the admin ship, I have no reason not to support. Buckshot06 has shown his commitment to Wikipedia through his long time here, he has built up a body of knowledge about how everything works and has a good amount of experience. Not every admin needs to have spent their wiki-life buried in XfDs and the circular ANI cesspit; if their daily contributions will be enhanced by admin tools, then that is fine by me. I feel fairly confident that Buckshot will not abuse the tools so I offer my support. Woody (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. The candidate is solid and trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - the candidate is a solid contributor with a good head on his shoulders. I have no concerns over him having access to the tools. -MBK004 03:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support based on constructive experience interacting in Africa milhist articles. - BanyanTree 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Is this where the Jane Fonda Fan Club is meeting? Oh, sorry, that's seriously the wrong queue! But while I am here, a salute of Support for a worthy candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support as per Woody, from what I know of his talk page contributions he will make a good administrator. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support great work in the wikiproject, trusted editor. --Banime (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support up from Neutral. RockManQ (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Kyriakos (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Experienced ... and good answers to the questions. Deli nk (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per nom and article contribs. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, papers are in order. :D -- Logical Premise Ergo? 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Per their body of work and the great endorsements. rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Seems to be a quality editor. Good luck. GlassCobra 13:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Good editor, definitely trustworthy of the tools. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 17:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support As per nom and user track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support because of answer to Q10 and because of a modest, yet telling salutatory gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Knowledgeable and trustworthy Wikipedian. Good temperament as displayed on this RFA and in his work on Military Articles. Will be more helpful to the Project with the additional tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Seems like a fine editor with a firm understanding of policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Nick Dowling said it very well: Buckshot06 has an excellent record of treating other editors with respect and engaging in cooperative editing. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support Excellent contributions to english wikipedia. Wikipedia will gain with Buckshot06 been granted with adminship Ijanderson (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - Trustworthy editor; will make a fine admin --Flewis(talk) 11:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per Roger Davis and BanyanTree. -- fayssal - wiki up® 16:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. No major issues. Acalamari 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Would prefer broader experience, but see no significant issues here. Jayjg (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support 5 and a bit months of 100% edit summary, so only reason not to support dealt with. Evidently trustworthy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - On principle I do not consider adminship a necessity for editing articles, and oppose use of adminship in any issues that affect editing article content. So what does Buckshot06 need these tools for? Is there a shortage of vandalism-hunting bots and Wikipedians?
    • Buckshot06 claims he does "a lot of low-profile tedious 'grunt' work, category creation for example, following on from the patterns that have been set before. Cleaning up stubs, XFD, proposed deletions, etc. I hope that the admin tools will increase my effectiveness in this work". As it happens his idea of "grunt work" is what is commonly known in Wikipedia as a "gnome", someone who identifies formatting or spelling errors. Grunt work is actually expanding articles and adding citations that make articles more authoritative. I'd like to see a consistent record of that from Buckshot06.
    • Buckshot claims he participates in "category creation for example, following on from the patterns that have been set before". When I tried to rationalise the categories in the Category:World War II here, he was one of the first and most obstinate opposers, but at the same time not offering any alternatives.
    • Cleaning up stubs means what? To me it means making them rated Start by expanding and adding references, but what does it mean to Buckshot? On the whole Buckshot06 contributes little in terms of significant article creation, expansion, or quality improvement, preferring article maintenance tasks. I hardly think this warrants administrative tools as any editor can perform these effectively without.
    • Buckshot06 also says that he has "tried to focus my work on militaries that are not covered by our US-heavy systematic bias." which is untrue because he has in fact done quite a bit of work on US military articles.
    • Buckshot06's two featured status articles, Russian Ground Forces and Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, even with with much help by others, are written with neither knowledge of Russian or French. In the case of RGF, the article was only so rated based on the technical MoS and layout criteria and I think needs reassessment. The article on Congo lacks citations from Congo sources, so can hardly be considered a quality article. Creation of the Russian military districts (bar two), and all the Chinese military regions, were really at start level at best because again Buckshot06 lacks language and subject are knowledge to create encyclopaedic articles ion the subjects. If this level of "achievement" was acceptable as a criteria for excellence in a reference work, almost anyone could claim to be an outstanding contributor, as in for example the editor adding geographic locations in Madagascar. The large number of Russian army and division articles, and the main list articles List of Armies of the Soviet Union and Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 are in fact copied from predominantly one source, and are even at that incomplete, and incorrect. Buckshot06 has steadfastly refused to accept for example that a Soviet division recreated after destruction during the Second World War are new divisions regardless of the number, and needs a separate entry.
