Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:48, 4 August 2019

AmericanAir88

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (30/6/7); Scheduled to end 04:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Americanair88 as a candidate for adminship, an active, experienced, level-headed and well-rounded user who is a great asset to Misplaced Pages. First of all, Americanair88 (AA) is experienced in article creation and knowledgeable of the various guidelines and policies associated with it, having created 110 articles, and has improved nine articles to Good article status. AA has also demonstrated ongoing cognizance and proficiency of guidelines and policies regarding deletion, with solid experience in deletion matters, such as AfD, speedy deletion and prods. At AfD, AA is experienced and successful in performing nominations and non-admin closures, as well as in the proper ascertation of consensus required for discussion closures. If that were not enough, AA also performs maintenance work such as relistings and deletion sorting at AfD. AA also has experience in the various aspects of combatting vandalism, such finding and reverting vandalism and occasional posts to AIV. Furthermore, AA has a positive, optimistic outlook, a helpful style and demeanor, and noticeably respects and takes the views of others into consideration when collaborating or participating in discussions. I have full confidence that he would use the admin toolset judiciously. AA has ample, solid experience on Misplaced Pages and is dedicated to improving and maintaining various aspects of the encyclopedia; granting him the admin toolset will only serve to further enable these positive endeavors. North America 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is an honor to accept the nomination. AmericanAir88 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The administrative work I intend to take part in revolves around reducing the wikipedia backlogs and helping users out. I will do anything I am asked to perform. A sector I will always attend to will be the administrative backlog. The admin backlog can fill up frequently and I will ensure that it stays in check. I would help with but not limited to the AFD, AIV, RFPP, COIN, and Admin Noticeboard. At AFD, I would ensure that my contributions and closures would be a result of a clear consensus and of proper judgement. At RFPP and AIV, I will carefully review the case presented and give a neutral/justified consensus. Using my skills gained through my recent change patrol, I will help prevent vandalism even more. All of my edits will be based on improving the encyclopedia whether it is doing copy-edit or a requested article. My main goal on my talk page is to “Ensure Misplaced Pages maintains top quality through discussion, hard work, and dedication.” AmericanAir88 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

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

A: My best contributions to Misplaced Pages are when I am either reducing a backlog or honing in on a particular article. For backlog reduction, I try to focus on backlogs to reduce the workload for other users. Even something as small as typos or replacing dead links help improve the quality of Misplaced Pages. In my opinion, my best work is with Deep Space Homer. The article is my most edited and I am the process of getting it to FA. I have failed twice with the FA on the article and will never give up on the article. I have multiple articles that I have improved to GA and have done several GA reviews to balance the backlog. I am a very active in the AIV and anti-vandalism process. I am a recent changes patroller who seeks out vandalism and tries to safeguard wikipedia's premium work. I have tagged countless IP's with the "Shared IP tag" in order for admins to see where the IP is being used or hosted. This allows for abuse emails and blocking to be sent out more systematically. At AIV, I have nominated several users and have helped protect Misplaced Pages through the nominations. I frequently nominate IP's who exceed their warning allowance and who do not listen/learn from mistakes. AmericanAir88 04:02, 4 August 2019 (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: On Misplaced Pages, discussions should never lead to conflict. Conflict only brings out the worst in someone and causes negative discussion. However, in life conflicts occur and I try my hardest to solve peacefully and logically. The only editing conflicts I have ever got close to was with a user called LegacyPac. The user supported mass deletion, foul language, and linear thinking. I have never lost my cool though and engaged in civil discussion. When Legacy nominated the American Airlines portal for deletion, I gave a justified comment and he even respected my attitude. LegacyPac has since been blocked for his behavior. I also defended the recent 2019 New York City helicopter crash article I created. I believed the article passed WP:RAPID and was able to make a consensus to keep the article. There was another instance on AFC where a user questioned two acceptances I gave. However, I had a civil conversation and we both decided that deletion would be best. I never try to make chaos, start wars, or dispute others opinions. I believe with maturity, reason, and discussion, we can create consensus in peaceful ways. AmericanAir88 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from TonyBallioni

