Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger

Stats from X!'s edit counter as of 23:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Username:	The Bushranger User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Jun 11, 2008 18:29:58 Unique pages edited:	6,870 Average edits per page:	3.24 Live edits:	21,528 Deleted edits:	747 Total edits (including deleted):	22,275

Namespace Totals

Article	10557	49.04% Talk	1853	8.61% User	1241	5.76% User talk	1133	5.26% Wikipedia	2410	11.19% Wikipedia talk	722	3.35% File	221	1.03% File talk	2	0.01% Template	742	3.45% Template talk	1604	7.45% Category	653	3.03% Category talk	388	1.80% Portal	2	0.01%

Month counts

2008/06	29	2008/07	0	2008/08	0	2008/09	0	2008/10	0	2008/11	6	2008/12	0	2009/01	28	2009/02	14	2009/03	1	2009/04	0	2009/05	0	2009/06	0	2009/07	0	2009/08	3	2009/09	0	2009/10	81	2009/11	7	2009/12	41	2010/01	1	2010/02	2	2010/03	873	2010/04	3649	2010/05	3203	2010/06	983	2010/07	0	2010/08	4	2010/09	41	2010/10	1154	2010/11	3826	2010/12	1823	2011/01	3828	2011/02	1931

Top edited pages

(hide)Article 187 - List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_United_States 157 - List_of_birds_of_Georgia_(U.S._state) 95 - FMA_IAe_33_Pulqui_II 68 - List_of_battleships_and_monitors_of_Spain 64 - Bold_Orion 59 - De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle 55 - Castore_class_gunboat 50 - List_of_birds_of_Florida 47 - Project_Isinglass 47 - List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_United_States_(na...

(hide)Talk 20 - List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_United_States 12 - Project_Isinglass 11 - Sukhoi_PAK_FA 10 - Russian_Air_Force 10 - Michael_Stroukoff 9 - Never_Miss_a_Super_Bowl_Club 9 - Radioplane_RP-77D 9 - Sikorsky_S-97 9 - De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle 9 - Beechcraft_Bonanza

(hide)User 407 - The_Bushranger 204 - The_Bushranger/Pages_Created 129 - The_Bushranger/DYK 113 - The_Bushranger/Top 84 - The_Bushranger/1956_United_States_Army_aircraft_de... 75 - The_Bushranger/Air_Categories 38 - The_Bushranger/DYKnom 21 - The_Bushranger/JB-8 15 - The_Bushranger/X-18 14 - The_Bushranger/OMT_Phase_V

(hide)User talk 339 - The_Bushranger 43 - The_Bushranger/Archive_2 27 - The_Bushranger/Archive_4 23 - MelanieN 18 - The_Bushranger/Archive_3 17 - The_Bushranger/Archive_1 16 - Buggie111 15 - BilCat 14 - Aerobird 14 - Bzuk

(hide)Wikipedia 206 - WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Requests 194 - WikiProject_Military_history/Contest/Entries 144 - New_articles_(Aircraft) 142 - Did_you_know/Statistics 114 - Categories_for_discussion/Speedy 102 - List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_DYKs 67 - Naming_conventions_(aircraft)/2010_article_renamin... 53 - WikiCup/History/2011/Submissions/The_Bushranger 51 - WikiProject_Military_history/Operation_Majestic_Ti... 32 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military

(hide)Wikipedia talk 182 - WikiProject_Aircraft 159 - Did_you_know 102 - WikiProject_Military_history 43 - WikiProject_Military_history/Operation_Majestic_Ti... 38 - WikiProject_Ships 26 - WikiProject_Aviation 24 - Naming_conventions_(aircraft)/2010_article_renamin... 17 - WikiProject_Spaceflight 16 - Userboxes/New_Userboxes 16 - WikiProject_Airports

(hide)File 8 - Windecker_YE-5A.jpg 8 - Johanna_Long.jpg 7 - Platt-LePage_XR-1.jpg 5 - Boeing_X-50A.jpg 4 - HZ-1_Aerocycle.png 4 - Grumman_XSBF-1.jpg 4 - Taylorcraft_LBT-1_Glomb.png 4 - BSF_Emblem.png 4 - Marrua.jpg 4 - Platt-LePage_XR-1A.jpg

(hide)File talk 1 - Windecker_YE-5A.jpg 1 - The_Shuttle_Enterprise_-_GPN-2000-001363.jpg