    • It is my thinking that Wikipedia awards such as WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves can not be used as a means of assessment of an editorial contribution because the represent subjective personal opinions of other editors.
    • Buckshot06 is a heavily conservative mind-set that reflects his contributions in policy discussions. For example he steadfastly opposed proposal of naming articles in MilHist based on best expert source rather than on common English names, and supports naming of articles based on consensus votes rather than their actual historical names.
    • Buckshot06's "major dispute" with me started when I asked him to collaborate on articles in the area of the Second World War Eastern Front subject area. Initially it involved disagreements on style, but after a while I realised that Buckshot was essentially stalking me, making corrections in virtually every article and expansions, sometimes within minutes, while not actually making any suggestions, expansions of his own, or other actions that I would call collaborative. Later when I realised there were problems with continuity and legacy of articles on Soviet/Russian unit articles, Buckshot06 obstinately countered me in every way despite having no actual knowledge in the area. More bizarrely, he defended continuity of Soviet unit history into Ukranian unit articles despite these belonging to a separate independent state! Why? Because of personal allegiances with a Ukranian editor. This, has been a feature of Buckshot06's contributions in Wikipedia - he is loyal in his personal dealings with other editors to the point of blindness to the issues he defends on their behalf, regardless of the issue.
    • The only reason Buckshot06 can claim that his dispute with me is "in common with dozens of other editors", is because he is using a cumulative count of all participants in article votes on a total of four articles (I think), all involving titles. Of these "dozens" many have been opposed to me on purely nationalistic grounds. I have been "extremely single-minded" on the subject of WP:CITE. I have insisted that article quality is not subject to the policy which guides the process of WP:Consensus, and therefore I do not believe in consensus as a means of editing articles, including by votes.
    • Although Buckshot06 has "tried to remain civil and rational", he failed to provide sources for his assertions, insisting rather single-mindedly on status quo, even when this is based on highly unreliable source such as David Irving. This is the reason I have failed to keep my equanimity, along with instances where other editors had pursued same tactics, because I think my interpretation of Wikipedia objective of being an authoritative reference work largely depends on articles that are acceptable in terms of meeting criteria of academic experts who can recommend Wikipedia for use by others, and not ban its use as is the case now. Whether or not editors have remained "civil" is not a part of that criteria, and is therefore peripheral to the issue of article quality. If Buckshot06 claims that he has remained civil while steadfastly preventing improvements to Wikipedia quality, then I would consider this a hollow achievement.
    • How does me being given several blocks relate to Buckshot06's request for adminship? I am not under a "community editing restriction" because it has not been supported by the entire Wikipedia community. In fact I have not seen even a few thousand of the 70,000 consistent editors acknowledge this "restriction", therefore I ignore it for what it is, a means by Raul654 of preventing me from contradicting his voted-in change in the article title. Doesn't sound quite like I'm the villain of the century when details are known, does it Buckshot06?
    • I am not "behaving myself". Because I do not recognise "community restrictions" imposed by the virtue of a bureaucratic position in Wikipedia, I have and will continue to speak my mind on issues related to article quality. Aside from Buckshot06 I have interacted with dozens of other editors, and have yet to be cited for incivility where nationalistic bias in Eastern Europe has not reared its ugly head. I strongly hold true to the policy of citing sources and a very recent example of how this is done is in Battle of Longewala‎ which I was asked to take a look at. I think I have resolved that dispute with no need for votes or use of administrative tools.
    • Its true that I have had no further conflicts with Buckshot06 because I have decided not to communicate with him, this not being productive at all in article editing. However, it is not true that Buckshot06 has had no conflicts with me since the imposition of the so-called "restrictions". He reverted my renaming of an article in the Eastern Front based on noting other than his preference for fewer words, although the article title comes from a gaming forum as far as I can tell.