4. When is protection preferred to blocking?

A: Protection on Misplaced Pages is to ensure that articles maintain their quality and do not get effected by vandalism or unsourced information. Through protecting a page, users can be discouraged from their "single-page attack" methods. When searching recent changes, I always assume good faith unless in a case of blatant vandalism. If an article is being temporarily vandalized as a result of current events or significant media coverage, protection is the ideal option as it can prevent unsourced and bias information from being added. Blocking users over one page or one edit may cause the editors to IP abuse the system. An example would be the page Will Roland. When I was browsing the recent changes, I spotted the Will Roland article being the subject of multiple IP abuse. It was clear that the IP's were in unison as a result of the edit content. After reverting, I submitted the page to RFPP to prevent the IP abuse from continuing to attack the page. Once the page was protected, the IP's settled down. If the users were to just be blocked, the page would still be vulnerable to vandalism from similar IP addresses. Protection helps keep the quality of articles contained. AmericanAir88 05:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from TonyBallioni

5. How would deal with situations where you are the first administrator to review a request for administrative assistance, and you haven't encountered the situation before?

A: When dealing with a request for administrative assistance, I will ensure that the user is satisfied with their request through proper discussion. If I had not encountered the situation, I would read up on the Misplaced Pages policy and ask other admins who are experienced in the area. Improving Misplaced Pages is a team effort and asking other admins for knowledge in the situation would strengthen my skills and help the user out in the process. I would never try to take the unknown situation on alone as the result could end up not satisfying the user. I will ensure that all requests are done with experience, consensus, and discussion. AmericanAir88 05:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Ad Orientem

6. Hi AA. Thank you for offering to serve as an administrator. Do you think it is ever appropriate for an admin to delete a page from the mainspace without it being first nominated for deletion via Prod, AfD or CSD? Please explain.

A: The benefits of Prod, AfD, and CSD are that they give a user a chance to explain their case for deletion. PROD gives time for admins and interested users a chance to improve, contest, or agree with the deletion statement. CSD gives users a chance to contest or improve, while allowing admins to delete with proper jurisdiction. AfD allows for a consensus to take place before the result of the article is given. As for deletion from main space without nomination, I would say in some cases it is justified. I'll provide examples on when it is justified:

• Example 1 would be if a promotional user keeps recreating a deleted page that was deleted for A11 or vandalism. Constant page creation of an obvious non-notable topic is grounds for immediate deletion.
• Example 2 would be if there were sock accounts that would create multiple copies of pages to increase their influence. If the first copy was deleted by one of the three methods, the others should follow.
• Example 3 is threats. Obvious harm should be taken very seriously. If a user simply creates a page that contains a threat or attack, the page should be immediately taken down and the user should be reported to the proper authorities.

These examples are on the rarer side, but can occur on an encyclopedia. In most cases, consensus and discussion needs to take place before an article is fully deleted. AmericanAir88 05:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from DBigXray

7. You have mentioned that you intend to work in closing AfDs. Going through your AfD logs, I find an impressive 90% match with results. But then I see a pattern in your voting where you are seen voting on last or second last day and adding pile on votes based on WP:PERX and WP:JUSTAPOLICY e.g. . I find this concerning especially since you have plans to close AfDs. Please elaborate on your AfD strategy in general without going into the minor details of these example AfDs.

A: An AFD discussion is based on consensus and not votes. Almost everyday, I scout the seven day AFD lists to spot any potential closures, re-listings, or votes. When I say "per nom", I am conveying that I am strengthening the nominations opinion on the deletion discussion. If an article is a clear violation of something like NHOCKEY, the nominator can put it best. I do not use "per nom" as a way to pile on, but as a strengthener to the rationale being used. The same is for other votes I add. The votes are to clarify and strengthen the consensus. AmericanAir88 15:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Nsk92

8. Could you please comment on your username? Is your username related to American Airlines?

A: My username is from my passion of aviation. Ever since I was a little kid, I have always loved aviation and planes. I found the name to be representative of my love for aviation. American Airlines has always been my favorite airline and I love the acronym "AA". I have never worked for or been paid to edit for American Airlines. My username is based on passion and homage to the airline. AmericanAir88 15:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

9. Also, could you please explain the significance of "88" in your username?

A: Before Misplaced Pages, this username would be used for online games, account usernames, etc. Most websites only allowed you to use a username if it had a number in it. Honestly, I love the number "88" and find AA88 to be catchy. Also, just "AmericanAir" is very similar to American Airlines. The 88 gives it a personal touch. I see that some are concerned with the number "88". I can reassure you that there is no ill-intent with the number. I like the way the number looks with the acronym AA. My name is also the Dead man's hand, which I found cool as well. AmericanAir88 19:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from Cryptic

10. What led you to tag Najmun Nafiz (an eminently A7able autobiography, written in the first person) and Bhagwan singh meena (about the same, except in broken English instead of first person) as G2 test pages, of all things?

