Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Airplaneman


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Airplaneman
Final: (28/20/7) - withdrawn by candidate at 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

Nomination
– Airplaneman is an experienced contributor on Wikipedia. He is a very good vandal-fighter. He also welcomes new users with his own welcome template. He can also contribute content. He has three GAs. He is very trusted and would not misuse the admin tools. He would not delete the Main Page or block Jimbo Wales  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 05:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination
Airplaneman was very helpful to me when I was a new user, so I've followed his contributions and talk page since then. He is active in many aspects of Wikipedia, especially the Percy Jackson task force and WikiProject Aviation. However, he really has shown up all over the encyclopedia. He has been unfailingly friendly and assuming good faith in all the discussions I have seen. He is also quick to welcome new users and try to help them. He has a high edit count with plenty of article building. I believe he would make good use of the admin tools. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, NSD and PrincessofLlyr. I accept. Airplaneman  talk 23:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing statement:

As a closing statement, I'd like to say thanks to my nominators and everyone who voted, whether support, neutral, or oppose. As it seems that the community does not feel like the time is right for me to be an admin, I have decided to withdraw. Thank you, supporters, for, well, supporting and trusting my abilities to be an admin. I would also like to thank the opposers who opposed based on reason and gave me points to improve on; I will definitely address these issues before considering a rerun. Thanks again, and until next time, happy editing :). Regards, Airplaneman  talk 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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 plan to partake in vandalism patrol, new page patrol, and Requests for page protection. If entrusted with the tools, I plan to block vandals, delete pages that obviously meet the CSD criteria, and protect heavily vandalized articles. Recently, I have been wading into TFD and have occasionally contributed to AFD, and will continue to do so. Also, I plan to grant and modify user rights.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I consider my new page patrolling, good articles, Percy Jackson task force work, and article assessments to be my best contributions to Wikipedia. Having patrolled over 3500 new pages, I am proud of cleaning them up and giving them a head start as articles of Wikipedia. The articles which I have improved, especially the GAs, have improved the quality of the encyclopedia. Assessing articles gives WikiProjects a better picture on the status of their articles. I am also proud of my Percy Jackson task force work because I have helped organize and improve Percy Jackson articles.
 * 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: I can remember one time where a conflict caused me stress. I was involved in a dispute over section headings for the MacBook Pro article. The discussions can be found at User talk:Airplaneman/Archive 1 and Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 4. I tried to keep a level head and look at both sides of the situation while avoiding heating up the discussion as much as possible and still being able to prove my point. The matter was resolved peacefully.


 * Additional optional question from Soap
 * 4. Are there any situations in which you'd feel it appropriate to block a vandal who'd never received any talk page warnings?
 * A: No, I do not. I believe all vandals should be given at least one warning (and therefore a second chance), and if they fail to heed it, then yes, a block is warranted. Please see here for clarification.


 * Additional optional questions from Fetchcomms
 * 5. As you are planning to work in NPP, please explain CSD#A7 and some things it does not cover, and CSD#G4 and some things that does not cover.
 * A: CSD#A7 indicates "no indication of importance given" for real people, individual animals, organizations, or web content. It covers the aforementioned subject and only those. For example, A7 does not cover attack page biographies, as they are better categorized under G10. G4 does not cover pages that are recreated and substantially better (enough to warrant inclusion) than the one that was deleted.
 * From your edit summary, I take it you've finished answering this, so I'll make a little comment—your answers are fine, although what I had in mind was slightly different (e.g., G4 does not cover previously speedied/prodded material, but you are indeed correct as well). No real issues here ;)  fetch  comms  ☛ 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 6. Regarding the protection of pages, when (if ever) would it be appropriate to protect a page because of a dispute in which you have participated a good deal? What about only minor involvement on your part?