    • Buckshot06 is simply angry with me because of my opinion about his decision to insist on using David Irving as a source for the names of three articles. Quite frankly I don't care. Every person's emotions are their business, and I have not started editing in Wikipedia to change anyone's behaviour, or to have my behaviour modified. If Buckshot06 follows basic premises of Wikipedia article quality policies when interacting with me, he would never need to even consider the issues of consensus and civility, but he has not. I would suggest that before Buckshot06 gains administrator tools, he needs to try and learn how to edit first
    • Although a lone dissenting voice, I take heart that sometimes right does prevail--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Mrg's statement that he's had no recent communications with Buckshot other than in regards to the Battle of West Ukraine (1944) article is not correct: he recently posted incivil comments on Buckshot's user page and talk page in relation to Buckshot's preparations for this RfA: [1] [2]. I'd also note that Buckshot has consulted widely during the disputes he and Mrg have been involved with by correctly using the dispute resolution process to gain external perspectives. From what I've seen, Mrg generally does not do so, and often is not supported by any other editors. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I'm not here to create social networks. Anyone is welcome to comment on the relevant talk pages, but Buckshot06 goes out and garners support from friends who block-vote. I had not seen much consistent participation in the range of articles Buckshot06 has chosen to block my contributions in by any of the group that suddenly materialise for the dispute resolution process, which suggests to me they are there only to offer support to Buckshot06 rather than from editorial interest in the subject.
    What is civil or uncivil is highly subjective Nick, and you do not determine what that is. There is such a thing as abuse of administrative tools, and I have seen lots of it when the first admin to block me failed to explain why, and the second failed to read the diff. No admin so far that issued a block has bother to justify their reasoning to me beforehand, so I still don't know exactly why it is that I have been blocked four times, maybe Buckshot06 will eventually block me indefinitely as no doubt he is itching to do. Where there is a will there is a way as the saying goes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Buckshot uses the standard dispute resolution process, which calls for seeking external views if an argument gets bogged down by posting on relevant wikiprojects talk pages and/or contacting uninvolved editors directly. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Mrg's statement that he has “yet to be cited for incivility where nationalistic bias in Eastern Europe has not reared its ugly head” is also untrue; mrg has a long history of incivility toward anyone who disagrees with him on just about anything. Among the “community restrictions” he has specifically declared himself immune to are WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CON. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. My disagreement has been consistently about use and abuse of sources in substantiating article content. This issue has nothing to do with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CON, but they are used to bait editors to then effect a block, a well worn tactic to invite use of administrative tools--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Considering Buckshot06 was on the receiving end of comments from you such are these, I think he's kept his cool remarkably well. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with that Roger? I think that a translation by a twice-convicted fraud and Holocaust denier or a hanged Nazi memoirs that bear little resemblance to much of what transpired on the Eastern Front deserves that epithet. I reserve it for the worst of military history works. Buckshot06 refused to consider that there may be other more reputable and authoritative sources to base Wikipedia articles on. It was never explained to me why I am not allowed to use words of my choosing in characterising war criminals, and why that is uncivil. I think the very act of Keitel being hanged, and Irving being temporarily removed from the civil society justifies my perception of their "contributions" to military history--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility prevents disagreements turning into brawls. It's not what one says but the way one says it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How he said it was just as fine as what he said. Everyme 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Someone injecting variations of f*ck every few words in a sentence [3] better stop claiming the moral high ground of civility. VG ☎ 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I've misread the long indictment: mrg3105 is not claiming to be civil, but rather the right to be uncivil because he is... right. VG ☎ 13:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is neither what one says, or how one says it, or how civil one remains while saying it, but what purpose the expression serves.
    Bin Ladin is always very eloquent and polite as he explains in his videos, with a smile on his face, how anyone who oppose fundamentalist Islam needs to be killed. Not that I compare Buckshot06 to Bin Ladin (just using an extreme example illustratively), but in that case he steadfastly defended the article about a Soviet operation named based on one German source despite all other evidence or Wikipedia policies...politely. An it didn't matter that the source is actually not a very good one!