A: Test pages are a sign that a user with few contributions is simply using Misplaced Pages to host their own articles. If I recall, both articles were written in broken English and has no citations. The articles were a test by those creators to see if their article could pass the review process. A7 is usually the way to go, however when a page is created with poor English, no citations, and a user with few outside contributions, they are using the article as a web host or test page. AmericanAir88 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

11. What speedy deletion criterion do you use for abandoned userspace drafts that haven't been edited for years?

A: There are several criteria that can be applied to abandoned user space drafts. I participate in that backlog drive to help keep the big amount of abandoned drafts in check. It helps pave the way for drafts that are name space material. If the draft has not been edited in six months by a human and it's in user space with an "AFC submission" template or no content except the article wizard placeholder, it can be deleted under G13. If the stale draft is nothing but a complete copy and paste from a website with no additional information or sources, the unambiguous copy violation can be deleted under G12. If the user page has blatant advertising and promotional content with the user having a promotional name, it can be deleted under G11. If the user page is a clear attack or threat, it can be deleted under G10. If the user page is nothing but a non-free gallery, it can be deleted under U3. If the user requests deletion of their personal user page (rare for stale), it can be deleted under U1. If there is a user space of a user that does not exist than it can be deleted under U2. If the state user space draft is clear advertising, has promotional use, and is created by a user who has few edits outside of that draft, the user page can be nominated under U5 as a web host violation. All of these criteria are subject to fair jurisdiction and can be contested in cases where the user makes a surprise return or through the use of blanking. AmericanAir88 15:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from SoWhy

12. Seeing as communication is widely considered an important skill for all admins, can you explain why you only use edit summaries on ~75% of all edits (and ~65% of all major edits)?

A: When editing, I try to use edit summaries as much as I can to inform the public about my certain actions. However, I am human and can forget to add a summary when I am focused on editing a page. I can be so focused on an edit sometimes that sometimes an an edit without a summary can slip out. I promise to use more edit summaries. Communication is a very important skill and if there are any doubts about edits I perform, I always ensure the doubt is settled peacefully. AmericanAir88 17:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from SportingFlyer

13. Your nomination alluded to your experience at AfD, but 40% of your AfD participation (not relisting) has come in the past month, and many of your arguments at AfD are very brief. Why should I trust you to close contentious AfDs properly?

A: At AfD, my votes are based on judgement that I ensure is top quality. My brief arguments are usually when I agree with the nomination. Before voting, I make a commitment look up to find any possible sources or signs of notability. An example of my effort is at FitNesse, where I combed and researched for reliable sources, helping the consensus reach "Keep". Some votes may seem rapid, but all of them go through a search process. The rapid votes are usually for Afd's where: Plenty of reliable sources have been provided and the article has been improved to standards I can agree with, my search brings up no sources on any platforms, or if I agree with a policy another user stated above after doing research. I promise that all of my votes are carefully decided and that I do not edit AfD for the benefit of boosting my numbers. The reason I have participating a ton in the last few weeks is out of personal interest. I felt that I could benefit the AfD, RfD, MfD projects if I gave a bit more attention to them. I told myself that I would start to scout for articles where my opinion could help gain consensus. I also have nominated a few articles in the time being that I believed violated Misplaced Pages guidelines such as the General Notability Guide. If granted adminship, I will ensure that all of my closures are in proper jurisdiction and that emphasis will be focused on the consensus. AfD is a reminder of the importance of consensus and teamwork, something I always pursue. AmericanAir88 19:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from SportingFlyer