 * A: I do not think that I should be able to protect a page that I have been in a dispute in, even if I play only a minor role. I would leave it to another administrator, as they, an uninvolved third party, are in a better position to make a neutral decision regarding the action to be taken on the page.
 * 7. (Stealing from Coffee) What is your stance on BLP and how would you close an AfD about a BLP such as this, where there is no consensus up front? While you have not expressed desire to participate in closing AfDs, what would you do, if anything? (ec'd with Doc Quintana)
 * A: Wow, that's a huge AfD. My first reaction is "no consensus", as there are compelling arguments and there is good reasoning from both the "keep"ers and the "delete"ers. That being said, I'd close it as "no consensus", as it has clearly not been reached. When "no consensus" is the result, the article is kept per current policy.
 * Follow-up/clarify: While the status of BLPs has been widely disputed, and you cannot see the actual article, would you still close as no consensus, or taken that there was much unsourced content within, delete as it later was?  fetch  comms  ☛ 04:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would still close as "no consensus" unless evidence is given otherwise, such as the unsourced content you mentioned. I would then see how the article would look without the unsourced content; if the claims to notability were unsourced, I would mention that in the deletion discussion and search for references myself. If no action is taken to source the claims to notability and/or I can't find sources to verify his notability, delete it is, as the claims of notability would be unverifiable. Otherwise, as I said earlier, I would still close as "no consensus". I do not believe, however, that this scenario would play out in real life because of the fact that it was mostly unsourced in the case given. I would think most people, in this case, would have already searched for and added reliable references or voted "delete" by the time I would have come around to close the discussion.


 * Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana
 * 8. What's your take on IAR?
 * A I can't see a situation where I would ignore a rule for the good of the encyclopedia. There are some hypothetical cases in which IAR could apply, though. For instance, if there is clear consensus from trusted, competent editors to bend/ignore a rule, it can be ignored. It all really boils down to common sense. If a rule is in the way of the advancement of the encyclopedia, by all means ignore it, but again, I cannot imagine a situation in which this would be the case.


 * Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
 * 9. What do you do when a user is nominated at WP:AIV for editing pages on popular culture (such as TV), but you cannot see any obvious vandalism?
 * A:


 * Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
 * 10. Please explain your understanding of fair use.
 * A:


 * Questions from  F ASTILY 
 * 11. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.
 * A:


 * 12. As a rule of thumb, images from Google Maps are generally prohibited on Wikipedia. Why? Explain in detail.
 * A:


 * 13. What, in your opinion, are the several most important non-free content criteria? Please explain why you think these criteria are the most important and give a detailed explanation of each.
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for Airplaneman:
 * Edit summary usage for Airplaneman can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Editing stats are available on the talk page. m:Katerenka (d) 01:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Airplaneman, your answer here to question 4 is wrong by the way. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 02:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand now; I had vandals in mind, but did not consider socks, page move vandals, and the like. I was referring to straight-on vandalism. As the question clearly asked for all occasions, I am aware that I have answered wrong, but would it not seem fishy for me to now modify my answer as people have already voted neutral/oppose for it? Airplaneman  talk 03:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can append a clarification onto it (like you did). Also, IMO, vandal = vandal, especially Grawp, socks, or anything around LTA. However, I do see how that would be easily overlooked when asked such a question. (And my point about outing and personal harm is valid here as well.)  fetch  comms  ☛ 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As nominator.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 23:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) As co-nom. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Mlpearc   MESSAGE  23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Support - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Why not! -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 00:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) No issues. m:Katerenka (d) 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I've been impressed by his work in the past. I believe he'd be a great addition as an admin. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support He is very friendly, and uses good faith all the time. I have seen his contributions everywhere, from warning vandals, to welcoming new users, to working on GA's. Airplaneman was the first person I really met and trusted on Wikipedia, and his friendliness was encouraging. Therefore, I fully support this nomination.  