    Have you ever seen an older schoolboy taking a ball away from a younger one, and then standing there with a smile holding it up in the air, and asking the younger child to say "can I please have the ball back mister, pretty please" although it is his ball in the first place? What psychologist call that is a bully, not being civil. This behaviour is now exemplified in Wikipedia as a sort of online bullying that also comes in group form--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on mrg's statement: Is there a shortage of vandalism-hunting bots and Wikipedians?. Note, the most recent AIV backlog was cleared 13 minutes prior to my writing this. Just saying... ArakunemTalk 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per A1 I do a lot of low-profile tedious 'grunt' work.......I hope that the admin tools will increase my effectiveness in this work I don't understand why you're willing to take such tedious work by yourself, because nobody force you to do so. Besides, having admin tools is not intended for yourself, but for the community. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, for the encyclopedia. Everyme 05:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very confused by this oppose. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral for now: I'm just not sure. Buckshot has obviously made substantial contributions to military-related articles, but he appears to have very limited experience in admin-related areas. Looking through a month's worth of contributions, I found at least two ([4] [5]) articles where he has placed tags for notability, which could perhaps go to AfD, and five or six participations in XfD discussions. Also, a prod2 which was blatantly removed, without discussion, by an IP 8 hours after being placed by Buckshot ([6]) was never followed up. I'm not suggesting that other people should use a watchlist in the same way that I do, but it seems reasonable to have watched this and followed it up (possibly with a re-instatement & a user warning? Sending it to AfD so it's more visible?). I am not convinced that a user should have used rollback before gaining its use as an admin, but I do note that Buckshot doesn't have rollback status or experience with undoing, reverting, warning users, etc. And no speedy deletes? Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, there are only so many contributions I can search through, lol :) A few more thoughts: I don't see that many indications of how Buckshot handles himself under fire. I've seen that a fair proportion of his edits, even from a month ago, are still the latest edits on the articles. Not to be dismissive, but it would appear that he has been working largely in an area where there is not so much conflict and activity as to warrant quick responses. Also, I fully accept that he has had documented trouble with user Mrg3105 and I do not know the nature of those problems, but a few days after Mrg3105 created an article, Buckshot added an {{accuracy}} tag with the edit summary "this guy is smoking some serious weed" ([7]). To sum up: I guess I just don't see a need for the tools, and I do not feel confident that, with the tools, he would not make several errors, which a more experienced candidate would have already come across and be able to avoid. Maedin\talk 17:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on my own neutral: I'm genuinely asking this out of curiosity and not in an attempt to poke anyone. I haven't been involved in the processes here for very long, so the fact that I'm (very nearly) a lone voice with some concerns isn't too surprising, :-) The nature of my curiosity is regarding the current RfA for Tadakuni. I see Tadakuni and Buckshot as very similar editors, in that, so far, they have pretty much been project co-ordinators, mainspace contributors in specific areas, and have more or less avoided the vandals and the namespace. If I'm looking at the right figures, then Buckshot has almost exactly double the number of contributions that Tadakuni has, and assuming Tadakuni were to double his contributions, respecting all current percentages, then Buckshot would have only (roughly) 1.5% more namespace contributions. That isn't a big margin. Neither of them are rollbackers, and both of them are stating in their RfA that, should they become administrators, they would like to contribute in cleaning up vandalism. They seem to be missing the same point, a point which earned Tadakuni a couple of opposes. And some of the oppose !votes state that Tadakuni doesn't have enough namespace experience, but are !voting support here. Buckshot's namespace contributions appear to be limited almost exclusively to XfD, which would be fine, except he says, "I hope that the admin tools will increase my effectiveness in this work, and as I get more familiar, I'll hope to start contributing more widely, vandal chasing, for example. I would like to contribute to closing AFDs and speedy deleting as well." He could be speedy deleting (tagging) now, chasing vandals now. A solid, trustworthy, reliable editor – check. Experience – not so much? Have I missed something? At this point, I certainly think I must be! I know these things are nuanced and never cut-and-dry, and that there are other factors, like Tadakuni's sporadic edit summary usage. But surely the majority of opposes there seem at odds with the supports here? Please feel free to move this to the talk page if it seems more appropriate, and if anyone wishes to respond and hopefully explain, then you're welcome to do so on my talk page, too. Thank you! Maedin\talk 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Maedin for your thoughts and