14. What vandalism prevention have you done to date that you're particularly proud of?

A: Preventing vandalism is a key component to ensuring Misplaced Pages is top quality. I am a recent changes patroller who searches for vandalism, bad faith edits, and unsourced material. I am also a pending changes reviewer who ensures that only encyclopedic edits are being passed. The vandalism prevention I am most proud of is my work with users (Mainly IP's) in recent changes. Whenever I see vandalism, I revert it as soon as possible and give the user a warning. I always assume good faith and make sure to give warning before reporting. If the user continues to edits past my warnings, I report them to AIV. If the user is an IP vandal, I use the "Shared IP tag" in order for admins to see where the IP is being used or hosted. This allows for abuse emails and blocking to be sent out more systematically. My prime example of vandalism prevention would be the page Will Roland. When I was browsing recent changes, I spotted the Will Roland article being the subject of multiple IP abuse. It was clear that the IP's were in unison as a result of the edit content. After reverting, I submitted the page to RFPP to prevent the IP abuse from continuing to attack the page. Once the page was protected, the IP's settled down. The end result was a user being blocked indefinitely, some IP's being blocked temporarily, and the page being protected for a week. As of today, the article is nowhere near the amount of vandalism it used to have. I keep the page watch listed just in case. My work on that article helped crack down on a vandalism ring and kept Misplaced Pages safe from ill-intent. AmericanAir88 19:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Icewhiz

15. How much time do you devote to each AfD you !vote in? Could you please explain how you evaluate and article and possible sources prior to !voting?

A:

Additional question from Icewhiz

16. Please explain your relisting of these discussions: , , , , , in light of WP:NOQUORUM (WP:SOFTDELETE), WP:RELIST, WP:NACD, and WP:RELISTBIAS ?

A:

Additional question from User:Reyk

17. What, in your opinion, is the most important policy on Misplaced Pages and why?

A: In my opinion, the most important sector of policy is Conduct. Proper conduct allows for the encyclopedia to flourish through teamwork, discussion, and consensus. The most important policy in my opinion is Editing policy under conduct. The editing policy is what gives Misplaced Pages its foundation and growth. In order to make the encyclopedia a better place, proper jurisdiction, and sourcing is needed to ensure top quality. By adding citations and removing original content, the encyclopedia develops into a strong place of knowledge. Through proper talking and editing, collaboration creates an encyclopedia with articles of premium quality. The entire sector of Conduct is vital to the success of Misplaced Pages. AmericanAir88 17:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

18. What area or areas of the English Misplaced Pages do you find yourself to be the weakest?

A:

Additional question from LessHeard vanU

19. Further to your answer to question 2., can you understand that someone might feel that you are slightly invested in the article Deep Space Homer? You comment that you consider two unsuccessful FA attempts a personal failure. I ask because one of the skill sets of admin work is not to be too attached to your own sysop contributions and opinions, and to allow a matter to pass resolved in a manner not in accordance with your preferences.ps. RfA is not comfortable, but then neither is adminship sometimes - if you are able to withstand this, then you were correct in accepting the nomination.

A: I am not really attached to the article, but more take pride. I selected that article to be the goal of my first Featured Article. While I put a lot of work into the article, I always ensure I am focused on every branch of Misplaced Pages. I will never use bias or personal preference in any major contributions. Consensus is the building block of a fair conversation. AmericanAir88 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from PaleCloudedWhite

20. A hypothetical situation. An editor who you know socially contacts you offwiki and asks that you intervene at "Article X", where your friend has been reverted a couple of times by an editor who, according to your friend, is a pompous arse (or just a not very nice person - if you're unlikely to be friends with someone who regards people as pompous arses). You look at the article - which you have never edited before - and see a fairly standard content dispute. The other editor is someone you have interacted with before, and you agree with your friend's characterisation. What would you do?

A:

Additional question from Foxnpichu

21. You are fairly new to Misplaced Pages, having only edited for 2 years (as far as I can tell, I may have made a mistake). Would you say you have gained a reasonable amount of experience in a couple of years?