Bramble  claw  x   01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Why not? -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK )  01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)  Move to Neutral. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 23:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. CSD hit rate seems to be around the 95-100% mark. That's a very good sign of policy knowledge and clue. I find myself decidedly unconvinced by the opposes. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Don't get distracted or else!--mono (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you decided to move your !vote?  fetch  comms  ☛ 04:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I don't think the Q4 answer is a problem if you assume (as I'm doing) that he's excluding obvious socks, or people who otherwise demonstrate from the first vandalism edit they know what they're doing. I've never sent anyone to AIV without either a warning or a very good idea that they know what they're doing or were very recently another account I'd recently warned. Given this editor's history, I assume that logic is so natural it wasn't even thought of. On top of that, an awesome patrol count (3k+) that indicates someone who knows what new page patrol looks like, and yet a good CSD log on top of that. Everything looks good. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: No worries here - looks like a trustworthy and clueful editor, who appears to show good judgment, and to whom I'd be happy to hand a mop. Opposes generally look rather nit-picking - specific weakness in GA articles and criticism of exactly how many minor edits they took? We're looking for someone who'll reliably clean up some of the mess we get around here, not the next William Shakespeare. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  08:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I get more of a Christopher Marlowe vibe, but that's just me. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sure, why not. Positive interactions. Pmlineditor   ∞  09:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Support  More than ready for it! Belugaboy  Talk to Me! 13:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Has done a great job with working with new contributor User:Nascar1996 without being bitey.  Royal broil  14:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support He is a good editor with a lot of experience. --  Nascar 1996  15:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support no major concerns Polargeo (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA as the candidate has Rollback (some admin trusts him), is involved with Adopt-a-User (wants to help others), has received at least seven barnstars (other users recognize his efforts), has over 10,000 edits, has never been even accidentally blocked after making 10,000 edits, and makes reasonable arguments in AfDs (such as here). Overall, this candidate strikes me as good guy, serious contributor, and mature editor.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Support Good but not great answer to my question. I do not believe in casting my opinion as an oppose here on his history, nor a neutral. I think Polargeo and A Nobody above sum up my sentiments best: not a superlative candidate, but a candidate that should pass. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Good work so far. Cloudbound (the new name for Wikiwoohoo) (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - I'm not concerned about the answer to question 4, because it was asking the candidate what he would do, not what he would be permitted to do. There is nothing wrong with a new admin being cautious in using the tools.  --~TPW 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support See no concerns as per track and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) User flies like paper, gets high like planes.  harej  22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) support  Dloh  cierekim  05:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support: You have my support because of the way you help new users, but looking at the oppose section, you may need to work on your people skills. I would suggest contacting  J04n(talk page)  who went from being a failed candidate to 100% support (it did take some work) - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak Support Interperetation of IAR was too broad for my liking, but everything else seems good. RadManCF (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak support I think you mean well, and if promoted you would steer clear of areas where you would feel weak, so I think you would be a net positive.  —  Soap  —  22:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Trying to have me banned from RfA is a good way to earn yourself a big fat oppose. Keepscases (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but out of curiosity, where? I did a little looking and couldn't find it. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Keepscases#Outside_view_by_Triplestop Keepscases (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that really a good reason for an oppose? That's personality, not contribution. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Keepscases (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but why would having to have tried to ban you from commented on rfas be a reason for opposition? Unless there's another reason (e.g. illogical reasoning and judgement on their side), I don't see how that's sufficient reasoning by itself for opposition. Your !vote should be based on Airplaneman's contributions and experience, not whether or not they wanted to ban you. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 04:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Super, not a good reason to oppose.  C T J F 8 3  chat 05:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrible opposition reason. How does this tell you about his suitability to be an admin Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 07:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Airplaneman's assessment in this case - people who ask RfA questions like this, this and this really shouldn't be surprised when people suggest they need a ban. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  08:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if I don't agree with Keepscases oppose, I wouldn't at all fault making the point here. It's pretty clear that it's a personal reason, it's not as though it's passed off as some broader point motivated by a hidden agenda. It's out front for all. Take it or leave it, but why badger somebody here? It's a pretty damn good reason for Keepscases, just not for me. Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, fair point - struck my comment -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) To be quite honest, I was very unimpressed with the quality two of the three GAs you mentioned: The Sea of Monsters and The Titan's Curse. Not only does more information need to be added for the articles to be properly comprehensive, but the formatting and sourcing needs quite a bit of work. Those articles are nowhere near GA standard, and I am disappointed with your claim that they are among your best. In addition, I disagree completely with your answer to Q4. Even discounting obvious vandal-sockpuppets, there are plenty of accounts that should be blocked on sight. User:NuclearWarfare/Vandal Warnings explains my views. There are also a number of small things that just add up in my mind to an oppose. NW ( Talk ) 03:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'm sure Airplaneman's friends mean well but given the circumstances of this nom, I'm not surprised to get such a MySpace vibe from the user and talk pages. Whereas the 60+ userboxes illustrating his eating preferences is IMHO absurd, the 40+ detailing his grammatical concerns is puzzling because, despite his claims, Airplaneman doesn't seem to have done much in the way of actually writing content.
 * On his userpage, Airplaneman has a list of 13 "Articles that I have contributed to greatly" and states here in Q2 his pride in the GAs. Taking one of the 3 GAs at random: The Titan's Curse. He makes multiple minor edits instead of using the preview function: for example, 11 edits made in less than 20 mins here  and does not correctly cite many of his edits as minor when clearly they are eg. . Beyond adding a couple of refs, the most 'substantial' edit is an uncited line mentioning awards . This same multiple edit count tactic appears elsewhere on the same history page, and again here  and here  and here.
 * Of the two other GAs, Mac Pro saw slightly more input from him but that still confined to a couple of refs and a few minor clean-ups. And the most substantial contribution to the third GA - The Sea of Monsters? This: . Again, just like with The Titan's Curse, Airplaneman's contributions lack preview and are overwhelmingly minor and trivial. Content writing isn't everything by all means and copy editing is necessary but I question Airplaneman's self-awareness if he genuinely thinks these are articles he has "contributed to greatly".
 * Of the articles he's created that are not still stubs, Standard Rex rabbit was expanded by someone else, this one appears to be largely lifted from here and Great Bear Lake (Seekers) reads like a 6th grade book review.
 * For adminspace experience: I see RPP, tools, bots and a very recent (last few days and especially last few hours!) flurry of quick-adds and speedy deletion noms. That's not going to make much difference and there's not nearly enough in the way of breadth of involvement eg. XfDs. I feel that Airplaneman lacks the necessary admin experience and judgment. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was waiting for someone to mention Wiki-MySpacing... as for Great Bear Lake, I did not write the plot summary. Thank you for the constructive criticism, Plutonium and NW. It is much appreciated and will be taken to heart. Airplaneman  talk 03:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there was some MySpacing going around or not? Personally, I dislike off-topic chats on talk pages, but I wouldn't oppose you for it because you obviously do a lot more work than that.  fetch  comms  ☛ 05:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you consider talking about wiki stuff and going on tangents, then yes. But, there wasn't anything like "Hey, I bought a TV today, what'd you do?" or the like. No harm done; I try not to get too off topic and will continue to monitor what is said on my talk page. Airplaneman  talk 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I hate to do this to an editor that I have personally worked with and does a good job. Airplaneman is an experienced user, however has only created a handful of so-so articles, focusing more on building articles and coordinating projects. Personaly, while working with the user, he's great at resolving disputes, yet I think the admin tools would cripple his editing. An excellent coordinator, I think the whole admin thing would distract him. I don't want to discourage the user in any way nor am I trying to undermine his excellent assistance and great work; I just don't think he's the admin type. Honestly, "He would not delete the Main Page or block Jimbo Wales" is not a good reason for a RfA nom. Conclusively: No.