(hide)Template 151 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 128 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2 77 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_3 47 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_4 18 - Did_you_know/Queue/NextPrep 13 - US_missiles 10 - Lockheed_aircraft 10 - Rivers_of_Florida 9 - USN_missiles 9 - USAAF_glider_aircraft

(hide)Template talk 1574 - Did_you_know 7 - Infobox_ship_begin/doc 2 - US_WWII_guided_bombs 1 - Air_Tractor_aircraft 1 - Automatic_taxobox 1 - General_Atomics_aircraft 1 - Interstate_aircraft 1 - AeroVironment_aircraft 1 - Cat_main 1 - Sukhoi_aircraft

(hide)Category 7 - Pulsejet-powered_aircraft 5 - Push-pull_aircraft 4 - Flying_saucers 4 - Jet_aircraft 4 - Arsenal_aircraft 3 - Cold_War_battleships_of_France 3 - Adam_aircraft 3 - United_States_military_gliders_1990-1999 3 - V-tail_aircraft 3 - Stroukoff_aircraft

(hide)Category talk 3 - Bomber_aircraft_2010-2019 3 - Aircraft_with_auxiliary_jet_engines 2 - Abandoned_military_aircraft_projects_of_the_United... 2 - Air-to-air_missiles_of_Brazil 2 - Air_Tractor_aircraft 2 - Yermolayev_aircraft 2 - Fenestron-using_helicopters 2 - Honda_aircraft 2 - Japanese_business_aircraft_2000-2009 2 - KAI_aircraft