A: I would say I have definitely gained a reasonable amount of experience. When I started out, I looked at everything as an opportunity to learn. Through learning correct citations, deletion policy, various scripts, and talking to people, I have gained a ton of knowledge through my 2 years. Age on Misplaced Pages should not be looked at as a number, but as a timeline for experience. AmericanAir88 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from User:PeterTheFourth

22. Does the '88' in your username hold any particular significance?

A: Honestly, I just like the number 88. I explain it in question 9 on how most websites require a number after just a name. I picked 88 as it flowed well with the AA acronym. I see that some are concerned with the number "88". I can reassure you that there is no ill-intent with the number. I like the way the number looks with the acronym AA. My name is also the Dead man's hand, which I found cool as well. AmericanAir88 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from RadioKAOS

23. How is it considered a net positive to the encyclopedia when editors specialize in a particular content or project area and their editing activity suggests that they have no clue or could care less about the encyclopedia as a whole?

A:

Discussion

• Links for AmericanAir88: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for AmericanAir88 can be found here.

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

Support

1. Support as nominator. North America 04:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. I, for one, welcome our new American overlords! El_C 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support, I've worked with this editor on multiple occasions and from what I've seen they are qualified and have what it takes to handle and use the tools. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support good content creator, wikipedia needs more admins with content creation experience and less drama. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   The Q6 answers sound like the difference between unilateral instant speedy deletion and the two person two step 1st one CSD tags the second does the deletion. —07:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