--mono (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Er.. I think the "block Jimbo" thing was meant as a joke by NSD. Airplaneman  talk 03:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got that. It's not funny anymore.--mono (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How is article development and project coordination not something to focus on? While I agree that some of the created articles may be lacking in certain aspects, surely his other work at the Percy Jackson group is OK too?  fetch  comms  ☛ 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to say it wasn't something to focus on. I just think the whole admin thing would distract him.--mono (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I think of it...--mono (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ← Understood. And almost ec, yes?  fetch  comms  ☛ 04:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) add me to the Opposes, I will check further, but the nominations seems to be feeble. Well on checking he seems to be a prolific gnome, with no negative contribution. I have seen nothing substantive yet! Looking at the questions 4: there are at least 4 reasons to block such a user, and 5: failed to answer part of the question, as an admin you have to address All the concerns of the people who question you to defuse the potential trouble. The bock Jimbo joke indicates immaturity. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How would not blocking Jimbo sound immature? It shows maturity and trust. I was basically saying that he would not misuse the admin tools.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is the height of readiness, then there are much higher places to climb. Anyway after a some time away from the computer, and I have given some thought to Airplaneman, of course he should not block Jimbo, but the real issue lies with other people playing up, should they be blocked or not? That is where maturity comes in.  I will pose a question to test this out. From what I see is a lack of maturity, although I am probably being affected by nominators and friends, and really airplaneman has potential. (may be in 2 years the potential will be realized).  Also contributions in the file and category area seem to be very thin on the ground. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize this isn't the only reason for your oppose, but please do not judge Airplaneman by a lack of maturity on the part of his friends. This is the first time I have ever (co)nominated anyone for administrator, but I did it because I think he is a good editor and admin material. I wanted people to look at his edit count, not mine. Please take that into consideration. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Edit Count is big and climbing fast, but nearly all the edits are tiny ones, automated, or mechanical, and not actually adding text to articles. I did not look at your count, and I appreciate nominators coming in to support on Airplaneman's behalf, but only the candidate get's points for a support by putting in a good counter argument to my oppose! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to leave the opposes mostly alone, but I was asked for a counter argument (I'll also answer the questions). About the "block Jimbo" thing: it's hardly a show of immaturity, more like a statement of trust (as NSD stated). Also, please see TPW's comment under Fetchcomm's neutral vote. I have offered clarification for question four. As for question five, I was asked what the two criteria did not cover; there was nothing that asked for how I should handle the situation. Regards, Airplaneman  talk 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "block Jimbo" is becoming a meme of sorts, not specific to this RfA, as it appears on Tim Song's RfA in the first support !vote.  —  Soap  —  22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Not ready yet. The answers to the questions show this user could develop a bit more experience. Sorry. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I am uncomfortable with this nomination. Answers to questions leave something to be desired, especially Q4, which is just flat out wrong.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Question 4 worries me; nothing is absolute. There always has to be some form of human judgement involved (or else all our admins would be bots). Blatantly obvious, severe hits (not just in count, but content severity) on the edit filter are a perfectly valid reason to block someone on occasion. It's rare, but it's possible. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Per question 7. Not just because he would close it as no consensus, but because his answer shows a lack of understanding in the AFD and BLP area. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per PeterSymonds and Coffee. Glass  Cobra  22:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose needs some more experience with real problems, as shown by the answer of Q4. I don't myself do much blocking, but when I do it tends to be in a case so outrageous that there is no need for warnings, because the absence of good faith is manifest immediately.  