(hide)Portal 1 - Battleships/Did_you_know/18 1 - Current_events/2011_January_30

Baugher, SPS, off-topicness, etc.
Alright, ain't this exciting. Can we continue the discussions here? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's already a huge discussion at WT:AVIATION, Ed. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject membership used as an oppose rationale
Actually, I feel very uncomfortable with Sandy's point on this. The candidate is a member of the same project as the desysopped and banned editor. So what? Of note is that SG had a (self confessed ) run in with Archtransit at this FAC. Is this the source of her concern I ask myself? Nevertheless it all looks a bit of a red herring to me. - a beureacrat nominated Archtransit. Should therefore all bureacrats be considered suspect, or in some way complicit in something? By SG's logic, apparently so. Some 53 editors unanimously supported Archtransit's RFA. Of course it turns out we were wrong, but are we all (I include myself - I supported) complicit in some deceit, malpractice, recklessness or just basic lack of scrutiny? Again, by SG's logic it would seem so. SG asserts, reasonably, that she does not blame WP:AVIATION for Archtransit or that Bushrange is an Archtranssit sock. So in that case, what on earth was the point of referencing the sorry Archtranist debacle in her primary oppose? SG's other oppose points seem, mainly, valid. The Archtransit commentary is, generously, a poor oppose rationale possibly spawned from old wounds or (less generously) a simple case of poisoning the well. I post this on talk as this is a general concern and not a rebutal of some of the other more valid points in opposition made by SG and others. Pedro : Chat  23:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of speculation in there, Pedro. Yes, it was always curious to me why WJBScribe nominated Archtransit, since I had experience with him on many FACs and knew the minute he posted to my talk the first time who it was, although that's not easy to prove in an SPI, and back then, I thought I was obliged to keep my mouth shut as FAC delegate.  But then I've always been of the notion that editors with certain sway shouldn't nominate a candidate unless they know them very well.  YMMV.  The issue, as I explained on the RFA, is how many Aviation editors (who don't all have a very good track record IMO, not only on sourcing and disparaging fellow editors and spreading this mess all over the Wiki, but also in detecting sockpuppetry), may also support because of the post to the Aviation WP-- something that may not be strictly forbidden but I don't believe is done in responsible nominations, and there's plenty of nonsense floating around this nomination.  Speculating about my motives won't get you far, since I run into most RFA candidates as they climb the pole to RFA through FAC, and I get to know lots of very good and less good editors very well.  Old wounds?  Honestly-- I run into more editors than I can ever keep track of, and old wounds aren't one of my issues. By the way, what is your point here, other than to accuse me of harboring old wounds and suspect motives?  If I thought The Bushranger might be Archtransit, I'd say so clearly.  But not likely in the midst of an RFA, unless I can prove it, since I think that would be irresponsible.  I don't think The Bushranger is Archtransit; I do think problems in the Aviation Project have been brought to bear in this RFA, and Archtransit is an old example of one of the issues I was aware of there, and one of the reasons I watch Aviation RFAs closely.  I didn't oppose on these issues until I saw 37 supports had been lodged before the blurb was corrected, and that a post had been made to the Project.  I don't believe The Bushranger has said an improper word to me throughout this mess (although his talk page has hosted nasty commentary from some others), and I can't say the same for other Aviation members, and now I sure can't say the same about you.  We need more admins who understand and respect sourcing policy working at DYK; if The Bushranger shows me he can be one of those, I'll support him-- I can't say the same of you after this post.   Is there anything else anyone else would like to do to make more of a mess of this particular RFA?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Further, you've been around the Wikipedia long enough to be familiar with TALK.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy, you listed one of your reasons for opposing this nomination was "I'm reminded that the Aviation Project spawned the now desysopped sockpuppet, Archtransit. " Do you still believe this is a reason to oppose the nomination, or have you changed your mind? Mlm42 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have some serious issues in evidence on the Aviation Project, Archtransit was a past example of those problems (that I thought had been overcome because some of the responsible members there were quite helpful to me after the Archtransit episode and they did clean up their Baugher sourcing in 2008), and that Project should focus on housecleaning before their members are advanced at RFA, specifically wrt sourcing. I also think many Aviation members did The Bushranger more harm here than good.  So yes, I would watch Aviation RFA candidates closely to make sure that bad habits-- typified by the past Archtransit episode-- aren't acquired.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way, Archtransit was quite clever, and easily able to fool some people some of the time, so one of the reasons I don't think The Bushranger is him is that Ed states in the nomination blurb that he knows him: "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."  That's good enough for me, but doesn't mean that the Aviation Project has its house in order. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I understand correctly, that you are saying members of the Aviation WikiProject are an exception to the "assume good faith" guideline? Mlm42 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Try again. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um.. it just seems you stand by your reason involving Archtransit, as a reason to oppose this nomination. So you're saying a reason to oppose this nomination is because he's a member of the Aviation WikiProject.. have I interpreted this correctly? Mlm42 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be reading what I'm writing. Keep trying. Are you saying you Support candidates without scrutizing them?  That would not be unusual-- it seems to be quite the trend at RFA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, scrutinize everyone, obviously. But how else is one supposed to interpret your statement: "I'm reminded that the Aviation Project spawned the now desysopped sockpuppet, Archtransit. "? You listed this as your second reason for opposing the nomination. I'm stumped here. Are you not connecting The Bushranger's WikiProject membership to your oppose vote? What else could you mean by this reasoning? Mlm42 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, "that Project should focus on housecleaning before their members are advanced at RFA".. your words. Mlm42 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that if you work on your AGF, you'll discover a way to interpret them. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think an explanation would be nice... I'm curious as to your train of thought there. You don't have to tell us, obviously, but I'm confused too. Re RfA notice, Milhist has it listed in their coordinators' handbook, and there was a general template created for it: Administrator candidacy notice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. When one scrutinizes (thoroughly) any candidate, in addition to the routine "general" stuff, known issues also come into play.  For example, if someone has a rash of DYKs, I check for plagiarism or poor sourcing. If someone represents a lot of audited content, I check that content to make sure it wasn't rushed through in the "climb up the grease pole" to RFA (quid pro quo GAs for example).  If someone claims expertise in a specific area (say, images or copyright), I check their work in that area.  When someone works almost exclusively in one (controversial) content area, I check for POV.  When someone frequents ANI, a check for dramamongering is in order. When a candidate presents with an overly long wildy colorful sig, a guest book, a disproportionate number of user talk posts, and is supported by editors with same, a check for evidence of maturity is in order.  When someone participates in the award culture, I review their content. These are only examples of due diligence on RFA candidates based on known or likely issues.  Given past experience, when someone works in Aviation, a check for sockpuppetry is in order.  Now I'm concerned that I'll also have to add to my list a check for sourcing on anyone claiming Aviation GAs.  I hope I don't also have to add a check for disparaging of other editors.  This isn't a failure to AGF: it's due diligence based on known past issues.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand his WikiProject membership may be a reason to check for sockpuppetry, but you haven't justified why this is still one of your reasons for opposing his nomination. You already said you're convinced he's not a sockpuppet, yet you continue to list his WikiProject membership as a reason to oppose the nomination. Mlm42 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what you allege, at least. I think I've already answered that, both here and on the RFA page at length, and I don't see that adding more verbiage to satisfy your not-so-thinly veiled AGF insinuations will make it any more clear.  It seems to have satisfied 28bytes, who asked.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought your reply to 28bytes meant that you were altering your statement regarding WikiProject membership and the relationship to Archtransit. If "I'm reminded that the Aviation Project spawned the now desysopped sockpuppet, Archtransit. " is no longer a reason you oppose the nomination, then I suggest you strike it out of your reasons. If it's still a reason, then I am interpreting it in the most obvious way.. that is, your reason for opposing is "He's a member of WikiProject Aviation". Mlm42 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are always free to misinterpret as you wish. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, an explanation would be good. "that Project should focus on housecleaning before their members are advanced at RFA" let me paraphrase this: You said members of WikiProject Aviation shouldn't be advanced for RFA until the project has done some more housecleaning. No? I don't doubt you have good intentions, but cops who profile also have good intentions. That doesn't make it right. Mlm42 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to paraphrase if you find it rewarding, but those are not my words. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't offered any other interpretation, I'm still left thinking that you believe being a member of WikiProject Aviation is a reason to oppose an RFA. Mlm42 (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that's a silly allegation. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's so silly, then why aren't you giving another interpretation? Mlm42 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read all that I've already written. If an editor showing good faith and avoiding not-so-vague silly allegations demonstrating misinterpretion or overlooking of everything I've already written still finds it unclear, and can explain why, I'll gladly engage further. Otherwise, I don't think I need to bore the Wikipedia with more verbiage to try to satisfy you, which doesn't appear likely. This grew old about an hour ago; it appears that I stepped on a sacred Aviation cow by challenging Baugher as a source, and anyone who does that is likely to be disparaged by Project members looking for motives.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'm not an Aviation project member, and I'd never heard of Baugher until a few days ago. The reason I joined the Baugher discussion was that I realized the implications it would have elsewhere. That discussion linked to this RFA, and I found one point in Sandy's oppose rationale questionable (and was worried about the implications it would have elsewhere) - so I questioned it. Mlm42 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. My concern about Baugher is also over the impact of allowing hobby sites into GAs and that weakening of SPS policy will affect other areas of Wikipedia, and the ongoing sourcing issues at DYK.  In the future, I think you may find that direct and clear requests (such as Franamax's), without allegations of bad faith, will go a long ways towards resolving issues more quickly with me.  I don't hold you entirely responsible for the tone of this discussion, which  certainly got off to a bad start with Pedro's wild accusations about my motives and incorrect representation of the Archtransit issue as it impacted FAC. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay; but I didn't allege you had bad faith.. I just thought you were profiling WikiProject members. (which one could do unknowingly, with the best of intentions) Mlm42 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood (after the fact). And to clear up Pedro's misrepresentation, he doesn't appear to have the slightest idea of what he's talking about, and when that is the case, framing his post as a question rather than an accusation of "poisoning the well" and suspect motives might have been more productive.  The facts about Archtransit are:  He was unfailingly polite and respectful to me, to the extent that that was one of the ways I recognized him.  He wrote an FA that withstood the test of time, even after I requested examination of his work after his desysopping and got that from other helpful WP Aviation members.  I requested CUs to make sure that none of the other "votes" on the FAC were from socks, which was certainly not unreasonable, and not an indication of some sort of vendetta.  I consider it "part of my job" as FAC delegate.  Back when Archtransit's RFA came up, I watchlisted it (with great curiosity, and noted that WJBScribe had nominated, which helped form my opinion about the importance of editors with certain sway needing to be very responsible about RFA nominations), and determined to keep my mouth shut until/unless FAs were impacted. As long as content was up to snuff, I didn't want to bring forward sock allegations that would be difficult to prove.  