7. I was on the fence, but their answers to my question 5 reveals someone who is humble and knows their limitations and realizes that collegiality is key to this project, as is understanding consensus. Their example in question 4 is pretty much the poster child for protection over blocking. While they have less experience in the project areas they say they want to work in than I normally expect, someone who is willing to work with others and ask for help who is also a prolific content creator has the temperament to be a sysop, and I give them my endorsement. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
8. Support Solid answer to my question (6). I have not done a forensic search through their contribs but what I have looked at shows a competent editor who has been around long enough to demonstrate a strong commitment to the project, a reasonable grasp of WP:PAG and a good temperament. No red or yellow flags. I believe AA meets my criteria for RfA and I wish them good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
9. Support Looking a bit deeper than the link provided I see a lot of red (article work). I'm not Simpson's fan, but Deep Space Homer is a decent article. I also see over 150 efforts at wp:cleanup which is also a great area to work. I'm not sure I'd mention a blocked user by name when they can't defend themselves, and the obsession with the Homer article gives me pause. I'm still seeing some irony in 1 airline nominating another airline. All in all, at least where I looked, this seems to be someone with a good head on their shoulders, a calm personality, and a modicum of common sense. That goes a long way with me. — Ched :  ?  — 06:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC) (edited 14:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC))
10. Support - No red flags. The answers to all the questions give me confidence. It’s also great that they have several good articles under their belt and are passionate about the project.—NØ 06:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
11. Support Why not? The candidate's answers to the questions are excellent. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
12. Support, good content creator, sensible answers to questions, no concerns here. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
13. Support - AfD matched the result over 90%. Content work/creations includes many lists, stubs, and DAB, but is adequate to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of what an article should be, although The Darien Times and Squid Noir should be addressed. For the rest, my 'laundry list' as some call it, although it is nothing more than the minimum and obvious requirements, is sufficiently met and I am confident they will not abuse the tools.. As an aficionado of aircraft, my judgement is not being clouded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
14. Support. I'm glad to see a content creator trying for an Admin bit. While it doesn't appear that he's earned his first FA, he's been through the process and I'm sure that he's able to get there. He does meet my criteria by having taking several to GA status. GregJackP Boomer! 07:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
15. Support. Whyever not? Calm, competent, no issues. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
16. Support AmericanAir's contributions seem to span all relevant areas I would want to see in a good admin candidate. Go for it dude! Lourdes 09:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
17. Support. Great work in content creation. From the answers to Q3 and Q5, I trust that they will engage in discussion willingly if any concerns are raised. ComplexRational (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
18. Support - in the know = a plus/plus. _Talk 📧 10:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
19. Support. content creator is a plus. should be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
20. Support I like what I see. scope_creep 12:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
21. Support Sounds good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
22. Support This editor has a clear and strong body of work and a commendable display of loyalty to the project. I don't see the airline issue as a red flag at all, just a coincidence that hopefully won't represent a troubling pattern. Michepman (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
23. Mega support AmericanAir88 is a great editor!! I am absolutely floored this is happening, but I could not be more ecstatic! Very responsible user whom I trust a ton with the tools. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
24. Support - Satisfied with the answer to my question. Thanks for the response, and good luck in the future. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
25. Support - not a jerk, has a clue, content creator, experienced. Those are pretty much my boxes and they're ticked. Stacking up AFDs in advance of an RFA would be a slight turn-off, but it's not actually disallowed, and from a look through their AFDs although they do quite often !vote late, there are also enough nominations and first-vote responses that this isn't likely to be a deliberate attempt to up the stats. More likely just the way they roll, so I don't consider the oppose rationales to be valid. Cheers, and good luck  — Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
26. Support- You are ready. CLCStudent (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
27. Support, an editor who will do just fine with the mop. bd2412 T 20:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
28. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
29. Support Netpos -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
30. Support I agree with what multiple admins said concerning his contributions and honesty, and that plus his many edits makes him a good potential admin. Decisive Domination 23:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry. The candidate's recent AfD comments show very little depth of understanding of deletion policy. His AfD comments seem to be hasty hand-waves at policies. What does "Keep per WP:RS" mean (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Casper's)? Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Estenson was another vague wave at reliable sources, for a BLP, corrected by later delete voters showing that the sources were not reliable at all. At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tax Cut Now Party the candidate uses a claim made in the wikipedia article itself to argue for notability, and then does not change his position when corrected by another editor. The candidate seems to do very little research on AfDs in which he participates. Here are three cursory !votes on three separate AfDs within three minutes: , , . It's possible that the candidate had done the work on all three earlier, but given the brevity of the comments I doubt it. And so I worry that he would take the same approach to closing AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   There is no time requirements on how quick or slow a person can vote at Afd and his stats very high.scope_creep 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Possibly too high. I've run through their recent AfD !votes and was surprised to see that in a large proportion of my random sample of recent !votes (participation in which ticked up on June 2019 - most of their !votes post-June) they were the last !voter or close to last - and voting in-line with consensus of prior !votes. e.g. 19-21 July: !votes on AfDs in snow-zone (at time made): , , , , , Not snow: . So 6 !votes in SNOWy circumstances, and 3 possibly less obvious ones.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   For those who might be interested, out of the 41 AfDs nominated by AmericanAir, 30 matched and 11 did not – a broad matching percentage of 73.17%; pretty respectable for me. So while we should look at the policy/guideline based rationales provided (or not) by the candidate, the candidate does seem to know what they're doing at AfD. If I was presented with a candidate who had only 41 AfDs to their credit, and this was the ratio of matching, I would go for it. Lourdes 11:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   @Mkativerata: I want to push back on something. I fully agree with AmericanAir's !votes in those AFD's you mentioned in your oppose.
   (1) To answer your question about the vote on AFD:Casper's, I take it to mean keep per being mentioned in reliable sources.
   (2) AFD:Kenneth Estenson resulted in delete because of undisclosed paid editing discovered as a result of an SPI. This is something AA couldn't have known at the time about nor would it have have affected his !vote to my understanding.
   (3) For AFD:Tax Cut Now Party, he's right. The party did win its election because its candidate won. More importantly, however, enough people voted on that line to maintain ballot access. Regardless, his is just one metric he cited besides WP:GNG (which it did in fact meet).
   (4) While his comments may have been brief, they were adequate. It's kind of hard to say "no sources here" in paragraph form.