Nobody needs a warning in order to be taught that replacing a page with an obscenity or the like is not something that a web site will not tolerate. The answer to Q7   lacks appreciation of the nuances, but I'm not sure that at this point its a fair question,  because it cannot be answered intelligently without seeing the now deleted article that is being referred to. Basically, should be ready soon, but not quite yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * 7) Oppose with some regret. The answers to the questions are not up to par, and I find the candidate's level of experience lacking. The candidate's flashy userpage and "MySpacing" aren't exactly indicators of maturity; however, I think Airplaneman has a good understanding of the criteria for speedy deletion and protection policy. Plutonium27's vote pushed me into the oppose column, however; the fact that Airplaneman takes credit for three GAs where he didn't do much besides minor fixes is...well, concerning. I don't want to call it deception, but it's something along those lines. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per answers to questions, #4 and #7 especially. Blocking, AFD, and especially BLP issues are essential aspects of being an admin.  We simply can't have admins who are shy/"soft"/clueless in those areas.  Sorry, but no thanks. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I must say, the opposition brings up some fairly good points. This, combined with the weak noms and the bad answers to several of the questions, is concerning. This isn't a deal-breaker however - awaiting answers to remaining questions. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 04:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) You will probably make a fine admin one day, but you're not quite ready. The answer to Q4 doesn't inspire confidence in your understanding of vandalism policy. With regret, I must oppose at this time. Majoreditor (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. With considerable reluctance but strongly nonetheless. This RfA raises questions over maturity, judgement and knowledge of policy and, more importantly, its implementation in the running of WP. I think you have the potential to be a fine administrator in the future. Maybe in 3 or 4 months, with a proven knowledge of policy, more article work and less social networking, I could support, but not right now. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Given that Airplaneman has made several mistakes in judgement, as shown on their talkpage archives, it seems that the candidate may possibly delete the main page or block Jimbo ;-) I'd like to see at least six more months of positive editing with plenty of evidence of sound judgments, and no more mistakes regarding speedy nominations.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, concerns about answers to the questions, experience, and judgment. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q8. -Atmoz (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Airplaneman, I've seen you around and I think you're a good editor, and a promising future admin candidate. But I don't think you're ready yet. Your answers to the questions above are woefully lacking to me. Q4 in particular is troubling, and while I understand that you forgot some situations where an immediate block is warranted, keep in mind you seem to be quite focused on blocking vandals and a major slip-up on a basic blocking question doesn't look good. Q5 is a wishy-washy answer and glosses over some important things like noting that A7 only applies to articles that lack plausible claims of importance, not evidence of notability (the most common way that A7 is misused). Finally, the answer to Q8 bothers me, generally there's a point when most editors realize how important WP:IAR is, and it seems to illustrate your lack of experience that you haven't reached that yet. --  At am a  頭 18:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'm sorry, but if this is your view, "I can't see a situation where I would ignore a rule for the good of the encyclopedia.", then you're not ready yet. IAR is a critical policy; not only as a way to finally cut the Gordian Knot but as an essential part of the editor's- and admin's- tool kit.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Actually Bradjamesbrown said almost word for word what I would have said. You look like a decent candidate otherwise, but if you honestly can't even conceive of ever invoking IAR I can't support. Process creep is a serious problem on Wikipedia and drives away a lot of people who just wanted to edit, not learn some elaborate system of rules/policies/guidelines/essays that are treated like rules/etc. IAR is one way we can avoid sinking further into a bureaucratic nightmare. Admins need to be able to exercise their own judgement and not just be rule enforcers. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) (Weak?) Neutral Given the answers to the questions (including the clarification for #4), I'm not going oppose, but I do find the work in the GAs a bit weak. Moreover, I agree with mono's now struck-out comment that having the tools would probably cause this user to be less involved in his other work. Putting all that aside, I just don't think now is the right time, and because this candidate is still pretty strong, I won't oppose (unless some big change occurs later on). This really isn't a very strong neutral, and I'm leaning support.  fetch  comms  ☛ 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Older Still reviewing the candidate, but I do hope "He would not delete the Main Page or block Jimbo Wales" was a joke, correct, NSD? Because adminship is more than a few GAs, Huggle work, and not blocking Jimbo (and that's why I'm still looking over the candidate's work before moving to support of oppose).  