comments. Did the sections of my edits that you looked at include the time spent new page patrolling - for which I'd like to be able to act more quickly rather than have to queue things for other admins' attention? There are also a good number of speedy deletes in there as well. No, I don't use bots - sorry, I'm a bit of a manual wikipedian(?!). In regard to the edit summary you hi-lighted, there is a story behind that, involving that page as a semi-content fork and Mrg as an editor who (a) has aimed more foul-mouthed abuse than I've ever seen from anyone at me - I'll go and search out the diffs should people wish - and (b) though he knows a great deal about the Eastern Front, knows very little of the Royal Navy. Most of the 'stations' he listed there would see RN warships only once in every few months, and are not 'stations' really in any naval sense. I'm sorry to say that sometimes, like the diff above, I've descended a little from my usual politeness in response. Buckshot06(prof) 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is that of historical Royal Navy stations, not their frequency of visits. I note that despite your self-professed expert knowledge of the Royal Navy you had not continued to reference the list as I thought you might--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Buckshot, thank you for your response. I admit that I probably did not look far enough back to have come across new page patrol edits, and I certainly did not mean to imply that you should be carrying that work out with the use of bots! I am also a "manual Wikipedian", which isn't a bad way of phrasing it, actually, :-). I am not too worried about the somewhat uncivil edit summary and accept your explanation of the situation, and the extenuating circumstances would have tried the patience of most people, probably. I had hoped to see a few more responses here from people who supported you, regarding polar votes on a similar situation, but failing that, I wish you success in your RfA – indeed, it appears as though my neutral is un-heeded and certainly not a hindrance! (In fact, I've just seen that it's been called "silly". Alrighty then! That's fairly emphatic...lol) Maedin\talk 11:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now. RockManQ (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support. RockManQ (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you care to elaborate? Like mostly why you felt the need to publicly state you are neutral for now? I mean if you are neutral for now, why not just stay silent and come back when you have actually made up your mind? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I was neutral, as per below, was that many of the questions had not been answered yet. I think I have enough information now to make a decision. RockManQ (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And as per below, my question still stands. Why did you feel the need to tell us your mind wasn't made up? I mean, if your minds not made up, then just come back when it is. I do want to argue about this, it's just something to think about in the future. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, could you please stop badgering people about their choice of voting "neutral". Maybe their concerns never get addressed, and they are truly on the fence. People have full right to say "I don't necessarily oppose, but there's something missing here...", or "I don't quite support yet, but..." and that's why neutral votes occur. It's valid, it's still useful..you're right, they should at least say WHY they're currently neutral, but accept it, please. BMW(drive) 09:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral at this point. There's a whole whack of questions above with no responses that I would actually like to see the answers to, mostly regarding civility. Until then, I can't vote either way. BMW(drive) 12:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please do tell, why you felt the need to even comment in the neutral section, if you yourself have not made up your mind on the candidate. Also, it is ironic that you stated "I can't vote either way," as you actually did vote...neutral. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhh, not really; looks like you need to look up the definition of irony. I believe he means he can't vote support OR oppose (can't vote either way) not that, regardless of whether his request for answers is granted, he can't vote. Ironholds 21:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Irony: "contrary to what was expected." I would expect someone stating that they can't vote either way would actually not "vote". Thus it is ironic that he actually voted. As per the tally on top of the page, neutrals are counted, and are a "vote" in an RFA. Also, I understood what he meant, I was just stating the apparent flaw in his comments, that there is no point voicing yourself in the neutral section if you intend to reevaluate and move your position. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er ... not like re-evaluation hasn't occurred before in RfA. I think a neutral vote is still important, especially based on "why" it was neutral. If there's no additional information/incentive to change the vote, it is still a vote. People don't change their minds...they make a new decision based on new information. BMW(drive) 12:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Bwilkins, have answered all the questions put to me - is there any specific extra information you're looking for? I'd be quite happy to provide it if you wish. Buckshot06(prof) 19:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Buckshot06&oldid=1089066750"