   (5) As for your concern he'd take that to closes, you can take a look at a few for yourself when the tool comes back online.. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 21:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   I don’t care whether the !votes were “correct”. We’re not here to award a prize for best AFD stats. I want to know from the substance of the candidate’s AFD contributions whether he considers them carefully, communicates well and understands policy. All I see is quick drive-by jobs.—Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose AmericanAir88 clearly needs to brush up on policy before closing AfDs, as demonstrated by their AfD contributions. Closing them based on "consenus" and "judgement" isn't going to cut it - what happens when there are just two or three !votes all of which incorrectly cite the same policy? ----Pontificalibus 15:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   That's doesn't make sense. What else is there apart from consensus and judgement? Peer communication possibly? They have far too few to draw any conclusions from them whatsoever. scope_creep 16:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   There is policy, as my example above demonstrates. A prospective admin who specifically mentions AfD as a place they want to work should be intimately familiar with relevant policies. I'd expect to see examples of them demonstrating this on borderline AfDs and on AfDs where the nomination and/or !votes misapply or incorrectly cite policy. You're correct when you mention they don't seem to have enough experience (if that's what you meant).----Pontificalibus 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   That's not what I meant. You cant draw conclusions from 41 Afd's. 410 possibly.scope_creep 17:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose I have concerns with the recent flood of AfD participation, their content as pointed out by the users above, and the overall lack of experience in the other areas they plan on working in. Nihlus 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose I not getting a sense of maturity from the candidate and don't think they're ready for the tools. Their answer to question 9 is innocent enough... they probably aren't aware of its use by white supremacists and neo nazis. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   I don't usually respond to RFA !votes but this is pretty unbecoming of anyone to say, much less an administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Which bit? The fact that "88" is widely used by neo-nazis (see Nazi symbolism#Usages by neo-Nazi groups)? I don't believe he was aware of the significance of the number, but it caught my eye. I assume that it was also the reason for question 9. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   I'm not discrediting your concerns, but there are plenty of valid reasons to have 88 in a username (born in '88, aesthetics, etc). I'd really only be concerned if it had 14 as well. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   There's a discussion going on on the talk page. I suggest any further response to my oppose !vote goes there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose As an example of "best work", Deep Space Homer is rather sadly lacking. I would not oppose on the lack of FAs alone, but I do oppose on the basis of an apparent inability to be able to tell the good from the bad. Eric Corbett 20:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   What good from bad? scope_creep 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Eric "may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA" per WP:Editing restrictions, so do not expect a response. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   That is a pity. My understanding is that he seems be conflating two different domains with different types of requirements and then leaving the reader believing an assertion that has been not qualified; that he can't tell good from bad. What good from bad? scope_creep 22:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose, moved from Neutral The username now bothers me. (In addition to sounding promotional, the number 88 has neonazi connections. It probably doesn't mean anything, but alarm bells are going off.) The fact that the candidate seems to be skipping questions is another red flag, and the editors above me have also pointed out the AFD issue. Hopping on late is not an issue, but it seems like the editor has started showing activity in AFD solely because people typically view AFD participation as a must for RFA. Squeeps10 23:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   @Squeeps10: It seems incredibly discouraging that we are going to let neonazis set the rules for which numbers are perfectly acceptable for usernames. AA had his preference for the number way before it took off as a thing for nazis to use to identify one another. The thing with dog whistles... is just that: it's meant to muddy the waters and get innocent people caught in the crosshairs (see okay sign debate). –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Squeeps10 as the person who wrote the essay on blocking neo-nazis, I think the username likely just means they were born in 1988. It's what numbers mean most of the time (I don't know, just theorizing.) Normally neo-nazis are more than happy to let us know they are neo-nazis. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   I can certainly understand your concern, @MJL and TonyBallioni:, and agree that I probably worded it badly. For reasons I don't feel comfortable disclosing, I have...rather a problem with neonazis. My concerns are more than likely unfounded. 88 does also mean "good luck" in China and "love and kisses" in amateur radio. Or it could mean nothing. However, I believe my other concerns are perfectly valid, and stand by them as a reason to oppose. Squeeps10 23:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   I mean, I 100% agree that neo-nazis are bad and should be blocked on sight. Heck, I sunk an RfA because I felt an extremely popular candidate was insufficiently anti-nazi, I just think that it's very unlikely this particular candidate is a neo-nazi , and that it is not fair to oppose without further evidence that they are in fact a nazi. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   No, I understand what you're saying, and I agree, just... past experiences. Alarm bells are going off and it wouldn't feel right to support knowing this. I still stand by my other reasons. Squeeps10 23:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Waiting for the candidate to answer questions.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Same, just waiting for the answer to my question (#9), which I've fairly certain will be satisfactory, judging by their contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now. I'm not yet convinced the tools are needed here, based on looking over their contributions to AfD, and the emphasis placed on the "will help at AfD" in the nomination statement, though I do like their responses generally so far. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Awaiting answers to questions 7, 10, and 13 for now. Weighing the candidates contributions, their content contributions are very good. However, like Mkativerata, I have some concerns about their deletion experience at present, in particular, some of their contributions to AFDs where I would hope a potential administrator gives more well-thought out rationales for their take on the discussion, and given this is an area the candidate intends to work on, the examples presented thus far give me pause. So, for the moment, I am here. That said, I appreciate perfection is definitely not required here, and I will definitely re-visit this later based on the answers to questions (please feel free to ping me once they have been answered, if desired). Steven Crossin 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Pending answer to all AfD questions - I'm concerned that they felt they needed some AfD stats to pass RfA and acquired them without actually learning it and participating properly. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   All above. Why come here saying you are waiting for answers? Why not just wait? I thought this neutral waiting thing was deprecated in an RfC? Leaky caldron (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   @Leaky caldron: - non-conditional pending neutrals ("I'm neutral while I think about it") have somewhat died out, but there is a benefit to neutrals that are conditional on specific question answering. It notifies the candidate of the particular importance and concerns on those, and let's others know about possible issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Speaking for me personally, I'm neutral at the moment because balancing their contributions and the comments I've made along with others regarding AFD, I can't decide either way, however do think that my view is worth noting. I guess I, and others, are giving the candidate an opportunity to address our concerns - addressed adequately, I'd be very happy to support. This is the reason I went neutral. Steven Crossin 13:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Nosebagbear and User:Steven Crossin have already said what I was about to say.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Maybe not decisive but many folks think that Neutral is a simple destination, not a temporary waypoint. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