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now I see 9 edits to AIV but 50 to RPP. It seems like you've only gotten into XfD a lot very recently, as well. You have patrolled over 3500 pages and have over 900 deleted contributions. You assume good faith and keep a civil head. You've done some good work with your three GAs and various items with Percy Jackson. That being said, I still am not sure about supporting, and I'll stay neutral until a bit more perusing.  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said, "He would not delete the Main Page or block Jimbo Wales," I was basically saying that he would be trusted with using the admin tools, and he would not misuse them.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Er... OK... (I didn't get the metaphor because one can misuse the tools in worse ways than blocking Jimbo, and the Main Page can't be deleted... or is the 5000 rev protect the only thing...? hm).  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as there are less than 5000 revs, it can be deleted. The delete button is just hidden with .css. m:Katerenka (d) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be done with the proper tools and technical abilities, but even using ?action=delete doesn't work. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That I wasn't aware of; that must have changed since I have last looked at it. m:Katerenka (d) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea how amusing it is to watch admins discuss deleting the main page? :) I don't know how hard it is because I've never tried! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I know some of you people participated in my RfA, but nobody gave Phantomsteve a hard time for his support wording (or gave him a hard time at his own RfA for it, either). It's not a joke at all - it's an expression that the candidate has a clue and won't use the tools badly out of ignorance.--~TPW 15:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just struck me as a little odd to be in the nom statement is all. No biggie.  fetch  comms  ☛ 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted, I've never seen it mentioned in a nom statement, but I suppose if you think it fits and you're nominating you don't have many other options. Maybe PS should register it as a trademark so nobody else can say it.  ;)--~TPW 20:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clear up the vandal fighting stuff: I only recently had the tools to do mass vandal-whacking, installing igloo about a week ago. Before, I just patrolled my watchlist and warned users with Twinkle, hardly ever coming upon vandals that needed a report to AIV. Hope this clears things up, Airplaneman  talk 01:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ← @Katerenka ah, I see (as well as being cascade protected multiple times). @Airplaneman yes, it certainly clarifies, thanks,  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * About question 4, you would not even block someone if they outed users, or anything else that might cause personal harm if repeated?  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agreeing with Nuke above—the first one has a few ref links needing to be fixed, and both should be expanded. Still awaiting answers before making a real decision.  fetch  comms  ☛ 03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I see some good contribs, but the answer to q4 is a bit of a worry to me. Even with edit filters, pagemove vandals/grawp/socking users should be blocked on sight. Warning is a waste of time when a user is moving pages with edit summaries of known banned users.-- Terrillja  talk  02:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral This user seems competent and acts in good faith, but is rather ill-experienced. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Question 4 worries me somewhat. Legal threats, blatant, aggressive vandals, & sockpuppets, can, and should be blocked without warning, but that is not enough to sway me to oppose. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 23:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The opposition brings up some fairly strong points. This, combined with the weak noms and the bad answers to several of the questions, is concerning.  Awaiting answers to remaining questions.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK )  23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)  Move to oppose. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 04:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, leaning towards support. Your almost there, a bit more experience will help you out! Best of luck in the future, from reading your talk page I can tell you are taking the feedback well and plan to improve upon it, which is an excellent sign. --Taelus (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I was going to support as question 4 didn't worry me; I believe your clarification that in practice you would use the extra buttons responsibly. However, I can't support because of your response to Question 7, being a little cautious when you first get the extra buttons is a good thing, but that caution shouldn't imply that you close AfDs as 'no consensus', when 'delete' was the correct call. PhilKnight (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Not going to oppose, but I don't think Mr Airplaneman is quite ready for adminship yet. He seems to be a very well meaning, friendly fellow who just wants to help other users and the project, so I'm sure he can become an admin one day, but I just don't think he has sufficient experience and really just isn't quite ready yet. Sarah 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.