After Archtransit's desysopping, I was encouraged by the 'crats to speak up in the future, so I've changed my stance at RFA-- something that seems to have contributed to attacks on my character in spite of the 'crats urging to speak up.  Pedro's accusations come from someone who doesn't seem very familiar with FAC, and were wildy accusatory and irresponsible. I have certain respect for anyone who can write an FA that withstands the test of time, regardless if later found to be a disuptive sock, and content production matters more to me than my personal opinions of any editor:  can Pedro say that he has produced an FA? As far as what gets stored in my long-term memory about individual editors, content contributions come first, and apologies always erase mistakes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I've read everything you wrote on this page, and the RFA page. I can't find any other interpretation. Mlm42 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't help you then; perhaps in the light of a new day and re-reading my posts here, which are already too long, it will become more clear to you. Or perhaps someone else can help you out-- apparently, I'm unable.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (arbitrary dent-level) Sandy, could you strike or rephrase your second !oppose rationale? It's fine to say that you afford extra scrutiny to members of one particular WikiProject, but it seems a little inflammatory to bring up Archtransit in such a brief way, that's one of the all-time classics, not a semi-regular occurrence that I know of. Since you've said definitively here that you suspect no direct connection, surely you can find better words to express what your problem is. Are you saying that members of that WP are more credulous or more prone to mutual support? If so, can you make that case better? Franamax (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, if the concern is that others may still think I believe that. I don't want to add a whole lot of verbiage, so perhaps I can find a way to do it via linking to this discussion.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How's that? While I was at it, I discovered that someone corrected Pedro's insulting sub-heading here.  Thanks to whomever did that, and I hope it doesn't change again, rendering my link invalid.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; now that the statement is struck out, I have no concerns. Mlm42 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent-- finding I didn't have to link to a demeaning section heading helped speed things along. I like to think that most editors find that AGF goes a long way towards resolving problems.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy, that was a good fix. It was I who changed the thread header here, I find the new heading accurately summarizes the concerns without getting overly personal or predisposing the reader toward a conclusion. Franamax (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Until I went to link to it, I didn't realize it had changed.  Much appreciated :)  And until you posted, I didn't realize that the Archtransit issue, placed at the top of the Oppose section because I was the first oppose, could be predisposing others who might not read through the rest of the long secton there.  I appreciate the input.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite how my section header was "insulting" I'll never know; however I apologise that it was perceived that way. Thank you for striking your commentary re: Archtransit Sandy. I don't think I'll comment further here, at risk of looking overbearing. Pedro : Chat  07:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we need to discuss the terminology? I refactored the heading because there seemed a simple way to avoid Sandy's objection. If at all possible, we concentrate on the edits, not the editor. Section headings in particular need to avoid making a conclusion. You seem to have acted in good faith and made a simple statement of the issue. I found that to be prejudicial to the discussion and changed it. Put in context with comments about the editor made elsewhere, not of your own authorship, the change seemed desirable. We really need to hate each other in a loving way, let's move on. :) Franamax (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, I try not to hate anyone, but I did used to hate the show, American Idol. OK, so let's move on to something important: the problems at DYK.  Anyone want to look at the structure and wording of this article, compared to the main online source used?  I'm not going there.  Not only because I can't negotiate their archives; if I could negotiate their archives, I'd be able to figure out who reviewed it and who put it on the mainpage.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is quite an odd place to post that, but I'm nonetheless glad you did, as the close paraphrasing is quite obvious and concerning, and needs to be addressed. I will track down the reviewer(s) and start a discussion. It's off the main page, at least. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking; it's here because it's an example of what an RFA reviewer faces when trying to evaluate a candidate's work at DYK (and that more than three months after the October Debacle, we still have big problems at DYK and need competent admins in there). Because of the way that page works, there is no accountability-- I don't have any idea of how to easily locate, for example, Bushranger's work at DYK, or who reviewed and promoted that DYK.  I'd like to get a sense of his work at DYK, but I give up everytime I face that mess of pages. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, tracking down who did what with a hook can be a bit of a bear. FWIW, The Bushranger was not involved in reviewing or promoting that particular hook. I have notified the editors who were. 28bytes (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, again, and I appreciate that you handled it, as posts from me to DYK may not be so well received :) The ony way I've been able to track DYK work is by looking at the DYKs once they've run; it's darn near impossible for a DYK outsider to do much more than that, or figure out who did what from the (lack of) archives there.  This has been an ongoing concern for me in evaluating DYK RFA candidates, and I'm relieved to know Bushranger wasn't involved (although I didn't suspect he was-- was just checking some recent DYKs to see if things have improved).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. If you ever have any concerns about a DYK article that's hit the main page (or is going to), feel free to ping my talk page, I'll be happy to follow up with the DYK project and address the issues if I'm online. 28bytes (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just posted another to your talk from same author. In reviewing his talk page, I think he only has those two, so hopefully not a big problem?  The good thing about the bot postings is that you can usually check a user's talk to see if they have lots of DYKs, in which case, we sometimes need to bring in Moonriddengirl and Co, but I didn't see that here.  Thanks again for doing that.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)