6. I believe that waiting for a fair quantity of answers to question ratio is best for determining how the candidate thinks, and how they communicate their consideration. In particular, I am interested in the response to Beyond My Ken's question and if they were aware of the possible connotations with those letters. Sensitivity to potential misunderstandings is important in sysop/editor interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   I think I am going to remain Neutral, as while I am of the belief that the candidate would not misuse the tools I do not think that they understand how important it is that they are aware of the potential pitfalls of their username. I am not saying it should be changed, but they should be familiar with perceptions among people they will have to deal with. I am not convinced yet that this would be the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Editor has a lot of potential, but has only been here for a short while, and may not have enough experience. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Gonna strike my vote and instead ask a question first. Seems more fair. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

7. In general I like the candidate's record and would be inclined to support. I also appreciate his answer to my question about the username. However, the username issue still bothers me. I dislike the idea of any Misplaced Pages user, particularly an admin, having a username that suggests promoting a private commercial company. It is not a matter of COI but rather of the promotional effect, which seems a bit like product placement. And yes I know that there are probably a bunch of users out there with names like Disneyfan88 or something similar. Still, it does not sit right with me. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   @Nsk92: I feel like if you think the candidate's record is something you support, that should outweigh the need to see admins with less promotional usernames. American Airlines is special to AA, who are we to take that away from him? –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Pending answers to questions 15, 16, 18, and 20. It also seems to me (no offense to AA88) that s/he's intentionally trying to use "big words" to sound impressive. The username doesn't bother me, nor does the fact the editor is fairly new (7-17). Depending on the answers to the above questions, I may change my !vote. Squeeps10 22:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Striking here as, after looking into the username a bit more, it now bothers me a bit, and the fact that it seems like s/he is skipping over questions is bothersome. Moving to oppose for now. Squeeps10 22:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• I like what I'm seeing on the editing side, but the user name seems very close to these folks seems rather promotional . I'm wondering if anyone else thinks a name change might help. I know 2 years is a long time (depending on your perspective), and I'd imagine you've had discussions about it. Could you link me to one or two of those? — Ched :  ?  — 04:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, they don't seem to be a shared account, which is what that part of UPOL is theoretically about. Also, AmericanAir88 would you mind disclosing whether or not you have edited for pay? Not a formal question, but policy says you have to disclose, so may as well bring it up here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Candidate clarified here I have no relation to American Airlines, my username is just out of my passion for the company and airline industry, no COI. – Teratix ₵ 05:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: and @Ched: I have never edited for pay. I do Misplaced Pages work purely for volunteer and dedication to improving the encyclopedia. My name is from my passion for aviation. I have always loved planes and the airline industry. I have never worked for AA nor have I ever been paid to edit. I hope that clears everything up. AmericanAir88 05:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you I didn't think you had, there was just a recent thread at WT:RFA about this requirement, which is why I pinged on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)